Defense of the Tome of Battle! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

INoKnowNames

2013-07-17, 12:35 AM

I'm getting a new Dm for a game I'm in. And said Dm has some reservations about Tome of Battle.

And I see and hear stores about this all the time. "X item is broken, ban the book {scrubbed}".

I can entirely understand banning something because you're not familiar with it, or you dislike the material if it doesn't mesh well with your setting or environment (Book of Exalted Deeds anyone?). And I can understand banning something because it's broken or imbalanced (Core 3.5 Spell List needs a nerf bat).

But a lot of arguments against TOB aren't entirely deserved, and I'd like to be able to say "Hey, Read this. This should answer every single concern you have." Is there a thread or post somewhere that does this? My google fu is terrible. If not, then I'm going to make -this- thread the "Defense of the Tome of Battle" thread. Several arguments against the book can be reasonably rebuked properly, and this will be the place to do it!

Argument: They simply do too much damage! Regular classes aren't that strong!

The fact of the matter is that this ultimately depends on how well players utilize what resources they are given. What is overpowering in some groups is par for the course in others and novel at best in others. Tome of Battle provides options that are overall not very weak, but aren't as strong as one might think in the grand scheme of things. And other classes, particularly most core classes, can be made to easily keep up, if not surpass, the Tome of Battle Classes. Charging Barbarians, Two Weapon Fighting Rogues, Mounted Paladins, Metamagic'd Sorcerers, Transforming Druids, Buffed up Clerics, these are but a few of the many options available to some of the core classes alone that let them produce numbers that can rival, and in some cases easily humble the Warblade, Swordsage and Crusader.

Argument: Spell Casters can only use their abilities a certain number of times a day, while Martial Adepts can use their abilities forever!

True, a Martial Adept never runs out of steam, so long as they don't run out of hit points. At low levels, everyone laughs at spell casters, even fighters, since they can only cast spells so many times. But once those spells become more and more potent, meanwhile also growing more frequent, it usually only takes 1-2 spells to change the outcome of an entire encounter, and later they can change the fate of the entire game/story. Meanwhile, Martial Adepts are still usually just dealing damage. And there are plenty of ways for a Spell Caster to conserve how much magic they need to put out, letting them last far longer. Typically, when the Wizard is out of spells, the Fighter hangs back and waits for him to get them back because the Fighter knows how much easier the world is with magic, even if he can hit really hard with his sword. The Warblade might be stronger, but he's usually just as limited and just as likely to rest until his Wizard buddy is ready.

Argument: Maneuvers are just as powerful as spells are! These are supposed to be regular heroes!

Quoted from the SRD, which references the player's handbook: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

And ultimately, even this isn't a true argument. By about 5-10th level, Wizards and such can outright fly. Martial Adepts at this point can only hope to be able to jump good or stab harder. By 17-20th level, Wizards and Clerics and similar can outright change reality, or even create their own realm of existance; the line between Magician and God blurring a bit at this point. Martial Adepts, on the other hand, still just hit harder.

Argument: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...

Fluff is mutable. Most users of the Tome of Battle don't actually recognize most of the lore of the Book of Nine Swords, and don't always try to force it on you. Lots of books are that way; feel free to take and pick the parts that you enjoy and leave the rest. The best part of D&D is how customizable it is, and ToB doesn't remove options, it adds them. It's merely based on real world fighting techniques, no need to make that a problem.

That said, the Warblade and Fighter, Swordsage and Monk, and Crusader and Paladin, share so many aspects of fluff (the veteran warrior, disciplined martial artist, and holy warrior respectively) that to disallow the Martial Adept due to the fluff surrounding it makes little sense when allowing their counterparts.

Argument: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!

Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Rogue. None of these classes are even remotely threatened by the Warblade, Crusader and Swordsage. Each and every single one of them still have their own niches and abilities, and are not overshadowed by the Martial Adepts at all (with the first 4 being definitely able to beat them at their own game, i.e. damage delivery). Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk. These are all that remain.

We can start with the Barbarian and Paladin, both of which have a large amount of support in splat books and are far more versatile than one might suspect. They're more than capable of becoming good, or even great (though maybe not game breaking) in multiple fields; Barbarians are capable of fighting with a few different styles of combat, can function as trap finders, and can be augmented by lots of different prestige classes for other abilities; Paladins are similarly adept in combat, can function in a social environment, are capable of being remarkably good healers, and similarly have lots to look forward to in terms of multi-classing. Arguments rage like fire enough for there to not really be a consensus about which is better, but they're more than close enough that it probably doesn't matter which is which.

That really only leaves the Fighter and the Monk. And to be honest, they were pathetic even in Core, let alone with other books added to them. The Fighter's only class features are bonus feats, and without help those feats were to be expected on very small numerical bonuses. It should be no question that a Warblade would be able to trivialize a Fighter; most other core classes do so as well. On paper, there's not much difference between a Fighter and a Warrior, so anything that gives genuine improvements to having nothing would do better. This isn't a "Warblades are too good" problem as much as it really is that "Fighters just aren't good enough". And don't let the fact that the Monk does have some class features fool you; it's in a boat just as bad.

Argument: X Thing/Item/Ability is incredibly broken beyond belief!

First of all, make sure that whatever ability it is that gives you problems is being used properly. This applies to everything in the game, not just Tome of Battle: something being used unintentionally or purposefully without the limits the rules intended for it is a problem. And secondly, modify or ban something that still somehow seems broken; that's entirely within the powers of a Dm. Though other than merely clarifying what Iron Heart Surge can or can't do, there's not much in Tome of Battle that's any more broken than anything else in 3.5. In fact, most of the biggest overpowered abilities are spells, and quite a few of those are actually in the core 3.5 book.

Drachasor

2013-07-17, 12:40 AM

Casters are far, far more powerful.

Barbarians and other traditional classes can do more damage.

The main thing ToB provides is versatility, which martial characters really need.

A 1st level character can break Olympic jumping records. Doing crazy stuff is already possible.

There's no reason why martial characters should not be able to do cool things.

It does a better job of representing many heroes of myth and legend than the traditional classes.

The special abilities they can get are thematically appropriate for warriors in a fantasy setting. Please note that Extraordinary abilities are non-magical, but can break the laws of physics. So yeah, martials should be quite capable of breaking physical law.

This lets martial characters be as good as a bard. A BAAARD!

Aegis013

2013-07-17, 12:41 AM

Overall, ToB is lauded as well balanced here. There are only a few things that a DM might consider banning or altering. I can easily list what I consider to be all of those things here.

White Raven Tactics (maneuver)
Iron Heart Surge (maneuver)
Devoted Spirit Healing Strikes being marked Ex rather than Su.
Shadow Hand Teleportation maneuvers being marked Ex rather than Su.

Four things is hardly any for a 3.5 book.

Other than that, ToB gives melee a neat sub-system (although some may argue it is too similar to Vancian spell casting) which allows them to contribute mechanically in more ways in and outside of combat.

The only other concern is that the ToB classes are a bit front-loaded, so they can seem very powerful at low levels, but this really isn't a bad thing in my mind.

Stux

2013-07-17, 12:43 AM

A lot of people don't like the fluff, and if this is the case for your DM then there isn't much you can do about it.

By allowing ToB you also make the fighter basically obsolete, and will make other classes seem worse than usual. This is fine if everyone in your group is familiar with ToB, but if you've got players planning to go Fighter, or even Ranger, they may get pissed off if you rock up as a Crusader or something if they weren't really aware of them and what they can do.

There are also the mechanics. In themselves they aren't too bad, but they can be a bit confusing at first. Each class handles maneuvers (how many you have, have often you can use them, how you regain them) differently, and this can be a bit of a headache for a DM who hasn't worked with ToB before, and again potentially confuse the rest of your party if they aren't really sure what you are capable of.

I played a Crusader (going in to Ruby Knight Vindicator) on a whim for a game and these were all issues that came up.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 12:49 AM

Basically the only downside is that the system is too internally balanced. If you set a group of players at wizardry, some of them are going to pick fireball, and some of them are going to pick celerity. These are options that have a very different power level. Some warblades are going to be more powerful, and some are going to be less powerful, but the two aren't going to be that far apart. This is ultimately the cause for ToB's high optimization floor. In a party made up of entirely new people, a warblade is likely to be the most powerful member, because his options are all generally good. I think that it's a good thing, but it can create the illusion that the class is overpowered in some circles. You might wonder why this is a defense of ToB, but the way I figure it, if a high optimization floor is the only problem with the system, it's gotta be a pretty great system. You're really not going to get too much anti-ToB talk around these parts, though there is certainly some. It's a pretty pro-ToB board, overall.

INoKnowNames

2013-07-17, 12:52 AM

No immediate "here's a link, you didn't look hard enough" responses, so I'ma edit the op post.

I was thinking more like facts and statistics that immediately debunk some of the more typical arguments against the book and it's material that really aren't as big a problem as some might think. I'll provide a few examples and such in a bit.

Stux

2013-07-17, 12:54 AM

It really does depend on your group though. It is a fun supplement, but it isn't right for every group.

Aegis013

2013-07-17, 12:54 AM

A lot of people don't like the fluff, and if this is the case for your DM then there isn't much you can do about it.

The fluff can easily be muted. If Fighter fits in a world I don't see any reason Warblade couldn't. Same for Monk and Swordsage or Paladin and Crusader.

By allowing ToB you also make the fighter basically obsolete, and will make other classes seem worse than usual. This is fine if everyone in your group is familiar with ToB, but if you've got players planning to go Fighter, or even Ranger, they may get pissed off if you rock up as a Crusader or something if they weren't really aware of them and what they can do.

So can a Cleric or a Duskblade, but you rarely see complaints on those fronts. Not to mention that Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are often still used in games which include ToB, those Fighter feat dips can be invaluable to a build, for an example.

There are also the mechanics. In themselves they aren't too bad, but they can be a bit confusing at first. Each class handles maneuvers (how many you have, have often you can use them, how you regain them) differently, and this can be a bit of a headache for a DM who hasn't worked with ToB before, and again potentially confuse the rest of your party if they aren't really sure what you are capable of.

If the book itself is above the optimization or system mastery level of the table, that's not really an issue with the book itself (or the table), it's just a circumstance. I'd guess at those tables things like Planar Binding a Nightmare to Astral Project your group would be pretty uncouth as well, but you usually don't see people advocating banning the entire PHB over things like that, or it could easily be something more simple, like Color Spray (I've had that one come up at level 3).

I played a Crusader (going in to Ruby Knight Vindicator) on a whim for a game and these were all issues that came up.

Sorry you have to face these issues, but I hope you have fun!

Stux

2013-07-17, 12:59 AM

... snip ...

I see what you're saying, but my point isn't that ToB is inherently more powerful or complicated than stuff that is already in the game without it. It is no more complicated than wizard spellcasting for example, and clearly less powerful.

Rather my point is that it is mechanically different than anything else in the game, and it is perfectly reasonable for a DM not to want to learn a whole book worth of new rules to let one player use a class.

And yes a warblade is by no means tier 1. An optimised wizard does already basically obsolete fighter. But a warblade does it much more blatantly - by being specifically much better in melee. This point is more psychological, but it really can piss some players off quite a bit in some circumstances.

Basically I'm just saying you have to really think about whether it is right for your group - whether the other players will appreciate the addition and whether the DM is happy to put the extra leg work in to accomodate you.

Metahuman1

2013-07-17, 01:03 AM

If fluff is a problem, use different fluff. Fluff it as being like German Longsword or Scottish Claymore Fencing.

Or Just fluff it as I swing my sword/fist at the monster/grab the monster and this happens. Ala old school Conan stories. Hell, a Warblade with a bit of Factotum and Maybe a level or two of Barbarian and rouge each would BE Conan.

You may wish to avoid using Iron Hear Surge, White Raven Tactics, and perhaps Shadow Hand Teleports and Devoted Spirit Healing at first. Maybe Stat up a swordsage, there the least powerful class in the book. Maybe one that's heavy on Dessert Wind, Stone Dragon, Setting Sun and Tiger Claw or Shadow Hand.

You know, ease him into the systems overall power level instead of just dropping him off at "IT'S OVER 9000!"

eggynack

2013-07-17, 01:04 AM

And yes a warblade is by no means tier 1. An optimised wizard does already basically obsolete fighter. But a warblade does it much more blatantly - by being specifically much better in melee. This point is more psychological, but it really can piss some players off quite a bit in some circumstances.
Actually, his example wasn't wizard; it was the duskblade and cleric. Those classes are notable because they obsolete the fighter by specifically being better in melee. I'll add druid to that list as well, if you take into account the animal companion, summoning, and maybe wild shape if you buff yourself for it. The reason people feel bad due to warblades obsoleting fighters is because they're better than fighters at melee while looking a lot like fighters. Clerics don't look like fighters, so they get a pass, as do druids and duskblades.

Aegis013

2013-07-17, 01:07 AM

I see what you're saying, but my point isn't that ToB is inherently more powerful or complicated than stuff that is already in the game without it. It is no more complicated than wizard spellcasting for example, and clearly less powerful.

Rather my point is that it is mechanically different than anything else in the game, and it is perfectly reasonable for a DM not to want to learn a whole book worth of new rules to let one player use a class.

And yes a warblade is by no means tier 1. An optimised wizard does already basically obsolete fighter. But a warblade does it much more blatantly - by being specifically much better in melee. This point is more psychological, but it really can piss some players off quite a bit in some circumstances.

Basically I'm just saying you have to really think about whether it is right for your group - whether the other players will appreciate the addition and whether the DM is happy to put the extra leg work in to accomodate you.

I see what you mean. That's never been an issue in my group because I, being the DM, took out a lot of time to learn all of the subsystems, whether the players wanted to use them or not. I wanted them to know they could use any subsystem they wanted, and that enemies would use them.

I think Incarnum sees the least use at my table, though. So far only NPCs have used Incarnum material. While every single player uses ToB material.

Stux

2013-07-17, 01:08 AM

The reason people feel bad due to warblades obsoleting fighters is because they're better than fighters at melee while looking a lot like fighters. Clerics don't look like fighters, so they get a pass, as do druids and duskblades.

Exactly. As I say it is psychological. But D&D is ultimately about having fun, so it is still something a DM needs to take in to account when deciding whether to allow additional material.

I would also add that clerics and druids can do loads of stuff to help out the other melee characters and make them more useful at doing what they do - buffs, healing, support, utility. A warblade doesn't really do this so much, it just hits things a hell of a lot better than a fighter does.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 01:13 AM

Exactly. As I say it is psychological. But D&D is ultimately about having fun, so it is still something a DM needs to take in to account when deciding whether to allow additional material.

I would also add that clerics and druids can do loads of stuff to help out the other melee characters and make them more useful at doing what they do - buffs, healing, support, utility. A warblade doesn't really do this so much, it just hits things a hell of a lot better than a fighter does.
I can see the psychological factor being a thing, though it's a bit of an odd thing. Still, there's a good amount of cleric and druid builds that are pretty selfish. Many of the best buffs for either of them are personal, or animal specific. Moreover, the main druid shtick of summoning infinite bears does virtually nothing to help other melee guys, at least not in a way that warblades don't. By contrast, the white raven school gives a pretty good chunk of stuff that benefits your allies, and that's often considered one of the best disciplines.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-17, 01:18 AM

ToB solves the "over specialization" problem that affects fighter types. To be able to contribute meaningfully at mid op and higher, a fighter type has to get really good at one shtick. When that shtick is not appropriate they are useless, and trying two shticks at a time will also render one crappy at two different things.

Example:
Take a fighter/barb specialized in charging, he will do over 9,000 damage if he can get a charge in, but if he can's he's useless.

Compare that to a mailman sorc, he can do a ton of damage with arcane fusion'd force orbs and such, but in situations where that doesn't work (not sure what, but bear with me) he has other spells known which might fill the void.

ToB characters can only be so bad. Picking the "obvious to newb" options will result in a fairly weak fighter. Picking the worst manuever options as a warblade will still be half okay, and feat choices are less impactful. Unless you are really trying a ToB character can't be terrible. Even sword and board is doable. Brings the newbs up, don't push the people who have a clue down.

INoKnowNames

2013-07-17, 01:30 AM

I'm going to edit the op post with a few of the more common arguments against it... and (later today) spoiler a bit of my own responses to said arguments. Maybe you guys can add to them?

Drachasor

2013-07-17, 01:39 AM

ToB classes have 3 advantages overall.

1. They are more versatile (as others have noted). This moves them up to being as good as bards. Variety is nice though

2. They are able to move and attack more easily (most other martials have limitations here since they need charges and/or full attacks).

3. They have a high optimization floor, which means it is hard to really screw up a character. Other martials have low floors. We call this "Good design" as opposed to bad design.

For a direct comparison, A charging Barbarian can get something along the lines of +4 damage per point of AC loss on a charge (there's a feat that lets power attacks go from AC). I think I have this damage too low, but I don't have the books with me. That's +4 damage/level.* ToB classes, on the other hand, generally can't pump out maneuvers that do +4 damage/level, and instead have maybe one that will be a d6/level (3.5). They also don't get rage bonuses or the like, and most of their abilities will be worse than this. So they do less damage than heavily optimized members of other martial classes -- they are just more fun to play.

It's important to remember versatility doesn't necessarily mean raw power. ToB classes have versatility and enough raw power to do well. They also have a lot of builds, fit most martial concepts, and are fun. If they are missing anything, it's disciplines for bows/crossbows/etc -- which sucks :P There are some good homebrew ones for this, however.

*I'm fairly sure I have this too low, someone correct me.

Andezzar

2013-07-17, 01:43 AM

Shadow Hand Teleportation maneuvers being marked Ex rather than Su.Shadow Jaunt, Stride and Blink are all SU abilities.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 01:45 AM

The thing about them doing too much damage is just inaccurate. By my understanding, a barbarian build that's specced for damage does a significantly higher amount than any ToB class. Think whirling frenzy, plus pounce, plus shock trooper. I've actually never understood the argument from fluff. Warblades are the only ToB class that's based off of a class with no magic. Swordsages are based off of monks, which have a ton of vaguely magical abilities, and crusaders are based off of paladins, which has actual magic. Thus, it makes sense for both of them to get maneuvers that aren't completely mundane. Warblades are based off of fighters, which aren't magical at all, and warblade abilities are thus essentially mundane in nature. I don't think I've heard the thing about items before. It might need some elaboration. The thing about maneuvers being as powerful as spells is demonstrably untrue. There are spells at every level that leave maneuvers in their wake. There are a couple of outlier maneuvers that are quite powerful, but magic has a frigging gigaton of outlier spells.

Drachasor

2013-07-17, 01:47 AM

Argument 1: They simply do too much damage! Regular classes aren't that strong!

Argument 2: Spell Casters can only use their abilities a certain number of times a day, while Martial Adepts can use their abilities forever!

Argument 3: Maneuvers are just as powerful as spells are! These are supposed to be regular heroes!

Argument 4: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...

Argument 5: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!

Argument 6: X Item is incredibly broken beyond belief!

1. Regular martials can do MORE damage if built right. It's not even that hard. I pointed out one way (requires Complete Warrior, I believe).

2. Spellcasters have spells that completely shut down groups of enemies, turn the caster into combat monsters, inflict massive damage in a variety of energy types to groups, have metamagic (which makes direct damage good), etc. Martial Adept abilities are weaker and lack the same massive variety.

3. This is simply not true, unless you are looking at a bad spell. And again, no metamaneuvers.

4. Then CHANGE IT! It's easy. Even easy to rename the abilities. I'd note that European swordfighting techniques also had silly and fancy names. It is quite traditional.

5. The fact is that the core martial classes are awful. They can do ONE thing well (if that), and that's damage a single target in (pick one per build) melee or at range. Or you can build to trip or something, but sacrifice a quite a bit. They are less flexible and varied than classic fantasy warriors like Conan, King Arthur, Hercules, etc. If it helps, think of the ToB classes as the Fighter/Paladin, Fighter/Barbarian, and Monk 2.0. Sadly no hippies.

6. I do not believe any items in there are broken. Though Iron Heart Surge needs some wording tweaks (though it isn't an item).

I'd tell people to calm down and do a careful comparison. Yes, the ToB classes are more flexible, but they don't do more damage. Supernatural-like abilities are reserved for the mystic and holy-esque ToB classes. Beyond that it is just stuff any classic fantasy hero should be able to do.

DeltaEmil

2013-07-17, 01:50 AM

Shadow Jaunt, Stride and Blink are all SU abilities.Where does it say that? I'm curious about it.

Aegis013

2013-07-17, 01:58 AM

Shadow Jaunt, Stride and Blink are all SU abilities.

On ToB page 40, under the heading Martial Powers and Magic, and then under the subheading "Extraordinary or Supernatural Abilities:" it says "Unless the description of the specific maneuver says otherwise, treat it as an extraordinary ability."

These three maneuvers are nowhere called out as supernatural, making them Ex abilities.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-17, 02:03 AM

For a direct comparison, A charging Barbarian can get something along the lines of +4 damage per point of AC loss on a charge (there's a feat that lets power attacks go from AC). I think I have this damage too low, but I don't have the books with me. That's +4 damage/level.* ToB classes, on the other hand, generally can't pump out maneuvers that do +4 damage/level, and instead have maybe one that will be a d6/level (3.5). They also don't get rage bonuses or the like, and most of their abilities will be worse than this. So they do less damage than heavily optimized members of other martial classes -- they are just more fun to play.

It's important to remember versatility doesn't necessarily mean raw power. ToB classes have versatility and enough raw power to do well. They also have a lot of builds, fit most martial concepts, and are fun. If they are missing anything, it's disciplines for bows/crossbows/etc -- which sucks :P There are some good homebrew ones for this, however.

*I'm fairly sure I have this too low, someone correct me.
Power attack modifiers
-Shock trooper allows pa to subtract from ac instead of attack roll, but only on a charge
-Using a 2h weapon gives you *2
-using leap attack gives you *2 (*3 with 2h weapon), but only on a charge
-frenzied berzerker gives you *2 (*3 with 2h weapon, *4 with leap attack on a charge), but makes you a HUGE risk to the party.
Combat brute gives you *2 the turn after a charge (*3 with 2h wapon, *4 with leap attack on a charge or frenzied berzeker, and *5 with both, though by including leap attack and shock trooper you assume that you also assumed that you charged on this and last turn, which doesn't happen very often).

As you can see *3 PA modifier on a charge, subtracting from AC, is the best you can do reliably without risking killing your party. You can get to *5 with some careful maneuvering under certain circumstances. This still outpaces ToB, but ToB doesn't require nearly so much specialization. And without charging most of this stuff becomes harder as you don't have shock trooper to keep your attack roll up, and you lose leap attack, if you can't charge then you are having serious issues with keeping up damage output. Also note that with these chargers you are getting more than one attack (unlike most manuevers) so you are really getting lvl*6 or more, depending on accuracy.

Shaynythyryas

2013-07-17, 02:05 AM

Argument: They simply do too much damage! Regular classes aren't that strong!
Spellcasting classes are incredibly way more powerful. Just take a single look at a non optimized cleric using Divine Power and you’ve pretty much outpowered the fighter class.
Other regular classes like barbarian or rogue can deal a sh*t-ton of damage, if properly and carefully optimized (which should take about as much time as picking the right manoeuvers and tactics for a ToB class.)

Argument: Spell Casters can only use their abilities a certain number of times a day, while Martial Adepts can use their abilities forever!
No they can’t. They have less limitations, but limitations nonetheless ; they have fewer abilities than a sorcerer has spells, and can, on basis, only use a certain number of them per encounter. There are ways to improve more or less their recharge, but one DM can still ban just this specific feats.

Argument: Maneuvers are just as powerful as spells are! These are supposed to be regular heroes!
First, not all manoeuvers are as powerful as spells, second, that’s kinda the point of ToB to try to bring up the piss-poor fighters on par with their god-wrecking spellcasters colleagues. Hell, my properly optimized IC bard could utterly destroy any fighter he encountered without using spells, and he was, basically, a dude that plays music in fights.

Argument: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...
That can be a valid point.

Argument: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!
Yes, but that’s partly the point, since these classes are utterly useless. Invalidating the Fighter or the Monk will always be a good point for me, seeing as poorly written these classes are.

Argument: X Item is incredibly broken beyond belief!
Then ban X Item, the same way you would ban any broken X item from another source book. Nothing stops a DM to ban specific points from a source book. Banning the whole source for a single point in it is kinda overzealous.

I Personnaly love the ToB, I think it brings the usual, boring "I strike again" classes to a whole new tactic dimension. And even people who dislike spending too much time picking up carefully their abilities can just go plain Warblade, pick up random manoeuvers and still have more fun than a Fighter.

TuggyNE

2013-07-17, 05:45 AM

As you can see *3 PA modifier on a charge, subtracting from AC, is the best you can do reliably without risking killing your party.

A valorous weapon cranks that up some more; either doubling it (if you have a rather permissive interpretation) or adding a multiplier. *4 is pretty good, and *6 is very nice indeed.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 05:52 AM

A valorous weapon cranks that up some more; either doubling it (if you have a rather permissive interpretation) or adding a multiplier. *4 is pretty good, and *6 is very nice indeed.
What is the permissive interpretation that leads to a *6? It looks like it works like every other multiplier, and even explicitly restates the game's multiplication rules. I don't know what would make valorous weapons an exception.

Morty

2013-07-17, 05:55 AM

{scrubbed}

eggynack

2013-07-17, 06:00 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
This seems less like a, "Someone is wrong on the internet," thread, and more like a, "Someone is wrong in real life, and it might have a direct impact on the game I'm about to play. Perhaps if there were a cohesive thread on the topic, I could solve my issue, and have something to link to in the case of future issues." I don't see why you feel the need to make a post critiquing the intrinsic nature of a thread. It doesn't really get the discussion anywhere.

EyethatBinds

2013-07-17, 06:03 AM

The reason I avoid using ToB (I don't outright ban the book) is because I don't want to make NPC melee characters take me a half hour to make. If I need a fighter I want to be done making it within 10 minutes. I could come up with a unique set of maneuvers and tactics for an NPC, but they are just going to die on the end of a player's sword anyway.

With casters, I've had almost a decade to think of creative uses for the spells and can easily whip together a nasty combo of spells and feats to make an encounter unique, like giving a Beguiler the acquire familiar and improved familiar feats.

ToB does add more complexity to the game, if only for the DM. If players wanted to be these classes I might disbar them simply so I don't have to include others of their class in the game.

Killer Angel

2013-07-17, 06:25 AM

Let's try to give some answers to the DM:

Argument: They simply do too much damage! Regular classes aren't that strong!

Except, of course, mounted chargers, uberchargers, PA abusers with leap attack and so on...
Leaving aside the amount of damage that a caster can deliver.

Argument: Spell Casters can only use their abilities a certain number of times a day, while Martial Adepts can use their abilities forever!

At a certain level, I've never seen a caster with no more spells to cast.

Argument: Maneuvers are just as powerful as spells are! These are supposed to be regular heroes!

1- not true.
2- So, magic got no limits at all, but god forbid a mithological hero that jump more than 2 meters high? With high skills you can walk on clouds even if you're mundane: can't we have a middle ground of awesomeness for meleers?

Argument: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...

fair enough, but that's not the real point, right? Fluff can be modified.

Argument: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!

Like, I don't know, the knock spell? :smallamused:

Argument: X Item is incredibly broken beyond belief!

Then ban that item.

Ashtagon

2013-07-17, 06:25 AM

Well, I'm convinced. Excuse me now while I write up a ToB character for my next WoD game. I don't care that they might be incompatible. ToB is so awesome is can get around that issue.

ericgrau

2013-07-17, 06:56 AM

In casual optimization it can overwhelm the rest of the group in power. I have seen it happen. Some of the things heavy optimizers take for granted like X to Y substitution are standard issue in ToB, and casual optimizers may not go for those. But who knows whether or not that's fine for your gaming group. I'll step out to not further interrupt the info gathering for your discussion. I only hope it's a 2 way discussion that involves whatever his particular optimization level is.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 07:39 AM

Well, I'm convinced. Excuse me now while I write up a ToB character for my next WoD game. I don't care that they might be incompatible. ToB is so awesome is can get around that issue.

*facedesk*

Anyway, @OP, really the only thing that might lead to issues is that ToB tends to close the gap between melee and casters at least a little. Some groups may have a hard time with this, especially if they're still at the "Weapon Focus and Specialization" end of the optimization spectrum. On the other hand, a group that has a little optimization-fu at their disposal would be find it fairly useful in closing the gap.

EDIT: Okay, that was one of the more unclear things I've ever written. Here's what I meant:

The only problem you'll run into by using ToB base classes is that it does, by and large, outpace the other melee base classes. In a low-op group, the other melee base classes don't have a chance.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-17, 11:08 AM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's paid off. I used to be an anti-ToB'er, and thanks to having logic and reason shoved in my face repeatedly, and having all the conception debunked, I came around. Then I joined the pro-ToB offensive and we have mostly silenced the anti crowd and their vicious slander of the book of holy sword truths. It used to be that putting ToB in any sample build, or "avoiding it" in any sample build would set off a battle

{scrubbed}

RFLS

2013-07-17, 11:24 AM

{scrubbed}

But yeah, the book is defended because it provided some really solid chassis for melee, encouraged them to invest a little in mental stats without making them cast spells, gave them something to do other than full attack every round, and just generally contributed to the t3 range of classes quite nicely.

Kudaku

2013-07-17, 12:02 PM

Well, I'm convinced. Excuse me now while I write up a ToB character for my next WoD game. I don't care that they might be incompatible. ToB is so awesome is can get around that issue.

World of Darkness? IRON HEART SUUUUUUUUUUURGE!!!

Karnith

2013-07-17, 12:06 PM

Argument: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!
As others have stated, this is really only true at the lowest op-levels. The mundane melee classes pretty much stay where they are before and after ToB: good as dips. Fighters are still the class you're going to dip into/take if you're doing something feat-intensive, barbarians get a really nice first (and depending on your build, second) level, and monks have a looooot of ACFs, some of which make the class playable even beyond second level. Paladin and Ranger, on the other hand, have very high op-ceilings because they get spells, and can keep pace with (if not exceed) ToB classes if you know what you're doing.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Not to mention that most of the maneuvers have flavor somewhere in the realm of "hit something really hard," "move really fast," or "tough it out."

World of Darkness? IRON HEART SUUUUUUUUUUURGE!!!
Oh come now, that won't work; it's not an effect with a duration expressed in rounds.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-17, 12:10 PM

Rubik

2013-07-17, 12:14 PM

Drachasor

2013-07-17, 12:22 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2013-07-17, 12:36 PM

Prime32

2013-07-17, 12:47 PM

Argument: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...What is the fluff, as understood by your DM? Could you post it here?

The classes are a skilled and quick-thinking fighter, a stubborn and devoted fighter, and a fighter who memorises lots of different techniques. The only thing that really stands out is the swordsage's ability to learn supernatural maneuvers, but he has to choose to learn them whereas a monk gets them automatically. The rest of the fluff is just things inherent to any form of fighting (you have to call each kind of attack something to tell them apart, and many teachers have a flair for the dramatic).

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-17, 01:07 PM

I just hate Tome of Battle because the official errata apparently turns the whole thing into the Complete Mage...at least starting with page 37! :smalleek:

ericgrau

2013-07-17, 01:20 PM

Rubik

2013-07-17, 01:25 PM

The fluff seems to be a big issue in only 2 pages of thread. I have an easy way around it. Call it magic. Ignore the other fluff not related to mechanics, found in the class description. Done. It is difficult to explain without magic, so just say it's magic. It may change anti-magic-field interaction, but without DM fiat, custom items or tricks AMFs aren't used that often anyway. Even when they do appear by fiat, the DM would probably fiat away other work-arounds anyway.

I know I said I'd step out but this does help the DM-discussion fuel which was my reason.No. The vast majority is extraordinary, in both fluff and mechanics. And the stuff that is magic is explicitly called out as supernatural (except in a few cases where they obviously forgot to add the [Su] tag). How is "I bull-rush someone, deal +Xd6 damage, and don't provoke attacks of opportunity" in any way, shape, or form magic?

Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 01:27 PM

Speaking as someone who doesn't like the Tome of Battle, the reason I don't use or allow it myself when working with d20 is that its warriors are very heavily Vancian in their overall nature, and it basically knocks the whole thing down a few levels on versimilitude. I can accept Vancian wizards, since I've read the Dying Earth novels and found them to be some of the best fantasy ever, but it's just a little bit too silly when working with warriors.

I'd be open to someone developing an alternative-but-similar system that had many of the same advantages, but which was a little less like spellcasting and felt a bit more like actually going out and smacking people.

This...okay. I'm 99% everything has been covered. I'm going to list the points that are made against this below, for the sake of clarity. Please read and respond to them. I'm curious if there's a refutation for them, as I've never actually seen one.

The stances and maneuvers outlined within ToB are very, very similar to almost every form of martial art, be it karate or longsword fencing.

This is because martial arts require careful planning and setting up of particular attacks or defenses from particular stances.
These attacks or defenses can't just be repeated over and over again; you have to go through the setup again. This is modeled closely by the maneuver recovery system.

The system is only superficially Vancian; a closer reading of the system and a playtest of it reveals that it handles very, very differently than a wizard or even a sorcerer does.

This has to do with the fact that you know far fewer maneuvers than any caster knows spells paired with the repeatable nature of your maneuvers.
You also have to bear in in mind that the strikes explicitly describe "going out and smacking somebody." They just happen to represent formal training much, much better than a regular full attack.

Karnith

2013-07-17, 01:28 PM

What is the fluff, as understood by your DM? Could you post it here?
Well, it's not so much the fluff of the classes themselves, but all of the metaplot garbage about the Nine Swords is pretty terrible.

It is difficult to explain without magic, so just say it's magic.
Really? A lot of the maneuvers (Swordsage magic stuff excepted) are just "I hit really hard," or "I move really fast," "I think really quickly," or "I do this particular maneuver (grappling, bull rushing, whatever) really well."

ericgrau

2013-07-17, 01:32 PM

Really? A lot of the maneuvers (Swordsage magic stuff excepted) are just "I hit really hard," or "I move really fast," "I think really quickly," or "I do this particular maneuver (grappling, bull rushing, whatever) really well."

A lot are. And a lot aren't.

No. The vast majority is extraordinary, in both fluff and mechanics. And the stuff that is magic is explicitly called out as supernatural (except in a few cases where they obviously forgot to add the [Su] tag). How is "I bull-rush someone, deal +Xd6 damage, and don't provoke attacks of opportunity" in any way, shape, or form magic?

Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
Partial refluffing as magic/[Su] works too.

You can also try to force things like White Raven Tactics into non-magic, but it's an incredible stretch of the imagination. Especially (but not only) if done more than once a round on the same target. You either need to houserule the mechanics or refluff it.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 01:48 PM

A lot are. And a lot aren't.

Most aren't, especially within, say, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Setting Sun, Tiger Claw, and White Raven.

Partial refluffing as magic/[Su] works too.

You can also try to force things like White Raven Tactics into non-magic, but it's an incredible stretch of the imagination. Especially (but not only) if done more than once a round on the same target. You either need to houserule the mechanics or refluff it.

You're aware you're calling out one badly written part of the book, abusing it heavily by RAW, and holding it up as an example, right? Pretty much everyone agrees that that one, particular maneuver is not quite right. Outside of the healing maneuvers, the poorly tagged Shadow Jaunt line, and White Raven Tactics being poorly written, can you actually point at something and say "That. That is magic and should stop lying about it" ? The stuff you've mentioned so far is poor editing more than anything. And uh...it's 3.5. Poor editing abounds.

BowStreetRunner

2013-07-17, 01:53 PM

I never did understand why people don't like Tome of Battle. But I always hated Factotum (and I tend to play skill-monkey characters) and not a lot of people understood that either. In the end I think it's just too different from what some people are used to for them to be comfortable with it. This may be why it is so hard for some of them to clearly lay out why it should be banned in a way that others can agree with.

By the way, I've come around quite a bit on the whole Factotum issue. I imagine if a few of the ToB detractors were to give it a chance, they might come around a bit too.

Kudaku

2013-07-17, 01:58 PM

These attacks or defenses can't just be repeated over and over again; you have to go through the setup again. This is modeled closely by the maneuver recovery system.

I'm not terribly familiar with ToB, but doesn't the Crusader roll for which maneuver he recovers each round...?

Boci

2013-07-17, 02:00 PM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This is a game forum, starting threads specifically to debunk opinions you disagree with are a significant minority of topics, be it about the tier system, a play/DMing style, or a particular book. The fact is, some of the reasons to dislike the book (its makes melee more powerful than casters, its too anime) are flat out wrong while quite a few others are questionable (and obviously some are valid). Does this really matter at the end of the day? Not really, but so do a lot of things discussed on this forum.

If enough people said "Players handbook 2 is incompatible with the rest of D&D" or "The MiC ruined my game" there'd be threads bebunking those points as well.

I'm not terribly familiar with ToB, but doesn't the Crusader roll for which maneuver he recovers each round...?

Yes you are right. The warblades recovery system works best for simulating real life combat.

Terazul

2013-07-17, 02:04 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-17, 02:10 PM

A lot are. And a lot aren't.Struck it out for being a misconception. There are a handful of maneuvers from two disciplines (not counting desert wind; the explicitly magical discipline) that probably should be tagged as SU, but the rest of them are all mundane in both mechanics and actual function.

Partial refluffing as magic/[Su] works too.

You can also try to force things like White Raven Tactics into non-magic, but it's an incredible stretch of the imagination. Especially (but not only) if done more than once a round on the same target. You either need to houserule the mechanics or refluff it.

You can't actually spam WRT like that unless you've built an idiot crusader. You can use it -once- before spending either a full-round (Swordsage, w/ or w/o adaptive style) or a swift action (warblade) or just hoping you get lucky with the draw -if- it's performed on the round before your automatic refresh (crusader). Without cheese or dumb-luck you'll never get to use it more than once on the same round and only cheese can get it more than twice in a row.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 02:10 PM

I'm not terribly familiar with ToB, but doesn't the Crusader roll for which maneuver he recovers each round...?

He rolls for each he is granted, each round. He only checks for recovery when he can't be granted anymore, and at that point all of his maneuvers (expended or otherwise) are shuffled back into the pool for choice. Rarely will you end up in a situation where you can use the same thing one round after the other (Idiot Crusader excluded, it's TO anyway). Warblades and Swordsages at most can do it every other round; Using only a basic attack and their swift action on the round inbetween for the former, and an entire full-round action for the latter.

Edit: And yeah, there is literally an entire thread dedicated to all the misconceptions people have about psionics (10d6 energy ray at level 1 zomg), a thread a week about whether monks/fighters are good or not, and all sorts of other things. I don't think having a "If you don't like this book and think you have a good reason, maybe you should consider reading this first and see if your issues are addressed" thread for ToB.

Roughly this. The Crusader is meant to emulate someone that goes with the flow, so to speak. He's not planning like the others are; he's just following form to form to form until the chain ends, and then starting a new one. The Crusader is very good at imitating either someone that's trained for years, to the point of it being second nature, or someone that just doesn't plan ahead in combat.

Andezzar

2013-07-17, 02:16 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-17, 02:30 PM

Don't forget that the swift action of the warblade to recover all of his manuvers must be followed by a regular attack (either standard or Full attack). So the warblade has one round in which he cannot use any maneuvers on his turn.

Or a standard action used for a meaningless flourish of his weapon if noone's in melee range.

I didn't mention it because it didn't really matter in regards to WRT, since the maneuver uses a swift action that you've already burned on recovery, even if you -could- use maneuvers that round.

HylianKnight

2013-07-17, 02:38 PM

Renen

2013-07-17, 02:38 PM

I see what you're saying, but my point isn't that ToB is inherently more powerful or complicated than stuff that is already in the game without it. It is no more complicated than wizard spellcasting for example, and clearly less powerful.

Rather my point is that it is mechanically different than anything else in the game, and it is perfectly reasonable for a DM not to want to learn a whole book worth of new rules to let one player use a class.

And yes a warblade is by no means tier 1. An optimised wizard does already basically obsolete fighter. But a warblade does it much more blatantly - by being specifically much better in melee. This point is more psychological, but it really can piss some players off quite a bit in some circumstances.

Basically I'm just saying you have to really think about whether it is right for your group - whether the other players will appreciate the addition and whether the DM is happy to put the extra leg work in to accomodate you.

I am confused how many people say that thay are unfamiliar or are against learning a system. I have been playing since this spring, doing PbP. And I saw some people who say thay have played for 10+ years, that tey are unfamiliar with things like Psionics, ToB and Pathfinder. I am by no means a "hardcore" player, but I know, in adequate detail the three things I just mentioned, and could play games with those elements, with no problems.

Karnith

2013-07-17, 02:39 PM

(not counting desert wind; the explicitly magical discipline)
Shadow Hand is also explicitly a magical discipline, isn't it? I know that Shadow Jaunt and the like missing (Su) tags is a sticking point for some people, but it's also got a bunch of maneuvers that are marked as supernatural.

(i.e. Stances are just active spells and effects)
So, out of curiosity, how do you feel about Tactical Feats? Or the Combat Form feats (in PHBII)? Or feats in general, really. I ask because you can replicate most anything you can get out of a maneuver with (nonmagical) feats or (nonmagical) class abilities. The ToB classes just make it possible to get these effects without wasting a ton of resources to get them, and I really don't see much that's magical about them.

ericgrau

2013-07-17, 02:47 PM

You're aware you're calling out one badly written part of the book, abusing it heavily by RAW, and holding it up as an example, right? Pretty much everyone agrees that that one, particular maneuver is not quite right. Outside of the healing maneuvers, the poorly tagged Shadow Jaunt line, and White Raven Tactics being poorly written, can you actually point at something and say "That. That is magic and should stop lying about it" ? The stuff you've mentioned so far is poor editing more than anything. And uh...it's 3.5. Poor editing abounds.
I only picked that one because I hear people using it often. Same goes for iron heart surge, mountain hammer and everything with a concentration check and heck most maneuvers I ever hear about. Quickly browsing the level 1 warblade strikes it seemed to hold for 3 out of 5 of them. Incidentally the most mundane sounding one was called out in this thread and used as an example.

I'm a bit surprised people get defensive at calling maneuvers magic, and need to hold so tightly that an array of special moves must or even could make sense. Probably from all the long debates I'm not aware of. 50 page debates don't prove that one side hammered the other into submission btw. They only show that neither side ever changed its mind even after 50 pages. And then if it swayed later it only means some people probably got tired of talking about it. Apparently it still sparks heavy debate to this day.

So a bit of caution: Be polite, not vehement with your DM or there will only be a big fight and it won't go anywhere. Alright enough of this for me. I was actually trying to help out the ToB case to make it playable but this is turning into a headache. EDIT: And the thread explodes in the span of 5 minutes. <ducks>

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-17, 02:49 PM

Shadow Hand is also explicitly a magical discipline, isn't it? I know that Shadow Jaunt and the like missing (Su) tags is a sticking point for some people, but it's also got a bunch of maneuvers that are marked as supernatural.

It's really more half-and-half even after you correct the obvious SU oversights.

Out of 25 maneuvers 12 are explicitly called out as supernatural. The teleportation line and one with shadows makes 4 more that -should- be tagged but aren't.

It stands at 48% magical and really should be at 64% magical but that's definitely -not- an outright magical discipline.

For comparison desert wind has 27 maneuvers of which 22 are explcitly magical. That's just over 81%.

Boci

2013-07-17, 02:50 PM

Just to Browse

2013-07-17, 02:50 PM

As a fan of ToB (and in support of the Vancian argument), my resounding qualm is that once you use a maneuver it's gone until you refresh it.
inb4 "that's how martial arts works!"
Stances kind of make sense, but as someone who did do martial arts for several years, one stance change and strike every six second chunk is definitely too slow and very unlike an actual close-quarters fight. Once you factor in the fact that you can't hit a dude the same way twice until you've meditated on it, verisimilitude starts to look a little shaky.

Telonius

2013-07-17, 02:51 PM

Argument 5 is probably the hardest one to overcome.

If the DM doesn't realize the classes aren't balanced for power; or doesn't care that they're not; or thinks the balance ought to be at a lower point rather than a higher point; then it's going to be hard to convince him to allow a more-powerful version of three classes he thinks do just fine otherwise.

If that's the case, here's what I'd do. Show him what a Wizard is capable of. Then ask him if he's ever had that problem in one of his games. Ask him why not. The answer will probably be something along the lines of, "Because none of my players would try to be that overpowered." To which the reply is, "I also promise not to try to be that overpowered. If you trust the guy playing the Wizard not to abuse that potential, you can trust me, too."

RFLS

2013-07-17, 02:52 PM

The fluff is huge depending on what kind of DM you have. I know amongst my group one of the biggest reasons we stick with 3.P over 4e is because it's still a simulationist system. As written, Tome of Battle largely isn't. It grants powers and abilities based on the needs of balance over consistent flavor (i.e. Stances are just active spells and effects), thus the comparisons to anime and whatnot (where laws of physics and magic usually don't apply).

So it all depends where your group, and specifically DM, fall on the spectrum of preference.

I only picked that one because I hear people using it often. Same goes for iron heart surge, mountain hammer and everything with a concentration check and heck most maneuvers I ever hear about. Quickly browsing the level 1 warblade strikes it seemed to hold for 3 out of 5 of them. Incidentally the most mundane sounding one was called out in this thread and used as an example.

I'm a bit surprised people get defensive at calling maneuvers magic, and need to hold so tightly that an array of special moves must or even could make sense. Probably from all the long debates I'm not aware of.

I'll address both of you at once; you've covered fairly similar (and often conjoined) points: Would one or both of you care to provide a specific effect or instance where what you've said is true, rather than making sweeping statements in place of an argument? How is a massive boost of adrenaline, or hitting something where it's fragile, or focusing your entire mind on one single, precise, devastating strike remotely magical?

inb4 "that's how martial arts works!"

Saying "inb4" doesn't invalidate the point, which remains a good one. That is explicitly how martial arts work, and you'd pick that up really, really quickly if you were to take a class for one (I'm not trying to sound elitist or pretentious, or whatever. Just trying to make the point).

Terazul

2013-07-17, 03:04 PM

I Quickly browsing the level 1 warblade strikes it seemed to hold for 3 out of 5 of them. I'm a bit surprised people get defensive at calling maneuvers magic, and need to hold so tightly that an array of special moves must or even could make sense.

Which 3? (out of 5? What?) :smallconfused: Off the top of my head I can't think of any 1st level Warblade maneuvers that remotely resembles anything other than "Bonk, I'm great".

In fact, let's look at this:

Diamond Mind
Moment of Perfect Mind: Make a Concentration check instead of a Will Save. Focus is good.
Sapphire Nightmare Blade: Concentration check, catch them off guard and deal some more damage. Ok.
Stance of Clarity: Focus on one dude, get AC vs them and less vs others. Yup.

Iron Heart
Steel Wind: Attack two people next to you.
Steely Strike: Focus on one person, trading defense for offense, in the form of hitting more accurately.
Punishing Stance: More of trade defense for offense, in the form of more damage.

Stone Dragon
Charging Minotaur: You charge. And Bull-Rush.
Stone Bones: Hit, gain DR. Ok, this one I can maybe see, and even then theyre saying it's just "I'm tough!" focus.
Stonefoot Stance: More toughy toughguy, in a very solid stance that doesn't allow much movement.

Tiger Claw
Sudden Leap: You jump.
Wolf Fang Strike: You attack. With two weapons. TWO.
Hunters Sense: You gain Scent through sensory focus. I'm seeing a trend here.
Blood In the Water: Bonuses for seeing your opponents get hurt. Cool.

White Raven
Douse the Flames: Hit someone, they can't make AoOs. Tactical.
Leading the Attack: Hit someone, your friends can hit them better. See above.
Leading the Charge: You tell your allies how to charge better.
Bolstering Voice: You tell the same allies not to be afraid.

And that's 1st level. I am seriously wondering how much our definitions of what constitute magic is, and that's where alot of this sort of debate comes from; One side says "why not just call it magic and be done?", whereas the other goes "None of that is overtly magical in any sense of the word." And though I've included stances here for completion's sake, the fact that you thought there were only 5 first level maneuvers makes me wonder if you've read the book. At all.

Kazyan

2013-07-17, 03:14 PM

Who, exactly, are we defending Tome of Battle from, at this point? The forum adores ToB.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 03:19 PM

I'm getting a new Dm for a game I'm in. And said Dm has some reservations about Tome of Battle.

Who, exactly, are we defending Tome of Battle from, at this point?

Heathens! Defend the Holy Book from the heathens lest the burn it!

More seriously, the OP's DM was having issues with the book, so he asked for help in validating it as a choice to his DM.

Terazul

2013-07-17, 03:19 PM

Who, exactly, are we defending Tome of Battle from, at this point? The forum adores ToB.

As the first post indicates, this is supposedly intended as a resource for individuals who may have DMs who don't. Particulary in the OP's case, as they seem to be in such a situation in which a thread that debunks several of the common myths or criticisms would be useful to link to. And stuff.

Kazyan

2013-07-17, 03:28 PM

Right. Whoops. I thought we were going through the ToB-arguments thing again and got pre-emptively grumpy. Carry on.

Kudaku

2013-07-17, 03:34 PM

Yes you are right. The warblades recovery system works best for simulating real life combat.

Fair enough :smallsmile:

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-17, 03:58 PM

Just to Browse

2013-07-17, 04:02 PM

{scrubbed}

Spuddles

2013-07-17, 04:03 PM

ToB appears very similar upon examination to Vancian magic, with a fire-and-forget system, highly specific maneuvers with silly names, and a rather clunky preparation mechanic. Even the lay out of the abilities are similar to that of spells or psychic powers.

In execution, though, it's really different. Each class- warblade, swordsage, crusader- plays, in my opinion, how a Fighter, Monk, or Paladin should have.

If you ignore the goofy as hell stuff (wolf climbs the mountain, angry yelling mongoose, flying tiger back kick) and just refluff it as getting angry, hitting people, not giving a ****, and in general being too badass to die, then warblade and crusader are pretty much the coolest classes out there. At low levels, it's pretty easy to get lots of murder out of them, but by the mid levels, they stand on their own quite nicely. ToB classes don't have a huge reliance on magical gear- they do a lot of cool stuff on the merits of the individual character- like deflecting a beholder's eye ray with their sword, or parrying an illithid's mindblast with a steely glare.

Likewise, swordsage can make a pretty sweet monk with very little magic. Setting Sun is a great way to do stuff that normal D&D rules have decided you can't do because a long time ago, Gary Gygax read a book about how badass halberds were or something stupid. If you want to play a character that specializes in throws and tripping and general jackie chan style stunts, swordsage is where it's at. The whole book isn't like that, though. Just one class and only if they take that build. Banning ToB because you can make jackie chan with some of the manuevers would make as much sense as banning the PHB because the monk is in there (ewww, so eastern!) and astral projection (ewww psychics!). A swordsage could just as easily be a feral streetfighter that revels in carnage- a thug and brigand that can smell magic as easily as he smells blood. Or a wire-fu artist. The choice is yours.

In play, the classes are very fun and can do some really great stuff. They can make encounters dynamic, but lack the totally lame stunts that magicians pull, like Web, Fear, Flesh to Stone, or Teleport. Each one of those are incredibly lame, bad, dumb, horrible spells and everyone should hate them, from a design standpoint.

I only picked that one because I hear people using it often. Same goes for iron heart surge, mountain hammer and everything with a concentration check and heck most maneuvers I ever hear about. Quickly browsing the level 1 warblade strikes it seemed to hold for 3 out of 5 of them. Incidentally the most mundane sounding one was called out in this thread and used as an example.

I'm a bit surprised people get defensive at calling maneuvers magic, and need to hold so tightly that an array of special moves must or even could make sense. Probably from all the long debates I'm not aware of. 50 page debates don't prove that one side hammered the other into submission btw. They only show that neither side ever changed its mind even after 50 pages. And then if it swayed later it only means some people probably got tired of talking about it. Apparently it still sparks heavy debate to this day.

So a bit of caution: Be polite, not vehement with your DM or there will only be a big fight and it won't go anywhere. Alright enough of this for me. I was actually trying to help out the ToB case to make it playable but this is turning into a headache. EDIT: And the thread explodes in the span of 5 minutes. <ducks>

How the hell are 3 our of 5 versions of "I hit it hard, like really hard" even remotely magical? Are you going to tell us that monkey grip, power attack, or cleave are magical? Maybe two weapon fighting? Using a spiked chain?

My issue with it is how boring it is. Its just takes a bunch of the most basic spells and staples them too melee attacks.

Overall a better attempt at balance, yet just overall boring.

I can see why this lead too 4e.

If you think ToB is boring, you should try playing a rogue, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, samurai, or knight.

RFLS

2013-07-17, 04:04 PM

My issue with it is how boring it is. Its just takes a bunch of the most basic spells and staples them too melee attacks.

Overall a better attempt at balance, yet just overall boring.

I can see why this lead too 4e.

Diamond Mind
Moment of Perfect Mind: Make a Concentration check instead of a Will Save. Focus is good.
Sapphire Nightmare Blade: Concentration check, catch them off guard and deal some more damage. Ok.
Stance of Clarity: Focus on one dude, get AC vs them and less vs others. Yup.

Iron Heart
Steel Wind: Attack two people next to you.
Steely Strike: Focus on one person, trading defense for offense, in the form of hitting more accurately.
Punishing Stance: More of trade defense for offense, in the form of more damage.

Stone Dragon
Charging Minotaur: You charge. And Bull-Rush.
Stone Bones: Hit, gain DR. Ok, this one I can maybe see, and even then theyre saying it's just "I'm tough!" focus.
Stonefoot Stance: More toughy toughguy, in a very solid stance that doesn't allow much movement.

Tiger Claw
Sudden Leap: You jump.
Wolf Fang Strike: You attack. With two weapons. TWO.
Hunters Sense: You gain Scent through sensory focus. I'm seeing a trend here.
Blood In the Water: Bonuses for seeing your opponents get hurt. Cool.

White Raven
Douse the Flames: Hit someone, they can't make AoOs. Tactical.
Leading the Attack: Hit someone, your friends can hit them better. See above.
Leading the Charge: You tell your allies how to charge better.
Bolstering Voice: You tell the same allies not to be afraid.

Copied the list for relevance. I appear to be lost. Would you (Scowling Dragon) be willing to explain, using a specific example, how one of these is a spell bolted onto a melee attack, and then explain how this is the case for all/most/many of the maneuvers?

Boci

2013-07-17, 04:13 PM

My issue with it is how boring it is.

Fionding ToB boring is fair enough, but as other have said, do you find it boring compared to the other melee options?

I can see why this lead too 4e.

Yeah, but 4th edition fiddled with things and lost what made ToB so good in the process.

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-17, 04:13 PM

If you think ToB is boring, you should try playing a rogue, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, samurai, or knight.

They are all very simple classes, and because of that simplicity I use it too take advantage of other aspects. I describe the attacks, I ask too use stunts.

Because Im less limited by the rules, I ask too do more stuff from the GM.

Boci

2013-07-17, 04:17 PM

They are all very simple classes, and because of that simplicity I use it too take advantage of other aspects. I describe the attacks, I ask too use stunts.

Because Im less limited by the rules, I ask too do more stuff from the GM.

Seems wierd (Non-ToB is less boring because they are more boring), but the opinions of others can be.

The main question (at least for me) is, would you allow a player to be use ToB is you were GM?

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-17, 04:22 PM

Let me explain:

I Play non-spell character too play a simpler experience, and focus more on "Battle Roleplay". I play a Wizard for more tactical stuff.

In general if the Wizard makes a gentleman agreement, then I find that the balance stuff works generally alright.

Because I find the TOB classes more like casters it terms of choice selection rather then simple characters, I compare them more too casters, and I find standard casters more interesting.

If I GMed a Game and somebody wanted too play a TOB class I may say yes or no depending on the type of game im playing. But in general yes.

Anyway Im going too bow out from this thread, as most TOB supporters will pounce and devour me alive because I dared say that I disliked the book.

Boci

2013-07-17, 04:29 PM

Because I find the TOB classes more like casters it terms of choice selection rather then simple characters, I compare them more too casters, and I find standard casters more interesting.

Let's assume thats correct (and its your opinion so it probably is): Isn't that a little depressing? The guy called a warbalde, whosr shtick is to swing a sword in specific attack, is more casterish, because he has a choice on what abilities he has.

Doesn't that imply bad game design to you?

Anyway Im going too bow out from this thread, as most TOB supporters will pounce and devour me alive because I dared say that I disliked the book.

For what its worth I'm not going to. You explained your opinion, it seems clear you do not think this reflects on the book as a whole and you are willing to allow others to play with it in general. I can't really expect more.

Andion Isurand

2013-07-17, 04:31 PM

I like Tome of Battle in that it helps solve the full attack + mobility problem that melee characters face.

Being able to perform a substantial attack with only a standard action is very important in my mind.

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-17, 04:41 PM

Let's assume thats correct (and its your opinion so it probably is): Isn't that a little depressing? The guy called a warbalde, whosr shtick is to swing a sword in specific attack, is more casterish, because he has a choice on what abilities he has.

Doesn't that imply bad game design to you?

Well because you promised not to eat me il answer:

No. Because realistic combat would require 300 pages worth of rules and 43 flowcharts in order to simulate.

Probably with that book we could get hyper awesome movie like (Or Avatar the Last Airbender like) combat.

But each turn would take 3 hours to complete.

So instead everything is simulated by a simple single dice-roll.

The choices a Fighter makes I assume is just handwaved with fluff in order to simplify matters.

So no. I don't find it game design. I do find the bad math bad game design.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 04:50 PM

Well because you promised not to eat me il answer:

No. Because realistic combat would require 300 pages worth of rules and 43 flowcharts in order to simulate.

Probably with that book we could get hyper awesome movie like (Or Avatar the Last Airbender like) combat.

But each turn would take 3 hours to complete.

So instead everything is simulated by a simple single dice-roll.

The choices a Fighter makes I assume is just handwaved with fluff in order to simplify matters.

So no. I don't find it game design. I do find the bad math bad game design.
This seems like a false dichotomy. In fact, it seems like a false dichotomy where one of the options that has been brought up isn't even on the table. Warblades are apparently more realistic than fighters, have a variety of abilities, and don't take three hours for a turn. Simulating everything you do with a single dice roll is boring, because it means that you're basically a computer program, or at least it does in this case. I also don't see where you're getting bad math, or really math at all. What are you arguing against here?

Boci

2013-07-17, 05:07 PM

Well because you promised not to eat me il answer:

No. Because realistic combat would require 300 pages worth of rules and 43 flowcharts in order to simulate.

But so would realistically recounting almost anything relativly complex. Ideally every monster would have its own entry on how it is uniquly affected by spells and abilities (a monster with hairy feet for example may continue to suffer reduced penalties after leaving a field of conjured grease), but just because that isn't viable doesn't mean everything needs to be abstracted to a single dice roll.

Casters were given the option of being simpler (warlock, advanced casters), and they stayed casters. Shouldn't martial have been given the chance to be more complex and stay martial?

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-17, 05:16 PM

Boci

2013-07-17, 05:23 PM

Rubik

2013-07-17, 05:25 PM

In general I don't like discussing stuff on forums that the forum consensus has decided is "Good and you're just nuts if you disagree". Then a discussion feels more like a fight against 12 people as I have to talk and mention every argument.Thing is, a lot of the "arguments" people try to use against the forum consensus are flat-out false. Provably so. Reiterating the same falsehoods that have been conclusively disproven isn't going to get a warm welcome, honestly.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 05:28 PM

Bowing out. I just have a fundamentally different view too what the classes are for me.

In general I don't like discussing stuff on forums that the forum consensus has decided is "Good and you're just nuts if you disagree". Then a discussion feels more like a fight against 12 people as I have to talk and mention every argument.

PS: Yes I found Warlocks in the "Bad area between Complex enough to require thought and planning, yet simple enough to be repetitive."
It's fair enough if you want to not argue, but this doesn't feel like a group of ToB cultists situation. It feels more like a situation where your points are unclear. You seem to be arguing against a system where every turn takes a whole session to complete, but ToB is nothing like that. You also mentioned bad math, when it doesn't look like you mentioned anything in your post that was remotely mathematical. What I really don't understand is the downside to having a range of complexity. You can have barbarians, whose choices are perfectly linear, and ToB, who have quite a few choices that are rather complex, and wizards, who usually has a ton of different options which are often individually complex. We're talking about ToB here, and I don't see the part of that post that made points directly against it. In general, folks tend to see your side of things more if your points are direct and well reasoned.

Boci

2013-07-17, 05:31 PM

Thing is, a lot of the "arguments" people try to use against the forum consensus are flat-out false. Provably so. Reiterating the same falsehoods that have been conclusively disproven isn't going to get a warm welcome, honestly.

To be fair though, a lot of points raised against ToB are the "this is my opinion" flavour and are met with "your is opinion is wrong because of X, I demand you adress that or cede it". Evaluating someone's opinions with them can make ofr an interesting debate, but requires more tact that pro-ToBers are often willing to give. Just saying there's plenty wrong on both sides of the fence.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 05:38 PM

To be fair though, a lot of points raised against ToB are the "this is my opinion" flavour and are met with "your is opinion is wrong because of X, I demand you adress that or cede it". Evaluating someone's opinions with them can make ofr an interesting debate, but requires more tact that pro-ToBers are often willing to give. Just saying there's plenty wrong on both sides of the fence.
To be double-anti-recursive-fair, many of the opinion based flavor arguments have their grounding in faulty reasoning. For example, a lot of anti-ToB folks argue that ToB's abilities are more magical than mundane, and that's just demonstrably false. Even flavor arguments can have a basis in logic, and arguments against ToB flavor often don't.

Spuddles

2013-07-17, 05:38 PM

Thing is, a lot of the "arguments" people try to use against the forum consensus are flat-out false. Provably so. Reiterating the same falsehoods that have been conclusively disproven isn't going to get a warm welcome, honestly.

Tell me something you like, so I can tell you that you're wrong :smallcool:

It's fair enough if you want to not argue, but this doesn't feel like a group of ToB cultists situation. It feels more like a situation where your points are unclear. You seem to be arguing against a system where every turn takes a whole session to complete, but ToB is nothing like that. You also mentioned bad math, when it doesn't look like you mentioned anything in your post that was remotely mathematical. What I really don't understand is the downside to having a range of complexity. You can have barbarians, whose choices are perfectly linear, and ToB, who have quite a few choices that are rather complex, and wizards, who usually has a ton of different options which are often individually complex. We're talking about ToB here, and I don't see the part of that post that made points directly against it. In general, folks tend to see your side of things more if your points are direct and well reasoned.

Maybe it's the multitude of weaknesses a fighter has due to poor numbers, or the multitude of weaknesses monks have due to good numbers in the wrong places, or the weaknesses paladins have because they can't get enough good numbers in the right places.

To be double-anti-recursive-fair, many of the opinion based flavor arguments have their grounding in faulty reasoning. For example, a lot of anti-ToB folks argue that ToB's abilities are more magical than mundane, and that's just demonstrably false. Even flavor arguments can have a basis in logic, and arguments against ToB flavor often don't.

The mechanics of ToB are fairly Vancian and use a mechanic unlike virtually all other mundane mechanics in D&D, and instead use a mechanic much, much more similar to the one wizards use. So yeah, I can see preparing readying swooping dragon strike to pounce like a final fantasy might be seen as a little bit magical.

Boci

2013-07-17, 05:40 PM

To be double-anti-recursive-fair, many of the opinion based flavor arguments have their grounding in faulty reasoning. For example, a lot of anti-ToB folks argue that ToB's abilities are more magical than mundane, and that's just demonstrably false. Even flavor arguments can have a basis in logic, and arguments against ToB flavor often don't.

Sure, that happens. Its just easy to point out why the people who disagree with you are wrong/fallacious/whatever.

Gigas Breaker

2013-07-17, 05:41 PM

Sure, that happens. Its just easy to point out why the people who disagree with you are wrong/fallacious/whatever.
I feel like that's what people are doing.

Raendyn

2013-07-17, 06:23 PM

TuggyNE

2013-07-17, 06:27 PM

What is the permissive interpretation that leads to a *6? It looks like it works like every other multiplier, and even explicitly restates the game's multiplication rules. I don't know what would make valorous weapons an exception.

Mostly, the fact that it's multiplying a different quantity than e.g. Leap Attack: one affects the Power Attack portion, and the other affects the whole thing. So all it takes is to say that the whole-damage multiplier is applied after you figure out how much Power Attack is adding to the whole damage, and bam, effectively the return is *6.

DR27

2013-07-17, 06:28 PM

Well, it's not so much the fluff of the classes themselves, but all of the metaplot garbage about the Nine Swords is pretty terrible.
I think people's real problem with the flavor of ToB stems from this. They read the intro and look at the artwork, and think "this isn't the bland that other sourcebooks have, it must not fit into my campaign then" - without realizing that the classes and maneuvers themselves are pretty inoffensive and bland as a way to appeal to as many gamers as possible. It is unfair to lump the classes and maneuvers in with the intro fluff text and illustrations, but w/e

crazyhedgewizrd

2013-07-17, 07:15 PM

Boci

2013-07-17, 07:22 PM

I do wonder if this is where Player Vs Game Master comes from?

If the Game Master said no, try to work out a compromise and move on. Don't whinge about it, because you are going to bring the game down and its going to less fun to play.

Isn't the first step to reaching a compromise whinging? (I.e., explaining why you need a compromise because the DMs initial ruling will make the game less fun for you)

Waker

2013-07-17, 08:30 PM

I lol'ed a lot at the "spellcaster ca use spells only limited times per day. why initiators spam em"

Non-boring and proper fights last 2-3 rounds max. x3-x4 combats

Sorcerers use 6 spells there /combat max, 3 standard, 3 swift-immediates. So, 18-24 spells/day +5-7 ?bonus all day buffs. I guarantee u they have unspent spells, and I mean usefull spells when they go to rest, quite a few in fact, and they also have more impact during combats and out of combat.

Now, initiators do less maneuvers/combat and at the same time maneuvers<spells. but they can refresh! omg op-ban! :smalltongue:
I ban Warlocks since they can use their invocations at-will. And he can use Detect Magic at-will too? I mean, really guy? Meanwhile the poor wizard has to get by memorizing whatever scribbles he put into his dream journal.

The majority of these OP wushu moves that initiators have can't really be used outside of combat. Sure there are a handful that have some utility, but if you compare them to the absurd amount of options that a mage can bring to the table you find the initiators are left far behind. Can any ToB class handle divination? Or resurrection? Long-range teleportation? Item Creation?... Even in combat the maneuvers just give them options. They have little in the way of ranged attacks nor are they amazing at battlefield control.

As for the fluff concerning the ToB, I ignore the majority of it. I have absolutely no interest in the temple, nine swords and all the history surrounding it. Someone who calls themselves a Crusader might be a Crusader, Paladin, Cleric or any number of other classes. I prefer not to get too hung up on the title and just focus on the character.

eggynack

2013-07-17, 08:35 PM

Mostly, the fact that it's multiplying a different quantity than e.g. Leap Attack: one affects the Power Attack portion, and the other affects the whole thing. So all it takes is to say that the whole-damage multiplier is applied after you figure out how much Power Attack is adding to the whole damage, and bam, effectively the return is *6.
It's an odd argument, because it looks like the valorous multiplier is just a standard multiplier. I can't see much in the way of indicating that this one should be applied later, especially because that's the whole point of the multiplier rules in the first place. I suppose that it doesn't say what it's multiplying though, so there could be two separate multipliers working in two separate places. I don't know why that would be the case though.

Andezzar

2013-07-18, 12:42 AM

Wierd D&D math only applies if you have multiple multipliers multiplying (SCNR) the same numeric value as is the case with a critical hit on a charge with a valorous weapon. Both multipliers apply to the (whole) weapon damage. Leap Attack however multiplies (pre errata) the extra damage from power attack, whereas a critical hit or the valorous special ability multiply the weapon damage. So in this case you do not multiply several times, but you multiply two different numeric values. So weird math does not apply

Post errata Leap Attack is interesting. One-handed weapons do no longer have their extra damage from power attack multiplied (a fixed amount of 100% extra damage is added to the weapon damage), but two-handed still do. Since Power attacking with a two-handed weapon doesn't get a multiplier either, but a replacement of the usual exchange rate (1:1 ->2:1), Leap attacking with such a weapon nets you an impressive 6:1 exchange rate, and a valorous weapon then doubles the weapon damage.

RustyArmor

2013-07-18, 12:57 AM

Not really read any of the other replies but I just think some hate the book because all it really did was make fighter types way better at what they were already superior at. Fighting.

Mages had some great booms, and on a failed save the poor BBEG can be done in one round with the right spells(For DMs that don't fudge rolls at least). Even then spells did run out in long run where as fighter type stuff last forever. But don't want to turn this into one of the trillion Nine swords vs wizard debates. Wizards are considered so powerful because they were so diverse out of combat.

So, the BoNS just made fighter types about 100x better in the field they really didn't need help in. So to some DMs that is over the top. And once one player started using it, every other player (and DM) who were fighter types pretty much had to use it as well. Which happened in my campaign shortly after we got the book. We had a player use it, the other fighter, ranger, and blast wizard in the group literally started combat with. "We sit in the corner and drink some tea while Asiklad takes care of it."

Rubik

2013-07-18, 01:01 AM

Not really read any of the other replies but I just think some hate the book because all it really did was make fighter types way better at what they were already superior fairly terrible at. Fighting.

Even then spells did run out in long run where as fighter type stuff last forever a very short time, due to hp loss and failed Will saves.

So, the BoNS just made fighter types about 100x better in the field they really didn't need needed help in.Fixed that for you.

Andezzar

2013-07-18, 01:02 AM

As has been said before, the Fighter (as a class) is not the pinnacle of melee or ranged prowess. Druids and clerics do it better already. Yes, the ToB classes are better at melee than the Fighter, but still those other two classes will probably be better at it, even though it shouldn't be their main forte.

georgie_leech

2013-07-18, 01:03 AM

Fates

2013-07-18, 01:26 AM

While I have nothing against ToB as a book or as a subsystem, I would stress that these things are largely reliant on the rest of your group.

Those who despise anecdotal evidence, shield your eyes!
For example, I played a swordsage in my last campaign, in which the rest of the party was a fighter, a healer, a sorcerer with mediocre spell selection and pathetic defences, and two rangers. I can safely say that no one else in the party was happy with me dishing out 80+ damage at level three when everyone else was having trouble staying alive. Neither the other players nor the DM were particularly optimization-savvy, and the DM didn't have the free time to become so, so it would be make things far too difficult for him if I started coaching the other players (I did help the sorcerer out a bit with spell selection). As things were, the DM couldn't create encounters that were difficult for me without being deadly to everyone else, and combat took far too long what with the constant bookkeeping required. By the time I killed the level 17 BBEG at level 6, while the DM was relatively cool about it, it became obvious that I was ruining everyone else's fun, so I rolled up a hexblade instead, and he's fun to play, without stealing everyone else's glory.

The point of all that being, always judge your decisions somewhat subjectively- the fact of the matter is that before you try to introduce a new mechanic to play, make sure that there's not too much disparity from the rest of the group. D&D is a team game, and that means that every player needs to ensure that every player is able to participate in a way they find fulfilling.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-18, 01:35 AM

For example, I played a swordsage in my last campaign, in which the rest of the party was a fighter, a healer, a sorcerer with mediocre spell selection and pathetic defences, and two rangers. I can safely say that no one else in the party was happy with me dishing out 80+ damage at level three when everyone else was having trouble staying alive. Neither the other players nor the DM were particularly optimization-savvy, and the DM didn't have the free time to become so, so it would be make things far too difficult for him if I started coaching the other players (I did help the sorcerer out a bit with spell selection). As things were, the DM couldn't create encounters that were difficult for me without being deadly to everyone else, and combat took far too long what with the constant bookkeeping required. By the time I killed the level 17 BBEG at level 6, while the DM was relatively cool about it, it became obvious that I was ruining everyone else's fun, so I rolled up a hexblade instead, and he's fun to play, without stealing everyone else's glory.

Yeah.

The problem here was, quite obviously, the optimization disparity between you and the others, not the SS. I suspect that a barbarian at the same level of op-fu would've been just as problematic.

Though to be totally honest, that number seems awfully high to be strictly RAW legal. I suspect an error or a critical hit to be a major factor here as well. May I ask exactly how you got such an absurdly high damage figure at that level?

eggynack

2013-07-18, 01:49 AM

Not to belabour the point, but in what way is the Fighter (or other mundane class) the "best" at fighting? How do they stack up against the self-casting Cleric with Persisted Divine Power and other assorted buffs, or the Bear riding a Bear summoning Bears? Or compare it to a Sorcerer optimized for blasting, that does basically irresistible massive damage at great range, often with nasty rider effects?
This, basically. I'd like to add the point that wizards are still fantastic in combat, even if they're not getting to a punching place. A fighter just doesn't have anything in his arsenal that's on the scale of freezing fog. Wizards have some of the best out of combat utility of any class, but that's far from their only contribution. Fighters can fight against monsters in a mediocre manner, but wizards fight against encounters. Fighters have one area of specialty, even in combat, and they are often worse at it than a druid who incidentally decides that they want to pull off some melee action.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-18, 03:33 AM

We've had quite a few people who do RL martial arts (both Eastern and Western) here on the Playground, and Every. Single. One. has said that ToB models real codified fighting forms nearly perfectly. You cannot instigate the same forms repeatedly. You have to set yourself up for them in your stance and flow of movement. Having to shift through a number of forms before you can repeat the same one is realistic, even if throwing an 800 lb, four-armed gorilla a hundred feet is not. So the form is spot-on, even if the function is fantastical (as it should be for a fantasy game about Big Damned Heroes).

Fair enough. Mea culpa in that regard, and it's been a long while since I did anything related to martial arts or the Tome of Battle, so my memory's a bit foggy and I retract that particular issue.

I suppose moving on from that, I could raise something of a second major issue with the Tome of Battle, or at least the attitude towards it. The idea that the warblade is a replacement fighter, that the swordsage is the automatic replacement monk/ninja, and that the crusader is a replacement paladin, which all kind of bug me to an extent. Or at least the last one does, since its themes are only incidentally similar to a paladin, which acts rather differently in terms of theme and abilities.

It seems to me that it wouldn't be too unbalancing to just add a form of martial progression on top of the existing martial classes anyway. I mean, they would become a lot more powerful, but when they're all underpowered to begin with, that isn't really a tragedy.

lord_khaine

2013-07-18, 04:38 AM

It's really more half-and-half even after you correct the obvious SU oversights.

Out of 25 maneuvers 12 are explicitly called out as supernatural. The teleportation line and one with shadows makes 4 more that -should- be tagged but aren't.

It stands at 48% magical and really should be at 64% magical but that's definitely -not- an outright magical discipline.

For comparison desert wind has 27 maneuvers of which 22 are explcitly magical. That's just over 81%.

I guess i will bring this up, seing as it hasnt been answered yet.

Because it seems like a lot of people have missed that the entire shadow hand school is supernatural, meaning that the teleportation line that people keep complaining about does have a SU tag, people are just missing it.

eggynack

2013-07-18, 04:47 AM

I guess i will bring this up, seing as it hasnt been answered yet.

Because it seems like a lot of people have missed that the entire shadow hand school is supernatural, meaning that the teleportation line that people keep complaining about does have a SU tag, people are just missing it.
Do you perhaps have a citation for this? I've never noticed a line in the book that indicates that shadow hand is universally Su in nature. A direct book quote would be nice.

DeltaEmil

2013-07-18, 04:49 AM

I guess i will bring this up, seing as it hasnt been answered yet.

Because it seems like a lot of people have missed that the entire shadow hand school is supernatural, meaning that the teleportation line that people keep complaining about does have a SU tag, people are just missing it.Where exactly in the book is this mentioned? Couldn't find it.

Killer Angel

2013-07-18, 06:16 AM

Those who despise anecdotal evidence, shield your eyes!

For a starter, if you use a ToB's character, alongside with a core fighter, OF COURSE the fighter will stay far behind.
And anyway, the Healer shouldn't have nothing to say: to deliver damage is not its work, so there's no "competition".

Boci

2013-07-18, 06:21 AM

Which happened in my campaign shortly after we got the book. We had a player use it, the other fighter, ranger, and blast wizard in the group literally started combat with. "We sit in the corner and drink some tea while Asiklad takes care of it."

And was a single warblade able to handle encounters intended for his whole party? ToB can make unoptimized rangers and fightes feel bad so that’s understandable, but the blaster wizard is pushing it. Even if they were unoptimized and had next to no non-blasting spells, they could still inflict damage on multiple opponents, from a fair distance away, and unless the opponent had evasion, they were also guaranteed damage.

For example, I played a swordsage in my last campaign, in which the rest of the party was a fighter, a healer, a sorcerer with mediocre spell selection and pathetic defences, and two rangers. I can safely say that no one else in the party was happy with me dishing out 80+ damage at level three when everyone else was having trouble staying alive. Neither the other players nor the DM were particularly optimization-savvy, and the DM didn't have the free time to become so, so it would be make things far too difficult for him if I started coaching the other players (I did help the sorcerer out a bit with spell selection). As things were, the DM couldn't create encounters that were difficult for me without being deadly to everyone else, and combat took far too long what with the constant bookkeeping required. By the time I killed the level 17 BBEG at level 6, while the DM was relatively cool about it, it became obvious that I was ruining everyone else's fun, so I rolled up a hexblade instead, and he's fun to play, without stealing everyone else's glory.

I would also be interested in how those two results were managed (80+ damage at level 3 and taking out someone 11 levels higher than you).

I suppose moving on from that, I could raise something of a second major issue with the Tome of Battle, or at least the attitude towards it. The idea that the warblade is a replacement fighter, that the swordsage is the automatic replacement monk/ninja, and that the crusader is a replacement paladin, which all kind of bug me to an extent. Or at least the last one does, since its themes are only incidentally similar to a paladin, which acts rather differently in terms of theme and abilities.

I think peoples willingness to accept the crusader as a replacement paladin is because they feel it handles the concept better. Compare:

You feel very strongly about good and justice. If you fail to live up to the this high moral standard, you will lose your class features.

You feel very strongly about something, you choose. If you fail to roleplay this dedicated, well you and your DM will have to work it out, we aren’t going to make one-size-fits all rulings for such a complex issue.

eggynack

2013-07-18, 06:24 AM

For a starter, if you use a ToB's character, alongside with a core fighter, OF COURSE the fighter will stay far behind.
And anyway, the Healer shouldn't have nothing to say: to deliver damage is not its work, so there's no "competition".
I've gotta agree on that count. This struck me less as an unexpected tale of a ToB class using their high optimization floor to beat higher tier classes in an inexperienced party, and more as a completely logical and expected tale of a tier three class using their tier three nature to beat a group made up largely of tier four and five classes. The sorcerer is an exception, but it's trivial to build a sorcerer who is overpowered by a ToB class, so it's not surprising that the sorcerer would be outdone on all metrics. Sorcerers are difficult to optimize, and missteps are permanent. In other words, the tier system strikes again.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 07:18 AM

Where exactly in the book is this mentioned? Couldn't find it.

They description of the school mentions it has supernatural and cold elements. I think that must be what is being referred to. It does not say that all the abilities are supernatural, however.

eggynack

2013-07-18, 07:33 AM

They description of the school mentions it has supernatural and cold elements. I think that must be what is being referred to. It does not say that all the abilities are supernatural, however.
I was reading that section before, trying to find some sort of evidence for this claim, and it doesn't actually say what you're saying it says. I read it that way too at first, which resulted in me noticing your error now. The line in question is, "Shadow Hand maneuvers employ the super-natural cold." This refers not to things that are supernatural or cold, which might indicate a reference to the ability type, but rather to cold that is supernatural. The line doesn't even give an indication that these maneuvers based on supernatural cold are classified under the supernatural ability type, so the school could have theoretically had zero supernatural maneuvers, even with the existence of this text. Ultimately, I found no indication that all shadow hand maneuvers are Su, and the already mentioned indication that all maneuvers are Ex unless stated otherwise. This argument is bolstered by the fact that several shadow hand maneuvers are explicitly Su, which indicates the already indicated fact that a maneuver being Su is an affirmative thing.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 07:40 AM

I was reading that section before, trying to find some sort of evidence for this claim, and it doesn't actually say what you're saying it says. I read it that way too at first, which resulted in me noticing your error now. The line in question is, "Shadow Hand maneuvers employ the super-natural cold." This refers not to things that are supernatural or cold, which might indicate a reference to the ability type, but rather to cold that is supernatural. The line doesn't even give an indication that these maneuvers based on supernatural cold are classified under the supernatural ability type, so the school could have theoretically had zero supernatural maneuvers, even with the existence of this text. Ultimately, I found no indication that all shadow hand maneuvers are Su, and the already mentioned indication that all maneuvers are Ex unless stated otherwise. This argument is bolstered by the fact that several shadow hand maneuvers are explicitly Su, which indicates the already indicated fact that a maneuver being Su is an affirmative thing.

Well, to be precise (I was going off memory before) it says supernatural cold and darkness of pure shadow -- the supernatural bit could apply to both cold and darkness. English is funny!

Important bit I said: It does not say that all the abilities are supernatural, however.

So I think we agree. Though perhaps we also agree that there are a number of maneuvers in the ToB that need the supernatural tag.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-18, 07:43 AM

I think peoples willingness to accept the crusader as a replacement paladin is because they feel it handles the concept better. Compare:

You feel very strongly about good and justice. If you fail to live up to the this high moral standard, you will lose your class features.

You feel very strongly about something, you choose. If you fail to roleplay this dedicated, well you and your DM will have to work it out, we aren’t going to make one-size-fits all rulings for such a complex issue.

I would personally disagree. But then, I'm an old-school grognard for whom the paladin was always the lawful good champion of justice, not necessarily just some relatively generic warrior who could be found on any side of ethics and morality as long they felt strongly about it. The other reason I don't like the crusader as compared to a paladin is the basic difference in concept.

The crusader is a mighty and indomitable warrior who's dedicated to a moral or philosophical cause.

The paladin is more of a holy warrior dedicated specifically to the causes of justice and mercy, and it is this ideal of mercy that really sets them aside from the crusader. While it isn't handled very well in 3.5e compared to the likes of Pathfinder or AD&D, one of the most recurring class features they receive is lay on hands, and the ability to cast a limited amount of divine spells. Including spells that heal wounds and cure sickness.

Crusaders do receive healing abilities, but none that do not rely on first striking an opponent using Devoted Spirit. A crusader is a close cousin and possibly even a sibling to the paladin, but is never really going to qualify as anything that's truly closer than that.

eggynack

2013-07-18, 07:48 AM

Well, to be precise (I was going off memory before) it says supernatural cold and darkness of pure shadow -- the supernatural bit could apply to both cold and darkness. English is funny!

Important bit I said: It does not say that all the abilities are supernatural, however.

So I think we agree. Though perhaps we also agree that there are a number of maneuvers in the ToB that need the supernatural tag.
Oh, definitely true on all counts. I get that you weren't arguing that all shadow hand maneuvers are Su, but I thought it would be interesting to poke holes in even the vaguest references to the idea. Shadow jaunt should definitely be Su, to the extent that folks passively alter their memory of the rules in order to fix the problem. Occasional editing issues like that, and an effective lack of errata, are definitely among ToB's issues. Little problems like that just don't seem like enough basis to condemn the book, especially some of the basis classes for ToB have ridiculous problems like the monk's lack of unarmed strike proficiency, and the entire paladin code from top to bottom. I don't really have one for fighters, because they're basically just a pile of feats, but that might be a problem all on its own.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 07:48 AM

Well, one solution for Paladins, Rangers, Monks, and Fighters is just giving them manuever progressions.

Fighters get the Warblade progression.

Paladins get the Crusader, go to Charisma-based spell-casting, and have no 3rd or 4th level spells on their list (they still get the slots). -- Casting might need to go altogether, but I think you could keep limited casting.

Monks get Swordsage progression.

In the thread I bought this up someone proposed Rangers get Swordsage progression too -- which is a cool callback to 1st Edition -- I believe they got Druid and Wizard spells back then. Their spellcasting probably needs the Pally adjustment as well.

Boci

2013-07-18, 07:55 AM

I would personally disagree. But then, I'm an old-school grognard for whom the paladin was always the lawful good champion of justice, not necessarily just some relatively generic warrior who could be found on any side of ethics and morality as long they felt strongly about it.

That's fine, but surely you can see why its problomatic: morality is grey.

Everyday the court delivers sentances to accused people, some cheer them as justice some decry them as barbarism, and that's just within the Western World. Once you start looking at other ethnicities and cultures you can really see how whimsicle and impossible the idea of a warrior dedicated to a "universal" brand of justice is.

The paladin simply does not work in a simultanionist world (or however its called). BoVD barely dwells on the greyish nature of morality, but even it raises some problems with the paladin class. And all you have to do is look at the "my paladin fell" threads to see how problomatic they can be in real games.

Is the crusader better than the paladin? That's a matter of preferance. Is it better designed to handle a game that moves beyond the scope of "good caucasian heroes kill evil monsters who totally deserve it because they are evil"? Yes, no debate about that.

The Trickster

2013-07-18, 09:03 AM

As for the fluff concerning the ToB, I ignore the majority of it. I have absolutely no interest in the temple, nine swords and all the history surrounding it. Someone who calls themselves a Crusader might be a Crusader, Paladin, Cleric or any number of other classes. I prefer not to get too hung up on the title and just focus on the character.

I have always played D&D with this mind set as well. I always viewed classes as templates, rather then actual classes. I always felt that if I want to play a paladin, why can't I just take cleric class levels and call myself a paladin? Or call myself a fighter when I took levels in barbarian? Making up your own fluff is much better IMO.

I suppose moving on from that, I could raise something of a second major issue with the Tome of Battle, or at least the attitude towards it. The idea that the warblade is a replacement fighter, that the swordsage is the automatic replacement monk/ninja, and that the crusader is a replacement paladin, which all kind of bug me to an extent. Or at least the last one does, since its themes are only incidentally similar to a paladin, which acts rather differently in terms of theme and abilities.

It seems to me that it wouldn't be too unbalancing to just add a form of martial progression on top of the existing martial classes anyway. I mean, they would become a lot more powerful, but when they're all underpowered to begin with, that isn't really a tragedy.

I agree with the first part. Some swordsage builds will use a couple levels of monk anyway, so I wouldn't want to replace them entirely. If someone wants the monk class, let them play it.

As for the second part, has anyone tried adding ToB stuff to base classes? I'm curious to see how it works. (Although you wouldn't add it to the fighter, obviously, since you already have a warblade).

RFLS

2013-07-18, 09:11 AM

As for the second part, has anyone tried adding ToB stuff to base classes? I'm curious to see how it works. (Although you wouldn't add it to the fighter, obviously, since you already have a warblade).

Yeah, Fax Celestis (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update) has a pretty good version of it. Very solid, fits the original classes pretty well.

Studoku

2013-07-18, 10:10 AM

I can safely say that no one else in the party was happy with me dishing out 80+ damage at level three when everyone else was having trouble staying alive.
How were you getting 80+ damage a round? I'm assuming it involved scouring every book to optimise a character despite playing in an otherwise low op game but considering the time I played with ToB, none of our initiators were typically getting close to that at level 5 (we had one of each, pretty cool) without crits, favourable circumstances and buffs/debuffs, that's impressive.

Fates

2013-07-18, 10:50 AM

Yeah.

The problem here was, quite obviously, the optimization disparity between you and the others, not the SS. I suspect that a barbarian at the same level of op-fu would've been just as problematic.

Though to be totally honest, that number seems awfully high to be strictly RAW legal. I suspect an error or a critical hit to be a major factor here as well. May I ask exactly how you got such an absurdly high damage figure at that level?

Well, of course you're right there, but the difference is that a barbarian would probably have outshined everyone else at damage alone- with the exception of healing, my swordsage was the best in the party at just about everything; he was the best frontliner, the best thief, the skillmonkey, the tank.... Besides which, the DM and players were familiar with the Barbarian class- the DM wasn't terribly creative, but he certainly could have worked out ways to make things hard for me had I chosen that class. With a SS, half the time the DM had no idea I even had any given maneuver. At a certain point, combat became "you do your thing, we'll all just sit back and try not to get killed in the crossfire."

In regards to how I was able to pump out that much damage at such a low level, I believe it had to do with TWF + Flashing Sun + Speed Scimitar we somehow managed to get +Burning Blade? I fought with a scimitar/kukri combo, had very good starting abilities and rolled criticals pretty often. I may be remembering all of this wrong, but whatever the damage output was, it was astronomically higher than everyone else'

And that was the odd thing. As people have pointed out, it's really hard to make a bad ToB character. Hell, I had actually specifically tried to make a weak character- a TWF swordsage who focuses in Desert Wind- to match the rest of the group. While it hardly would have been optimal in the long run, it was rather effective at low levels. I suppose the DM is also to blame for introducing a +4 weapon at such a low level, and I am to blame for taking advantage of his mistake.

Aaaanyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, while practically any class, with enough op-fu, can rise far above the rest of the party if they aren't and don't want to be proficient at these things (and a lot of players don't), ToB characters don't even have to try to totally dominate such a game. I personally love ToB as a supplement, but I would stress once again that it all depends on how the rest of the group and the DM would handle it.

EDIT: Okay, let me see if the math works out here.

By level three, I had 20 strength and 18 dexterity (so much of this is actually based on the character having extremely high stats to begin with). On a full attack, I could make four attacks. I had weapon focus in both weapons, a +2 BAB, and each one had a +1 enhancement bonus. With TWF, that adds up to +8/+8/+8/+8. Since I had +9 initiative, I usually went before whatever we were fighting, so they tended to be FF.

With the usage of burning blade, each attack did an extra 1d8+3 damage (Average 7.5). The scimitar had a Least Electric Assault crystal attached.

Damage with the scimitar was on average 7.5 fire+1 enhancement+1 electric +5 strength, adding up to 14.5. Multiply that by three, and that comes out to 33.5. Add the kukri attack and that's another 2.5+ 2 strength +1 enhancement +7.5 fire, coming out to a whopping total of...

46.5 damage on average if every attack hit. Huh, I certainly blew that out of proportion. Sorry, all. Still, it was far above everyone else's damage output, and I could fill in for just about everyone else in the party at their areas of expertise.

Karnith

2013-07-18, 10:55 AM

Speed Scimitar we somehow managed to get
Well, going about 30,000 gold over your recommended WBL (or about 12 times normal) at level 3 might have had something to do with it.

Boci

2013-07-18, 11:03 AM

In regards to how I was able to pump out that much damage at such a low level, I believe it had to do with TWF + Flashing Sun + Speed Scimitar we somehow managed to get +Burning Blade? I fought with a scimitar/kukri combo, had very good starting abilities and rolled criticals pretty often. I may be remembering all of this wrong, but whatever the damage output was, it was astronomically higher than everyone else'

Two +1 weapons (one of them effectivly +4 due to speed), 18 strength (dexterity irrelivant since you cannot add that to damage), flashing sun and burning blade.

Assuming all attacks hit (big assumption, since your attack bonus will be about +8, -4 for two weapon fighting and flashing sun penalties): 5d6+1d4+19 damage, so an average of 39 damage, some of which is fire.

So you had above average stats, above average luck on attack rolls, above average luck on damage rolls, way above average WBl...

...and ToB was the problem?

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 11:06 AM

Well, of course you're right there, but the difference is that a barbarian would probably have outshined everyone else at damage alone- with the exception of healing, my swordsage was the best in the party at just about everything; he was the best frontliner, the best thief, the skillmonkey, the tank.... Besides which, the DM and players were familiar with the Barbarian class- the DM wasn't terribly creative, but he certainly could have worked out ways to make things hard for me had I chosen that class. With a SS, half the time the DM had no idea I even had any given maneuver. At a certain point, combat became "you do your thing, we'll all just sit back and try not to get killed in the crossfire."

Your DM was not good at his job. He knew nothing about your character and he had no idea how to follow WBL. Nor was he interested in learning more or constructing challenges. Huge problem there.

Your damage seems like it was not something you could do every round, and also was the result of lucky rolls. With a scimitar of speed and kukri, if you made 4 attacks in a round (at a -4 penalty), and critted on all of them with a +4 strength bonus, then you could have done something like 80 damage if you rolled well. This would have used up two of your manuevers in one round and been highly dependent on luck (and very vulnerable to fire resistance). You'd lose over 25% of the damage if you didn't have a Scimitar of speed. Your confirmations and to-hit would also be lower.

Can't say I see a problem there. A raging barbarian can also do quite a lot with power attack on a x3 crit (and that's more likely than you hitting and confirming with your -4 penalty on attacks).

Fates

2013-07-18, 11:09 AM

Two +1 weapons, 18 strength (dexterity irrelivant since you cannot add that to damage) and burning blade.

Assuming all attacks hit (big assumption, since your attack bonus will be about +8, -4 for two weapon fighting and flashing sun penalties): 5d6+1d4+19 damage, so an average of 39 damage, some of which is fire.

So you had way above average stats, above average luck on rolls, way above average WBl...

...and ToB was the problem?

I don't believe I tried to insinuate that ToB itself was the issue. My point was that one shouldn't introduce new character who not only is capable of being better, but as a standard feature is better than most of the other players at their areas of expertise. ToB is one of many ways of doing this, it just happens to be an easy way that for some reason annoys other players more than do spellcasters.

Also, check the edit on my post for the math. I was apparently exaggerating quite a bit, my apologies. Must be losing my memory or something. :smallredface:

EDIT: Okay, just to clarify, my example was of my particularly disfunctional group. I've realized by now that my original point was rather naive; it was the DM's first campaign and I wasn't supporting him well enough, and I easily could have helped the other players to meet my level.

But to an extent my point still stands. I'm not saying he shouldn't introduce an initiator into a low-op group, only that if he does, he needs to take certain precautions or things will fall out of hand.

I feel I've stuffed both of my feet as far into my mouth as is humanly possibly at this point, but please, bear with me. :smallfrown:

Studoku

2013-07-18, 11:10 AM

46.5 damage on average if every attack hit. Huh, I certainly blew that out of proportion. Sorry, all. Still, it was far above everyone else's damage output, and I could fill in for just about everyone else in the party at their areas of expertise.
So in conclusion, ToB characters can outshine unoptimised weaker melee classes while equipped with several times their wealth by level?

What other expertise were you filling in for? Healing?

Fates

2013-07-18, 11:16 AM

So in conclusion, ToB characters can outshine unoptimised weaker melee classes while equipped with several times their wealth by level?

What other expertise were you filling in for? Healing?

I feel that that's as good as conclusion as any. Allow me to say that I was wrong, and the Pro-ToB militia was correct. If the OP wants to present any conclusive argument to his DM, that might do it.

I will from now on be sure to think before posting on the subject before I make a fool of myself again. :smalleek:

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 11:16 AM

By level three, I had 20 strength and 18 dexterity (so much of this is actually based on the character having extremely high stats to begin with). On a full attack, I could make four attacks. I had weapon focus in both weapons, a +2 BAB, and each one had a +1 enhancement bonus. With TWF, that adds up to +8/+8/+8/+8. Since I had +9 initiative, I usually went before whatever we were fighting, so they tended to be FF.

2 (BAB) + 1 (Magic) + 5 (Strength) +1 (WF) = 9

9 - 2 (TWF) - 2 (Flashing Blade) = 5

Using Flashing Blade and Burning Blade would mean you'd have to recover them before using them gain. IF you had adaptive style, which you did not, this would take a full-round action.

That said, with crits you could hit 80 damage if all the attacks hit. Given the -4/-4 penalty, this would be extremely rare.

Note that a raging barbarian with Power Attack using an Greataxe, attacking with a +5 bonus (9 - 4 (PA)), would deal 1d12+15, and on a crit this would be 45+3d12 ~= 62. A falchion would do less, but crit more.

Fates

2013-07-18, 11:18 AM

2 (BAB) + 1 (Magic) + 5 (Strength) +1 (WF) = 9

9 - 2 (TWF) - 2 (Flashing Blade) = 5

Using Flashing Blade and Burning Blade would mean you'd have to recover them before using them gain. IF you had adaptive style, which you did not, this would take a full-round action.

That said, with crits you could hit 80 damage if all the attacks hit.

Yes, yes, math already done, etc etc. The 80-damage full attack was probably a singular event that I've taken to have been the norm. See the above post.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 11:20 AM

Yes, yes, math already done, etc etc. The 80-damage full attack was probably a singular event that I've taken to have been the norm. See the above post.

I was pointing out that your calculated bonuses to hit were too high, and the fact you can't use the manuevers every round or even every other. I also added in the Barbarian bit.

Boci

2013-07-18, 11:20 AM

I don't believe I tried to insinuate that ToB itself was the issue. My point was that one shouldn't introduce new character who not only is capable of being better,

yes, but your character being better seems to have less and less to do with the source book they were using (although new rules leading to greater confusion is a valid point. Still, WBL has nothing to do with TOB).

Also, check the edit on my post for the math. I was apparently exaggerating quite a bit, my apologies. Must be losing my memory or something. :smallredface:

That helps. Still quite a few errors.

EDIT: Okay, let me see if the math works out here.

By level three, I had 20 strength

How? Even if you rolled well you still had 18, at 3rd level you do not have enough money for a stat booster. Did you have a racial bonus to it?

On a full attack, I could make four attacks. I had weapon focus in both weapons, a +2 BAB,

Just checking: this is with tthe flashing sun and speed weapon?

each one had a +1 enhancement bonus.

This is itself more money than your character should have had.

With the usage of burning blade, each attack did an extra 1d8+3 damage (Average 7.5).

1d6+3, not 1d8+3.

Damage with the scimitar was on average 7.5 fire+1 enhancement+1 electric +5 strength, adding up to 14.5. Multiply that by three,

The fire damage would not be multiplied, unless ToB has a specific rule to override the general that extra dice are not multiplied on a crit.

Fates

2013-07-18, 11:24 AM

yes, but your character being better seems to have less and less to do with the source book they were using (although new rules leading to greater confusion is a valid point. Still, WBL has nothing to do with TOB).

That helps. Still quite a few errors.

How? Even if you rolled well you still had 18, at 3rd level you do not have enough money for a stat booster. Did you have a racial bonus to it?

Just checking: this is with tthe flashing sun and speed weapon?

This is itself more money than your character should have had.

1d6+3, not 1d8+3.

The fire damage would not be multiplied, unless ToB has a specific rule to override the general that extra dice are not multiplied on a crit.

It was multiplied by three because there were three attacks involved.

I have already acknowledged that I was wrong- something I don't do often- so I would really appreciate it if people would refrain from further puncturing my ego. No need to kick the dead horse, eh?

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 11:28 AM

I have already acknowledged that I was wrong- something I don't do often- so I would really appreciate it if people would refrain from further puncturing my ego. No need to kick the dead horse, eh?

It's still movin', boys! Don't let that horse crawl away!

More seriously: I had this problem back in middle school. The solution is to change your mind whenever you are wrong and be a bit careful with your statements. In time you'll be right almost all the time.

Boci

2013-07-18, 11:32 AM

It was multiplied by three because there were three attacks involved.

My mistake, sorry

I have already acknowledged that I was wrong- something I don't do often- so I would really appreciate it if people would refrain from further puncturing my ego. No need to kick the dead horse, eh?

Again, sorry. I caught your first edit where you knocked the average damage down to a more exact figure but not your second one.

Manly Man

2013-07-18, 11:35 AM

It's still movin', boys! Don't let that horse crawl away!

Leave Fates alone! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc)

Fates

2013-07-18, 11:41 AM

Thanks, all. Now I remember why I love this site so much- almost everyone here is genuinely kind. :smallbiggrin:*

Now, I think it's time we directed the attention away from me and back to the OP, assuming he's still about.

*Though being compared to a middle schooler and britney spears does worry me a bit. :smallamused:

Rubik

2013-07-18, 11:44 AM

Leave Fates alone! (http://jamiedubs.com/****flickr/data/meme-prints/leave-britney-alone-02.jpg)404 error.

rgrekejin

2013-07-18, 11:58 AM

As a DM, I hate the fact that when it comes to evening out the martial and arcane classes, everyone just throws the ToB at me and says "There, that ought to do it."

The part that bothers me is this - my players who choose to play mundane classes, as opposed to magic users, typically do so because they are my more casual players. They don't have the time to invest in learning a complicated and somewhat counter-intuitive subsystem. If they wanted to do that, they would have been a spellcaster. So when I'm looking for ways to even the power gap between mundane characters and spellcasters, the ToB is useless to me, because the way it brings the mundane characters closer to the level of the casters is by introducing the same complicated subsystem for mundanes that made my players shy away from casters in the first place.

Boci

2013-07-18, 12:02 PM

lord_khaine

2013-07-18, 12:20 PM

AuraTwilight

2013-07-18, 01:29 PM

Killer Angel

2013-07-18, 01:43 PM

A bit aside from the point, I know, but who the hell wants to play 'simple' and 'not complicated' and chooses to play D&D 3.5?

Semi serious answer:
The kind of players that play barbarians to have some fun and build a character in 5 minutes to play a single session.
Or the player that likes to have some flexibility and to cast spells, but chooses to play a sorcerer, to avoid excessive bookeeping.

DeltaEmil

2013-07-18, 01:54 PM

Barbarian is more complicated than a fighter who uses those fighter bonus feats for weapon focus, weapon specialization, blind-fight, power attack, and other garbage feats found in the Player's Handbook 1. You have to manage your rages per day, ability scores, hit points and saving throws suddenly change, you have to remember that the additional hit points you gain while raging is not temporary hit points, you have to remember all the restrictions while you're raging, and you must count the number or rounds you have been raging already.
I found that martial adepts with their maneuvers and stances are a little bit easier to handle than Barbarians. Stances are always on, and most standard action strike maneuvers will only be used once per encounter, since D&D 3.x combat doesn't last too many rounds. The only fiddly part of the martial adepts are their class features, like the Crusader's Steely Resolve (you have to remember that you'll get the damage in the next round), or the Warblade's battle abilities (all those tiny insight bonuses against all those forgettable things).

Shining Wrath

2013-07-18, 01:55 PM

OK, here goes.

The Crusader is a Paladin without a horse.
The Swordsage is a Monk who gets to choose powers from a list of maneuvers rather than getting them as class features.
The Warblade is a Fighter who gets maneuvers instead of feats and some INT based class features.

If Paladin, Monk, and Fighter are not overpowered, then the tweaking into ToB classes does not result in OP classes.

Now, some maneuvers need to be carefully examined. Iron Heart Surge should be discussed with the DM prior to taking it. If the DM takes the time to look over each maneuver prior to the player taking it, the ToB classes are not going to upset any well-run campaign.

Incanur

2013-07-18, 02:04 PM

RFLS

2013-07-18, 02:13 PM

I'm generally okay with ToB - while silly, so is core - but the maneuver White Raven Tactics makes me want to scoop my eyes out with a spoon. It's super broken by RAW because you can use it on yourself and makes no sense regardless.

I mean...yes, but that's been covered repeatedly in this thread. If you just use it on an ally, and you're not spamming it somehow, it's really not that bad. I'd argue that a casting of haste has generally much more of an impact on the outcome of a fight than WRT used to bump one of your ally's initiatives.

DeltaEmil

2013-07-18, 02:14 PM

There are some discussions regarding if White Raven Tactics really can affect the initiator itself, but I'd suggest that it shouldn't, because the effect does not specify that you are also included. Most abilities where you can affect yourself and/or your allies do specify it explicitly that you're also a valid target.

Not that it changes much. That simply means that two martial adepts each with White Raven Tactics will use it on each another.

And it's better to white raven tactic-boost a spellcaster.

Fates

2013-07-18, 02:17 PM

OK, here goes.

The Crusader is a Paladin without a horse.
The Swordsage is a Monk who gets to choose powers from a list of maneuvers rather than getting them as class features.
The Warblade is a Fighter who gets maneuvers instead of feats and some INT based class features.

If Paladin, Monk, and Fighter are not overpowered, then the tweaking into ToB classes does not result in OP classes.

While I generally agree, many people dislike the idea that these classes practically replace their core counterparts, and that there is no equivalent for other largely-mundane fighters like the ranger (wild shape aside), giving them a clear disadvantage. I personally can say that in my experience, playing a LG crusader feels very different from playing a paladin, even if the fluff totally matches, but I just save paladins for low-op campaigns.

How do you all respond to these complaints?

Incanur

2013-07-18, 02:22 PM

Honestly I prefer the flavor of using it on yourself. Using it on an ally just hurts my brain. The initiative system is bad enough to begin with. As a DM, it makes me want to create encounters with a pile of 5th-level initiators plus the BBEG or some other powerful foe. And that's ridiculous. I didn't exactly ban it the last time I DMed 3.5, but I told the players I didn't want to go there.

Drachasor

2013-07-18, 02:27 PM

Boci

2013-07-18, 02:33 PM

While I generally agree, many people dislike the idea that these classes practically replace their core counterparts, and that there is no equivalent for other largely-mundane fighters like the ranger (wild shape aside), giving them a clear disadvantage. I personally can say that in my experience, playing a LG crusader feels very different from playing a paladin, even if the fluff totally matches, but I just save paladins for low-op campaigns.

How do you all respond to these complaints?

"What about the ranger and barbarian?" - Neither of those classes where that unique. A wilderness fighter and a fighter with anger management issues. If you want to play 1, you can dip 2 levels and then take the warblade. Or tweak the warbalde. Its not a perfect slution, but its seems wierd to dislike ToB because it was good but didn't work a miracle.

Crusader feels different to paladin? Good, I've already covered the problems with the paladin aproach to a holy knight.

Fates

2013-07-18, 02:44 PM

"What about the ranger and barbarian?" - Neither of those classes where that unique. A wilderness fighter and a fighter with anger management issues. If you want to play 1, you can dip 2 levels and then take the warblade. Or tweak the warbalde. Its not a perfect slution, but its seems wierd to dislike ToB because it was good but didn't work a miracle.

Crusader feels different to paladin? Good, I've already covered the problems with the paladin approach to a holy knight.

That's as good a solution as any, I suppose.

If a of mine player was hard-set on not using ToB (and many are) I think I would simply find good homebrew/third party fixes for classes that they want to play. For example, I actually quite like the paladin- despite all its faults, I think it can make for a very interesting character- so I tend to use the pathfinder version, which I believe was actually one of the things PF did right, instead. Banning an entire subsystem because it functions well is silly, I agree. There are other ways of making mundanes functional, after all.

RFLS

2013-07-18, 02:46 PM

I'm generally okay with ToB - while silly, so is core - but the maneuver White Raven Tactics makes me want to scoop my eyes out with a spoon. It's super broken by RAW because you can use it on yourself and makes no sense regardless.

Honestly I prefer the flavor of using it on yourself. Using it on an ally just hurts my brain. The initiative system is bad enough to begin with. As a DM, it makes me want to create encounters with a pile of 5th-level initiators plus the BBEG or some other powerful foe. And that's ridiculous. I didn't exactly ban it the last time I DMed 3.5, but I told the players I didn't want to go there.

...what? Those two statements in conjunction with each other make zero sense. Are you saying that you prefer super-broken things? Or...? I can't make those make sense :smallannoyed:

Regardless, WRT is basically intended to be "you shout at your ally to make them do something now, as far as I can tell."

Boci

2013-07-18, 02:53 PM

...what? Those two statements in conjunction with each other make zero sense. Are you saying that you prefer super-broken things? Or...? I can't make those make sense :smallannoyed:

The way I read those two statements is "Its mechanically broken if you can use it on yourself, but makes no sense when you use it on anyone else".

Regardless, WRT is basically intended to be "you shout at your ally to make them do something now, as far as I can tell."

Which is problomatic. Maybe not that much, but definatly a head scratch moment.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-18, 03:10 PM

Boci

2013-07-18, 04:01 PM

That's as good a solution as any, I suppose.

If a of mine player was hard-set on not using ToB (and many are) I think I would simply find good homebrew/third party fixes for classes that they want to play.

Homebrew is another thing 3.5 is good for. So if you want to make a ToB ranger, barbarian, scout or archer, you can find plenty of homebrew disciplines so you don't have to stick to the origional nine and risk treading on
the toes of others.

For example, I actually quite like the paladin- despite all its faults, I think it can make for a very interesting character- so I tend to use the pathfinder version, which I believe was actually one of the things PF did right, instead. Banning an entire subsystem because it functions well is silly, I agree. There are other ways of making mundanes functional, after all.

Agreed. I also find that for people strugling to roleplay because they are new to the idea, the paladin can be a good class because its so specific. Later on their code becomes a straight jacket, but its a good tool in learning, and obvious veterans can also get their own enjoyment out of the class. Mechanically the problem the paladin has is the system mastery and number of splat books it takes to optomize.

mangosta71

2013-07-18, 04:04 PM

RFLS

2013-07-18, 04:11 PM

The biggest issue with using the ToB is that no other books really build on or support it. Of course, that can also be a significant benefit - almost everything you need for a ToB character is contained in a single book. You may occasionally browse another source for a feat, or when you're picking a race for a new character, but that's pretty much it.

The Tome of Battle might be the most new-player-friendly book in 3.5.

Also, that issue is fairly ubiquitous in 3.5 when you step outside Core. I think Warlock might be the most supported class outside of Core, and it shows up in something like 15 books, total.

Shining Wrath

2013-07-18, 04:32 PM

While I generally agree, many people dislike the idea that these classes practically replace their core counterparts, and that there is no equivalent for other largely-mundane fighters like the ranger (wild shape aside), giving them a clear disadvantage. I personally can say that in my experience, playing a LG crusader feels very different from playing a paladin, even if the fluff totally matches, but I just save paladins for low-op campaigns.

How do you all respond to these complaints?

I'd say Paladins are not Crusaders, and different people value different things. But a Crusader is not that much better than a Paladin.
If you think there should be a ToB equivalent to a Ranger, I suggest you start homebrewing. That they didn't upgrade everything doesn't make it wrong to upgrade some things.

Really, there are 3 base classes because there are 3 mental abilities: INT, WIS, CHR.
INT ==> Warblade.
WIS ==> Swordsage.
CHR ==> Crusader.

Monks were already WIS based melee. Paladins were already CHR based melee.

Fighters ... were not particularly INT based, in fact the big dumb fighter is a trope. The Warblade is the class that really separates from the PHB classes.

Roy should be a Warblade.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-18, 04:41 PM

Roy should be a Warblade.

Like roy's dad would shell out for a phd.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-18, 04:43 PM

Like roy's dad would shell out for a phd.

That didn't involve the class title 'wizard' somewhere in his future, at any rate...

Fates

2013-07-18, 04:43 PM

I'd say Paladins are not Crusaders, and different people value different things. But a Crusader is not that much better than a Paladin.
If you think there should be a ToB equivalent to a Ranger, I suggest you start homebrewing. That they didn't upgrade everything doesn't make it wrong to upgrade some things.

Really, there are 3 base classes because there are 3 mental abilities: INT, WIS, CHR.
INT ==> Warblade.
WIS ==> Swordsage.
CHR ==> Crusader.

Monks were already WIS based melee. Paladins were already CHR based melee.

Fighters ... were not particularly INT based, in fact the big dumb fighter is a trope. The Warblade is the class that really separates from the PHB classes.

Roy should be a Warblade.

Those are all very good points. Keep in mind, I wasn't presenting my own opinions, just arguments against ToB that I see pretty often.

And indeed he should. Even barbarian would be better suited for his shtick, really. Fighters make for some of the worst skillful warriors out there.

Rubik

2013-07-18, 04:47 PM

Snowbluff

2013-07-18, 05:30 PM

While there's probably something to the SS replaces monk comparison, and there -may- be something to the warblade replaces fighter comparison (I disagree), the crusader replaces paladin comparison is bull.

We did a mathematical comparison in a book restricted environment (paladin's op ceiling is fantastically higher than crusader's, so more books makes it even less true). Take a look here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13890255) The mathematical discussion starts on post 135 and continues nearly to the end of the thread.

How fallacious. It acts as though the only option a Crusader has is to use a maneuver to attack, rather than allowing it use of a full attack.

You do know that a lot of the best maneuvers for a crusader are not tied to attacking an enemy, right?

Sure, a paladin can polymorph in some instances, but a crusader operating with a similiar build using non-specific material to either will win quite easily. Mostly because the best option for both is charging, which crusader has quite a few bonuses for.

137beth

2013-07-18, 06:22 PM

And the ToB classes shouldn't have to apologize for not being terrible.
They do if a particular game is trying to balance to T4, then ToB would actually be overpowered:smalltongue:...

of course then the ranger and barbarian wouldn't actually need an update at all, so...

Incanur

2013-07-18, 08:18 PM

The way I read those two statements is "Its mechanically broken if you can use it on yourself, but makes no sense when you use it on anyone else".

Which is problomatic. Maybe not that much, but definatly a head scratch moment.

Exactly. The favor of shouting at an ally to make them act in double time doesn't work for me. By contrast, I can dig martial skill enabling a burst of incredible speed. But Time Stands Still isn't supposed to be a 3rd-level maneuver.

Regardless, on the whole I'm okay with ToB. It's certainly no more problematic or silly than anything else 3.x. The fact that warblades and swordsages only get melee weapon proficiency annoys me, but multiclassing quickly resolves that issue.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-18, 09:01 PM

How fallacious. It acts as though the only option a Crusader has is to use a maneuver to attack, rather than allowing it use of a full attack.No, it doesn't. If you'd read in detail then you'd realize that the paladin and crusader's full attacks in those calculations would be nearly identical.

You do know that a lot of the best maneuvers for a crusader are not tied to attacking an enemy, right?I'm assuming you're talking about white raven boosts to allies? In that case the comparison was paladin buffing spells. There's parity there too. The crusader buffs are flashier but they're not significantly more or less substantial.

Sure, a paladin can polymorph in some instances, but a crusader operating with a similiar build using non-specific material to either will win quite easily. Mostly because the best option for both is charging, which crusader has quite a few bonuses for.

And here's where I -know- you didn't read in detail because the comparison didn't include champions of valor or anything else outside of ToB and Core.

It was a comparison of the classes themselves, not the optimization potential of the classes (which the paladin wins handily; peaking at the top of T3), and not a comparison of specific builds (everything was kept intentionally generic so that only the class features would actually matter.)

Snowbluff

2013-07-18, 10:10 PM

The problem is that paladin would suck, then. Using generic equipment and feats, paladin cannot perform any role competently. Crusader is relatively free from the croon constraints a paladin is.

Paladin buffs? Pathetic! Without further improvement the buffs are worthless and under CL. The paladin is limited to a dozen castings a day, and only at standard actions.

Crusader, on the other hand, is rather hard to top with the ability to alter initiative and to lead a group into a deadly charge.

Crusader was examined in an incompetent manner if the paladin was able to win out before alteration.

And then your comment about me examining the thread... I was present in the proceedings and notes your attrocious use if double standards. I am normally pro paladin, but one thing is evident with the class. It is a failure and a result of bad design. Without substantial support and a railroaded build, it is rather poor.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-18, 11:13 PM

I never said paladin was better.

My entire point, then and now, is that the two are much, much closer in overall ability than is generally accepted.

Also, what double standards?

We eliminated as many of the variables as we could by giving them the same ability scores and items and not even assigning a race then compared the classes' actual features as best we could.

How is -that- anything resembling a double standard?

As for the individual comments;

Initiative alteration is something -anyone- can do, they're called the ready and delay actions. Also, using WRT, a maneuver that many see as dramatically overpowered (though I admit that's generally a misconception with the maneuver simply being pretty good) as an example of what's better about the crusader seems dicey at best. Besides, the paladin's mount gives that -player- two sets of actions -every- turn.

Speaking of mounts, they completely invalidate your charging comment. A typical party -may- have two melee characters, including the crusader, to take advantage of the various "we all charge at once" maneuvers. The paladin's doing double damage by using a lance on the back of his mount. Net result: another tie.

As for paladin buffs in general, let's actually look at them, shall we? Let's even focus on the ones that aren't personal.

Endure elements: keep the party alive in excessively hot/cold environments. Let's see a crusader manage that, hmm.

Protection from Chaos/Evil: +2 deflection against creatures of an alignment the party is likely to face and immunity to mind-screw. The utility here is obviously more important than the numeric bonus, but 10% less likely to be hit is nothing to turn up your nose at.

Enhancers for str, cha, and wisdom: +2 to attack, will saves, or <insert miscelaneous class feature>. Not great, but a real staple and inarguably useful though not necessarily to the class that has that ability as its primary.

Resist energy: here's some direct combat utility, and half the caster level is still 2/3 as good as a full caster, given the break-points.

Shield other: here's a real winner. Share with the special mount for an effective boat-load of hp and tanking ability that a crusader will nod his head in appritiation of. Use on squishier allies because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (light wounds).

magic circle: completely negate enemy summons.

Death ward: kinda self explanatory.

Holy sword: GMW but better.

Then as now, core only. Like I said, they're not nearly as flashy, but they're nevertheless useful. Self buffs only make it better, nevermind the obvious -out of combat- utility that a crusader utterly lacks in his maneuver selection.

Snowbluff

2013-07-18, 11:37 PM

Well, there was a discussion about the Paladin using maneuvers, and it was point that a crusader could use wants with a smaller investment. Which you objected to.

Also, Holy Sword is a personal buff. It ceases to function a round after the weapon leaves your hand. GMW is better because it has a duration that allows it to function.

Now, using your own metric of usefulness, namely "You can get a crown for that."

Protection from Evil: Useless unless you are facing summoned creatures or annoying charmers. Items of deflection are more useful in general.

Enhancement Spells: Item are better. These spells do not stack with items people pick up regularly, and they waste an action.

Resist Energy: Again, items. Armor Enhancements, mostly

Shield Other: Actually very good, but should not be cast on your mount.

Magic Circle: See protection from evil.

Deathward: YOU ARE LEVEL 16 WHEN YOU GET THIS WHERE IS YOUR SOUL FIRE?! I am kind of insulted by this one. Should be much lower level.

Finally, all of these spells are available through wands, which are a much better source of casting than the paladin's baseline ability. The Paladin baseline ability amount to incredibly redundant spells.

As for the base mount, it has hooves, which are useless for using wands. If you are riding it, which is pretty much all it is good for at that HD, you do not get a separate set of actions.

Darth Stabber

2013-07-19, 12:00 AM

Battle blessing is a redeeming feat for paladins, and it brings them closer to crusader in terms of combat performance, because without it a paladin is spending standard actions on buffs, not killing things. That was an important feature in crusader's favor, as none of their abilities really require you give up on doing your turn on prep like that. Given the greater parity between classes that was attempted in late 3.5, it's a bit hard to look at a good paladin without that. That being said, paladins are still incapable of the "infinite out of combat healing lumberjack" trick that certain readings of crusader abilities allow.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 12:12 AM

Well, there was a discussion about the Paladin using maneuvers, and it was point that a crusader could use wants with a smaller investment. Which you objected to.I'm assuming that was supposed to be wands?

I object, then and now, because it's -not- the same level of investment. Being able to reliably use wands means a feat or class level to get UMD for a class skill, a skill point or two each level until your modifier reaches +19, and gold on both the wands themselves and possibly items to boost UMD -or- a one level dip in a spellcasting class. Since class dips would mean you're no longer comparing classes but comparing builds, that means a feat, skill points, and gold.

A paladin can spend a feat or two -or- he can spend some gold on a CotWR; that's it. There's also no item to grant lay-on-hands, aura of courage or divine grace.

Also, Holy Sword is a personal buff. It ceases to function a round after the weapon leaves your hand. GMW is better because it has a duration that allows it to function.I could argue that the spell says "weapon touched" in the target line and that the weapon can't leave your hand if it was never in-hand for the paladin to begin with (making the "you" in the spell's description relative to the wielder holding the weapon when the spell was cast), but I'll cede the point.

Now, using your own metric of usefulness, namely "You can get a crown for that." This is an oversimplification of my position and, consequently, an inaccurate representation of what I was saying, but let's see.

Protection from Evil: Useless unless you are facing summoned creatures or annoying charmers. Items of deflection are more useful in general.While a ring of protection -is- a better option, it costs enough gold that this spell is still relevant at lower levels and it's benefit applies to attacks from -all- evil creatures, not just summons. The utility portion doesn't become obsolete until magic circle comes online.

Enhancement Spells: Item are better. These spells do not stack with items people pick up regularly, and they waste an action.They have a duration long enough to pre-buff with so whether they waste an action is situational. I can't deny that an item is better, but that's why there was a caveat in the statement. How often do you see a rogue or a wizard sporting a pariapt of wisdom or a belt of giant's strength? How often is it the most powerful one they could reasonably afford at their level (e.g. just as powerful as the item enhancing their primary ability) 10% could easily be the difference between making and failing a will save and damage boosts are always welcome. I'll admit that eagle's splendor is more than a little swingy depending on who it's aimed at.

Resist Energy: Again, items. Armor Enhancements, mostlyArmor enhancements are expensive. Part of optimization is being thrifty in your GP investments and if the paladin can provide this effect for free you can spend the gold on something more interesting. Also, items are usually fixed in the element they resist, the spell can be adjusted to the situation.

Shield Other: Actually very good, but should not be cast on your mount.I disagree. A bit more detail might help you understand why. The paladin casts shield other such that he takes half the damage his delivered to his mount, he uses share spells to simultaneously make his mount take half the damage delivered to him. This effectively pools their hit points such that as long as they're within 5ft of each other they have a pool of HP's equal to twice the HP's of whichever has the lower value. E.g. the paladin has 50hp and the mount has 45. Together they can absorb 90hps worth of damage before the mount drops. Add in the fact that the paladin can negate one hit on the mount each round if he takes mounted combat and you get a seriously durable setup.

Magic Circle: See protection from evil. The utility of "can't be mind-screwed" never becomes obsolete and enemy summons are completely negated as anything but obstacles to go around.

Deathward: YOU ARE LEVEL 16 WHEN YOU GET THIS WHERE IS YOUR SOUL FIRE?! I am kind of insulted by this one. Should be much lower level. Nevertheless, immunity to death effects is something that's good to have and it's something the crusader can't provide. Just because it would be better earlier doesn't invalidate it as useful. Also, see my comment on resist energy.

Finally, all of these spells are available through wands, which are a much better source of casting than the paladin's baseline ability. The Paladin baseline ability amount to incredibly redundant spells.The first portion is just plain false. Wands are manufactured at -minimum- caster level by default and 3rd and 4th level wands are generally disregarded as excessively expensive. Nevermind that the paladin can use these wands without having to make a skill check and with no investment other than the gold itself.

For the last line, redundant to what, exactly? The cleric or wizard you can't guarantee will be there or that might learn other spells since you've got these bases covered? The expensive items that you don't have to buy because the paladin can provide those effects for free?

A thing can't be redundant in a vaccum and redundancy applies to both of the things that are redundant not just the one you prefer.

As for the base mount, it has hooves, which are useless for using wands. If you are riding it, which is pretty much all it is good for at that HD, you do not get a separate set of actions.

A mount always has its own set of actions and hooves are still an attack. Nevermind that war-trained horses and ponies have a bite attack as well, making them elligable to use mouth-pick weapons if such are available. Then, of course, there are non-horse mounts as described in the DMG. They're not guaranteed to be available but when they are they're an awesome power-boost to the paladin for only a bit of RP investment.

Edit: Fun detail I nearly forgot, most of those items you're talking about have these spells as prerequisites, meaning that a paladin, were he so inclined, could pick up the appropriate crafting feat and get them for half their market value.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 12:35 AM

I'm assuming that was supposed to be wands?

I object, then and now, because it's -not- the same level of investment. Being able to reliably use wands means a feat or class level to get UMD for a class skill, a skill point or two each level until your modifier reaches +19, and gold on both the wands themselves and possibly items to boost UMD -or- a one level dip in a spellcasting class. Since class dips would mean you're no longer comparing classes but comparing builds, that means a feat, skill points, and gold. How much could a Crusader do with the 2 feats the Paladin is using to get maneuvers?

The old Cosmopolitan Feat or an optional feat in the UA could give it as a class skill outright. Skills points are worth less than Feats, and sometime even gp.

A paladin can spend a feat or two -or- he can spend some gold on a CotWR; that's it. There's also no item to grant lay-on-hands, aura of courage or divine grace. LoH is healing, and not very good healing. Healing is useless in combat most of the time, so the item to grant this WOULD BE ANY HEALING ITEM IN THE GAME.

Aura of Courage. Items to protect against Mind Affecting are common, and sometimes consider vital.

Divine Grace is the only outlier, but it's a source of MAD. For the 2 Feats and the 3000 gp (The cost of an awesome novice item, or an otyugh hole) Crusader can have Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and the fortitude one.

I could argue that the spell says "weapon touched" in the target line and that the weapon can't leave your hand if it was never in-hand for the paladin to begin with (making the "you" in the spell's description relative to the wielder holding the weapon when the spell was cast), but I'll cede the point. Just a heads up.

This is an oversimplification of my position and, consequently, an inaccurate representation of what I was saying, but let's see.
If it were up to me, no items would be used, but you brought up the novice items. They are pretty awesome. An easy source of a bunch of useful abilities.

The first portion is just plain false. Wands are manufactured at -minimum- caster level by default and 3rd and 4th level wands are generally disregarded as excessively expensive. Nevermind that the paladin can use these wands without having to make a skill check and with no investment other than the gold itself. And the cost of their IMMORTAL SOULS!

But the cost is still high, as you pointed out, and they don't have a very good list. UMD is a better option for both classes.

For the last line, redundant to what, exactly? The cleric or wizard you can't guarantee will be there or that might learn other spells since you've got these bases covered? The expensive items that you don't have to buy because the paladin can provide those effects for free?
He can't. He's a waste of space if he is providing these effects. They are redundant because the gear someone is normally carrying by the time he can cast the corresponding spell has already covered the area. If it has not

A mount always has its own set of actions and hooves are still an attack. Nevermind that war-trained horses and ponies have a bite attack as well, making them elligable to use mouth-pick weapons if such are available. Then, of course, there are non-horse mounts as described in the DMG. They're not guaranteed to be available but when they are they're an awesome power-boost to the paladin for only a bit of RP investment.
Bite? Mouth Pick? Kelb, it has 10 HD at level 20, and 3/4 BaB. :smallfrown:

The other mounts would be a nice addition. I think they should be always available. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 01:08 AM

How much could a Crusader do with the 2 feats the Paladin is using to get maneuvers?Not much, really. As you point out in the next box, he could get part of what he needs to use wands or perhaps some other miscelaneous bonus. Both classes only get 7 (8 if they're human) and most of the good feat chains will take up more than half of that.

The old Cosmopolitan Feat or an optional feat in the UA could give it as a class skill outright. Skills points are worth less than Feats, and sometime even gp.It's still skill points that the paladin doesn't have to give up when trying to emulate the crusader. A -lot- more gold too.

LoH is healing, and not very good healing. Healing is useless in combat most of the time, so the item to grant this WOULD BE ANY HEALING ITEM IN THE GAME.It's still a free supplement to whatever healing items the group uses that can negate the waste of a charge that would overfill the target's HP's. It was also pointed out to me that it can be dumped entirely into an undead in one action along with a smite to do quite a bit of damage once a day. Nevermind it becomes a resource to be used when certain other options are added to the game, such as healing status ailments or delivering damage, though this pushes a bit past the boundary of core + ToB.

Aura of Courage. Items to protect against Mind Affecting are common, and sometimes consider vital.Again, free is free. It's only fear but protection from evil covers the other two major mind-affecting problems (charms and compulsions).

Divine Grace is the only outlier, but it's a source of MAD. For the 2 Feats and the 3000 gp (The cost of an awesome novice item, or an otyugh hole) Crusader can have Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and the fortitude one.It's great fortitude and they're only +2. A paladin can easily make +5 by mid to late game and can get a temporary 2 point boost with eagle's splendor for free if he doesn't have a cloak of charisma yet.

If it were up to me, no items would be used, but you brought up the novice items. They are pretty awesome. An easy source of a bunch of useful abilities.You can't realistically ignore the baseline items we -did- include in the actuall mathematical comparisons. The fact that it's easier for a paladin to mimic a crusader than vice-versa (and impossible for the crusader to mimic the paladin under the restrictions we were using) was really a fairly minor point toward the end of the discussion anyway.

And the cost of their IMMORTAL SOULS!

But the cost is still high, as you pointed out, and they don't have a very good list. UMD is a better option for both classes.Those are from the core-only list. Expanded by just the spell compendium makes it a -lot- better. It becomes ridiculous when you also add champions of valor. The paladin pulls -way- ahead when you actually light an optimization fire under his butt.

He can't. He's a waste of space if he is providing these effects. They are redundant because the gear someone is normally carrying by the time he can cast the corresponding spell has already covered the area.I find the assumption that these items will definitely be had questionable. You don't generally spend gold on an effect unless you -know- you're going to need it, precisely because gold is a limited, relatively non-renewable resource (wbl is a thing). Late is also relative to when you actually -do- need the effect, as in you don't need soulfire armor unless you expect to be going up against creatures with death effects, and late is better than not at all, as in the paladin can cast the spell if he had it prepared or can prepare it tomorrow vs having to go back to the nearest major city to buy the effect which can take several days or more unless there's someone in the party with long-range teleportation, something you, once again, cannot guarantee.

Bite? Mouth Pick? Kelb, it has 10 HD at level 20, and 3/4 BaB. :smallfrown:

The other mounts would be a nice addition. I think they should be always available. Unfortunately that is not the case.

It's 12 and they keep up okay until about level 16 or so. It -is- unfortunate that they decided not to add one more bar to that table though. Either way it's a 12HD creature with an angry holy man on its back that can negate one hit each round and can be taking half its damage for it to boot. Those odds don't seem all that bad really, particularly when you realize the paladin can share divine power with it.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 01:23 AM

Not much, really. As you point out in the next box, he could get part of what he needs to use wands or perhaps some other miscelaneous bonus. Both classes only get 7 (8 if they're human) and most of the good feat chains will take up more than half of that.
So Paladin is not using feats pretending it's something it is not?

It's still skill points that the paladin doesn't have to give up when trying to emulate the crusader. A -lot- more gold too.
It's still a free supplement to whatever healing items the group uses that can negate the waste of a charge that would overfill the target's HP's. It was also pointed out to me that it can be dumped entirely into an undead in one action along with a smite to do quite a bit of damage once a day. Nevermind it becomes a resource to be used when certain other options are added to the game, such as healing status ailments or delivering damage, though this pushes a bit past the boundary of core + ToB. Kelb, read what you said about arming the mount. You suggested to give it a mouthpick weapon. Double standard.

Not to mention crusader can easily cover the amount healed in a from LoH. The versus undead damage is stupidly situational as well.

Again, free is free. It's only fear but protection from evil covers the other two major mind-affecting problems (charms and compulsions).
Standard actions are worth their weight in gp.

It's great fortitude and they're only +2. A paladin can easily make +5 by mid to late game and can get a temporary 2 point boost with eagle's splendor for free if he doesn't have a cloak of charisma yet. Double standard. I thought items were too expensive and rare.

You can't realistically ignore the baseline items we -did- include in the actuall mathematical comparisons. The fact that it's easier for a paladin to mimic a crusader than vice-versa (and impossible for the crusader to mimic the paladin under the restrictions we were using) was really a fairly minor point toward the end of the discussion anyway. To mimic a crusader would also require to have 9th level maneuvers and recovery independent of actions. Crusader has no need to mimic the weaker class, because the class does very little, as illustrated above.

GP is cheaper than feats.

Those are from the core-only list. Expanded by just the spell compendium makes it a -lot- better. It becomes ridiculous when you also add champions of valor. The paladin pulls -way- ahead when you actually light an optimization fire under his butt. Except both classes would be better off if they just grabbed some wands.

I find the assumption that these items will definitely be had questionable. You don't generally spend gold on an effect unless you -know- you're going to need it, precisely because gold is a limited, relatively non-renewable resource (wbl is a thing). Late is also relative to when you actually -do- need the effect, as in you don't need soulfire armor unless you expect to be going up against creatures with death effects, and late is better than not at all, as in the paladin can cast the spell if he had it prepared or can prepare it tomorrow vs having to go back to the nearest major city to buy the effect which can take several days or more unless there's someone in the party with long-range teleportation, something you, once again, cannot guarantee.

If you have a Cleric or Druid, you had the ability for a long time already.

A Paladin would would have to have the spell prepared as well. He would not have enough slots to cover the party. The duration is too short. The action is too long without battle blessing, and even too long then.

It's 12 and they keep up okay until about level 16 or so. It -is- unfortunate that they decided not to add one more bar to that table though. Either way it's a 12HD creature with an angry holy man on its back that can negate one hit each round and can be taking half its damage for it to boot. Those odds don't seem all that bad really, particularly when you realize the paladin can share divine power with it.
Well, it's 10 if you want it to go *everywhere* you can.

So then it's to hit is still about the monk level, right?

eggynack

2013-07-19, 01:33 AM

The mount seems like a bit of a non-issue. You can just buy a horse, if you need a horse to horse about. I don't think that crusaders even like horsing about that much, but it's not like the lack of a special mount is going to kill potential mount plans. The fact that the paladin mount isn't nearly as expendable as I'd like is another problem. Mount based ACF's are occasionally nice, but the mount itself doesn't seem particularly pertinent. Ultimately, I think that the only important comparison here is between spells and maneuvers. By my understanding, it's a bit of an either or between sword of the arcane order and battle blessing, and I'm not sure which is better. Either way, it doesn't seem more powerful than a crusader. I don't think that a paladin overshadows crusaders at high optimization levels, and I definitely don't think that they do so to the extent that there isn't even a question.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 01:42 AM

eggynack

2013-07-19, 01:54 AM

Well, the Special Mount isn't as squishy as your average horse. It can be rather handy.

The Spelled out Pally can polymorph , etc. They are much better that way. Battle Blessing Probably doesn't work with the Wizard spells, but the ones a paladin would want to pick up are usually swift action spells.
The special mount is half un-squishy, and half super squishy. Unlike the animal companion, you can't just pick up a new one the next day if an enemy barbarian decides that today is the day to try out his new shock trooper build. Regular horses die more often, but they're expendable enough that it doesn't matter much. You're more likely to lose the horse on any given day, but each loss of a special mount is like losing a whole pile of regular mounts. My point, ultimately, is that there's a parity there, and parity with things you can buy relatively cheaply isn't something I'd hang my whole build on.

Spells are very nice, and they seem like the only thing that can push the paladin to crusader level. At the rate you get them, it just doesn't seem like enough to me. Just doing another comparison point, the bard is probably a better caster than an optimized paladin, owing fully to their increased rate of spell access. Moreover, they're just at tier three, which is about crusader level, and not a super tier three either. Just a regular tier three. Paladin might be able to hit tier three at high optimization levels, but I don't think that they hit it so hard that they leave crusaders in the dust. Adepts get polymorph too, and they get it two levels earlier. It's probably not as good on the adept, but it's a thing to consider. This is especially true because adepts are full of the coolest of beans.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 02:11 AM

So Paladin is not using feats pretending it's something it is not?He doesn't have to, no. Spending a feat on WRT at level 12 is just a good investment and there are maybe one or two more that'd also be good, but these are ultimately just supplementary to the normal paladin schtick. If you really want to be both that's what RKV is for.

Kelb, read what you said about arming the mount. You suggested to give it a mouthpick weapon. Double standard.I said it was an option, I didn't say its one that should definitely be taken. It's also a pretty solid return on investment until pretty late in the game, being like TWF except superior in every conceivable way up until about level 16 or so. If you're not putting at least -some- gear on the mount then you really should just trade it out for an ACF, but that is, once again, outside the scope of the original comparison and I reaffirmed that in the quoted post.

Not to mention crusader can easily cover the amount healed in a from LoH. The versus undead damage is stupidly situational as well. The concensus we ultimately came to is that the crusader had better in-combat healing and the paladin had better out-of-combat healing. This is really undeniable unless you let a crusader get away with attacking random objects to trigger martial spirit.

Standard actions are worth their weight in gp.In combat. Since protection from evil's duration is long enough for pre-buffing it only costs in-combat actions when fighting on the defensive, as opposed to proactively seeking an enemy.

Double standard. I thought items were too expensive and rare. Not what I said at all. Not even close, really. What I said, and continue to say, is that it's important to avoid spending money when you don't have to. Smite evil is a primary class feature for the paladin and it's a one of several charisma based ones. It's unreasonable to assume he won't eventually seek out a cloak of charisma. You'll also note that I -did- include a zero cost option there in eagle's splendor; a decent pre-fight buff if you don't have the cloak yet.

To mimic a crusader would also require to have 9th level maneuvers and recovery independent of actions.That's not to mimic it, that's to outright replace it; which is explicitly -not- what I'm trying to convey. Mimicry, in this case, is to create a deliberate similarity that doesn't exist on its own; specifically by arranging for the paladin to have maneuvers, the only thing it doesn't already share with the crusader to a greater or lesser extent.
Crusader has no need to mimic the weaker class, because the class does very little, as illustrated above.The class does plenty. You haven't conclusively disproven -any- of the points I've made.

GP is cheaper than feats. Good thing the paladin can get a handful of maneuvers with just gold if he wants then, ain't it.

Except both classes would be better off if they just grabbed some wands.That's part of the problem. Crusaders can't "just grab some wands." They have to invest at least one feat and skill points into being able to use them first. A paladin doesn't have that problem -and- he can just grab some maneuvers via CotWR.

If you have a Cleric or Druid, you had the ability for a long time already.Now you're assuming party make-up. This has nothing at all to do with comparing paladins and crusaders.

A Paladin would would have to have the spell prepared as well. He would not have enough slots to cover the party. The duration is too short. The action is too long without battle blessing, and even too long then. 1 minute per level is more than long enough for one battle and, as you like to keep pointing out, it's available in wand form. The paladin could've easily picked it up long before he was able to cast it natively and could've partnered up with a crafter to make it before this adventure and can sell it after. If he has a bonus slot and a couple 4th level pearls of power he can even simply cast it himself. One wand is cheaper and more liquid than soulfire armor for one person and will last through 12 battles with a 4-man party.

Worst case: they wait a day, which gives any other prepped casters that -may- be in the party time to rearange their spells too, and casts it on the most vulnerable member of the party or the one most important to defeating the foe. Even if it's not the best possible option it's still better than nothing.

Well, it's 10 if you want it to go *everywhere* you can.

So then it's to hit is still about the monk level, right?

I've always found the assumption that a large creature can't get into most dungeons to be at odds with the fact it's usually assumed the beat-sticks will be under enlarge person during most fights if not permanently. Its also an assumption that the paladin is of a small race.

I'll continue to assume the celestial warhorse until I get something a bit more substantial to assume otherwise.

As for share spell used with divine power it -can- be interpretted to give the mount BAB equal to its master's character level if the master is casting it on himself and sharing the effect with the mount, rather than casting the spell on the mount directly. That's a bit cheesy though.

Otherwise, at +12 it's just slightly below -any- medium base attack class at that level but still above the BAB of a poor base attack class. Hit it with bull's strength or give it a belt of giant's strength for decent-ish attack bonus even at level 20.

Gwendol

2013-07-19, 03:33 AM

I think a fully optimized paladin is quite a bit above the crusader in power and versatility. Spells do that. Furthermore, I thought this was a fairly general conclusion?

eggynack

2013-07-19, 03:48 AM

I think a fully optimized paladin is quite a bit above the crusader in power and versatility. Spells do that. Furthermore, I thought this was a fairly general conclusion?
The progression seems a bit on the slow side for me to accept that as a forgone conclusion. What we're really comparing here, when you strip away all of the discussion of mounts versus mettle, is whether casting with a paladin progression is better than maneuvers with a crusader progression. If we're going fully optimized, then the comparison is between a wizard on a paladin progression and body, and a crusader. The other differences honestly seem pretty marginal to me. Wizard casting is certainly great, but I'm not sure if it's as good as crusader maneuvering when you're casting first level spells at 4th, 2nd level spells at 8th, 3rd level spells at 11th, and 4th level spells at 14th. You're also not exactly rocking standard caster levels of endurance where spells are concerned, so that might be a problem as well.

Just on a surface level, I'd figure that crusaders would be significantly better at early and middle levels, but at some point sheer spell power eclipses them. I don't have any specific guesses as to when that eclipse happens, but it's certainly not at level one, and it's probably not at level four. The next break point is level 8, and that's where the comparison might get interesting. 2nd level spells get pretty powerful, but if they're more or less powerful than 4th level maneuvers, I'm not sure. There would have to be some real comparison tests, but it's not nearly as cut and dry as you're indicating.

Thespianus

2013-07-19, 04:04 AM

To sidestep the Paladin/Crusader-discussion, the one thing I don't like about ToB is the lack of Ranged Weapon support. It gives a ton of cool, well-needed abilities to melee classes, but zero (or near-zero) support to a Ranged Weapon user ( Thrown Weapons get some love, but no love for the classics: longbows, crossbows, slings )

I know there are good Homebrew options, but.. Well, they are Homebrew, and not Official.

This is - ofcourse - not a reason for a DM to ban ToB, but it is the one single thing I don't like about ToB. (Maybe add the Crusader "you get random maneuvers available to you in an encounter" system to that list, as well)

Gwendol

2013-07-19, 06:11 AM

On ToB: yes, the lack for support of ranged combat is surprising and unfortunate. Maybe they thought Zen Archery was enough?

Eggynack, you are omitting turn undead fueled buffs or metamagic, and that quite a few of the more lackluster paladin abilities can be traded for arguably more potent ones. I don't want to claim a huge gap, but the paladin edges ahead if fully optimized.

Boci

2013-07-19, 06:22 AM

On ToB: yes, the lack for support of ranged combat is surprising and unfortunate. Maybe they thought Zen Archery was enough?

More likely there just wasn't enough room. Since characters need to pretty much specialize in melee or archery, a single ranged disicpline would not have been enough. They probably would have needed at least 3.

eggynack

2013-07-19, 06:32 AM

Eggynack, you are omitting turn undead fueled buffs or metamagic, and that quite a few of the more lackluster paladin abilities can be traded for arguably more potent ones. I don't want to claim a huge gap, but the paladin edges ahead if fully optimized.
It's fair to say that not considering turn undead is a mistake, but I think there are things you're not considering when you claim the paladin edges ahead. In particular, I think that level based analysis is a valid field of inquiry. For example, what edge does the paladin have over the crusader from levels one through three? I'd say that when you subtract casting entirely, the crusader is a clear victor. That's just the first level range though, and likely the one that favors the crusader the most. I've taken a look at some of the paladin ACF's, and I just don't think there are any that make so much of a difference that it's worth tossing the paladin up a power level. They get some nifty stuff, but none of it is unequivocally great.

Thus, I think there are two things that need to be analyzed. The first is the question of which level range grants the paladin an edge. The things you've mentioned are nice, but I doubt they're enough to tip the scales at every level range. The second is the question of how the game changes if we look at a fully optimized crusader. I've heard that the marginal benefit of optimization is low, but there might be enough there to get something going. Ultimately, I'd say that the victor of this contest is dependent on a number of factors, and isn't nearly as cut and dry as a strict superiority. For example, I'm pretty sure that crusaders get an additional edge in a melee heavy party, even with the addition of paladin based inspire courage optimization. A melee heavy party might even be most parties, because a good number of casting classes gain some measure of melee ability. It's all rather complicated, I suspect.

Qwertystop

2013-07-19, 07:01 AM

How about you two take this to another thread and let this one go back to it's topic?

rgrekejin

2013-07-19, 07:48 AM

The problem here is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You can't. Either the gap between melee and casters stays the same, or melee becomes more complicated. Nowe I'm not saying ToB is the only way to even the gap, but reguardless of how it is done, a certain level of extra complexity for the martial classes is inevitable.

I think that the assumption that complexity always equals power is a fallacy. I mean, Truenamers and the Incarnum classes are complex, but not incredibly powerful. Things with Divine Ranks are incredibly powerful, but not very complicated.

A bit aside from the point, I know, but who the hell wants to play 'simple' and 'not complicated' and chooses to play D&D 3.5?

As with all things, there are gradations of complexity. The basics of the game are the same for all classes, but some people balk at having to learn layer after layer of stuff on top of it. It is what it is.

eggynack

2013-07-19, 07:56 AM

I think that the assumption that complexity always equals power is a fallacy. I mean, Truenamers and the Incarnum classes are complex, but not incredibly powerful. Things with Divine Ranks are incredibly powerful, but not very complicated.
I think that the point he's making isn't that complexity and power come at a one to one ratio. Rather, he's saying that if you want power in this game, you have to have more options than hitting stuff, and hitting stuff with a sweeping flourish. He didn't say that everything complex is powerful, and saying that he did is actually fallacious in and of itself. What he said, and I agree with him on this, is that in order to be powerful, you must be more complex than a fighter. Sure, you could have a class that just has the single ability, "Win the game," and that would be more powerful than a wizard, and less complicated than a fighter, but that's not the game we're playing. In this game, options are far more valuable than anything else, and if you have options then you have to choose between options. The person he was arguing against was saying that warblades are too complicated, so that's the bar of complexity you're working against here.

Boci

2013-07-19, 08:16 AM

I was going to elaborate, but eggynack did so better than I could have.

nyarlathotep

2013-07-19, 08:58 AM

I'd add that ToB isn't perfect in this, but trying to do a perfect system would be far more complicated and not worth the effort. Imagine having A->B->C->D combat routines, but transitions are more like decision trees and it changes depending on what the enemy does.

Another ToB advantage is that at higher levels it generally speeds up gameplay since you aren't making as many full attacks.

As someone who likes tome of battle I think that this is a fantastic idea and shouuld be expanded upon in homebrew. A system where you have a bunch of moves defined by previous moves and where your opponent is in relation to you could lend itself to a lot of strategy. As you level up your flexibility in what move can transition into another move increases.

Drachasor

2013-07-19, 09:20 AM

As someone who likes tome of battle I think that this is a fantastic idea and shouuld be expanded upon in homebrew. A system where you have a bunch of moves defined by previous moves and where your opponent is in relation to you could lend itself to a lot of strategy. As you level up your flexibility in what move can transition into another move increases.

I wouldn't want to make such a system, because it would be too labyrinthine to be playable, imho.

Lord Haart

2013-07-19, 11:29 AM

Well, i've been blessed to not run into any anti-TOB GMs myself (well, perhaps i had but broke up with them on principality before the game started, i don't remember), although my friend Hyena had recounted to me a story of a DM who was not only a stupid idiot (judging by direct quotes of his posts), but strongly on the "Mundanes can't do whatever i deem to be unrealistic, while magic is so magic it can even break D&D's own rules on how magic work if i like the player enough" side of the debate. Still, i have a few ideas about what might prompt people to have opinions on the matter that are wrong by the virtue of differing from mine.

There were much of the "TOB melees aren't strictly better than non-TOB melees; no TOB class can beat an übercharger in sheer damage without simply being a worse, feat-starved übercharger, and same applies to a lot of builds". The problem is, most stupidnewbs don't compare ToB classes with optimised chatacters, but rather judge by optimisation floor, which, as we all know, is far higher for ToB characters. So let's ran a "fair" comparison.
Here's Tordec McSlashy, a lvl 1 fighter who has Toughness and Weapon Focus for his lvl 1 feat and fighter bonus feat respectively; played by that guy from DM's football team. Here's Cloud McStrife, a lvl 1 crusader who has Toughness for his lvl 1 feat, running the exact same race and equipment (and heavens forbid his more savvy player also takes flaws or something better than Toughness; to make the situation even worse, that nerd who owns ToB is also more prone to optimising than Tordec's player does, which only widens the fissure). Cloud McStrife has all the statistics of Tordec McSlashy, except his attack is one point less; however, every round he's hit (and that probably constitutes near every round of any meaningful combat), he gets +1 to attack AND damage, becoming strictly better. On top of that, he also has that kewl (and bookkeeping-requiring) ability to delay his damage to potentially stay in combat for an additional round; that's almost free Diehard we're talking, guys. And then, on top of already being strictly better, he gets all those kewl martial magics and self-healing and stuff. In sum, he clearly wins not over Tordec, but also over Bruce McBanner the barbarian with his one rage per day, despite the comparison being a bit harder in this case due to the class abilities not exactly replicating each other. And wizard? Please, this dude has like three hit points and can only cast one, i repeat, ONE useful spell per a day after he spends first two rounds of the encounter on casting Mage Armor and Shield on himself. Perhaps in a few levels he'll be actually able to use that Magic Missile of his meaningfully, but right now he's dead weight.
Moreover, as they gain levels, Tordec climbs the Weapon Expertise tree while Cloud's abilities progress in quadratic progression all by themselves, even if he takes nothing but Skill Focus for all his feats. It's clear that he's the haxxor here, is it not? Note that i use black for the sarcasm and irony (and for few other things, too) and bright green for when i'm completely serious.
And then there's also the matter of being unwilling to learn something new. Magic can break the game, but it's laid out right in PHB and casting classes from PHB are very popular, so every DM has to learn how it works; hearing about maneuvers, on the other hand, might cause the same "Now what in tarnation is that and why would you wanna use it if you weren't trying to cheat in mah game?" (yep, i believe Applejack would make a poor DM) reaction mentioning Incarnum or Binder or poor Shugenja would cause. Unlike the first point (which is entirely valid on its premises), this one can be dissuaded by explaining why, in fact, you want to use whatever you want to use; however, if the DM also gets the impression that ToB classes are, in fact, overpowered, the second point can't be dissuaded anymore until you deal with the first one, so the problem compounds itself.

Sure, you could have a class that just has the single ability, "Win the game," and that would be more powerful than a wizardNo, it wouldn't, because then everyone and their mothers (both in theoretical metagame and in any game where DM prioritises challenge) would wear the Necklace of Win Immunity. Or cast it from a wand. Or invest into a way to kill that class in a surprise round before it can use its ability, since "Win the game" explicitly does not equal True Sight, which is a completely different ability. And that's exactly why options are good while linear optimisation of any single trick is near-futile.

P. S. And concerning the comparison of Crusader and Paladin: Crusader clearly can't emulate the paladin well, since he doesn't get the ability to scan people on the subject of them being smiteworthy. That makes one of the ways to play a paladin in D&D — an extremely popular one, i believe — completely implayable with Crusader. Whether the world would be better without this kind of stereotype is another matter entirely.

nyarlathotep

2013-07-19, 11:47 AM

I wouldn't want to make such a system, because it would be too labyrinthine to be playable, imho.

Perhaps but my rules loving mind is trying to come up with ways to make it work, and the theorycrafting of such a system is half the fun even if the final product ultimately fails to work. After all even if the system fails we'll have learned something.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 12:42 PM

The concensus we ultimately came to is that the crusader had better in-combat healing and the paladin had better out-of-combat healing. This is really undeniable unless you let a crusader get away with attacking random objects to trigger martial spirit.Paladin can heal 100 damage with LoH at level 20 for 36,000 gp? For that much you can afford 219 healing per day from eternal wands of CLW.

Also, attacking random objects is fine with Martial Spirit, by RAW.

In combat. Since protection from evil's duration is long enough for pre-buffing it only costs in-combat actions when fighting on the defensive, as opposed to proactively seeking an enemy.
[quote]Not what I said at all. Not even close, really. What I said, and continue to say, is that it's important to avoid spending money when you don't have to. Smite evil is a primary class feature for the paladin and it's a one of several charisma based ones. It's unreasonable to assume he won't eventually seek out a cloak of charisma. You'll also note that I -did- include a zero cost option there in eagle's splendor; a decent pre-fight buff if you don't have the cloak yet. Doubly double standard comboed with a side helping of Smite Evil sucks compared to maneuver. If you can find the cloak, you are paying an exorbitant amount of gp for a piddly improvement regardless.

Charisma is a bad stat for paladins.

That's not to mimic it, that's to outright replace it; which is explicitly -not- what I'm trying to convey. Mimicry, in this case, is to create a deliberate similarity that doesn't exist on its own; specifically by arranging for the paladin to have maneuvers, the only thing it doesn't already share with the crusader to a greater or lesser extent. The class does plenty. You haven't conclusively disproven -any- of the points I've made.
The maneuvers are largely without value unless you can recover them. Sure, paladin items suck compared to the ones a crusader would make...

Hey, you are wrong. Double standard. A wand with a spell a paladin can use is quite common yes? But we don't have soul fire? Then how do we have ToB items? Would that not be more difficult to an insane degree to procure? A higher CL and a lousy class combination is required to meet someone capable of making these items.

Good thing the paladin can get a handful of maneuvers with just gold if he wants then, ain't it.
That's part of the problem. Crusaders can't "just grab some wands." They have to invest at least one feat and skill points into being able to use them first. A paladin doesn't have that problem -and- he can just grab some maneuvers via CotWR. Oh sure, but only by your crooked standards. The crusader does not need 19 UMD if they are prebuffing, since he doesn't need a success on a roll.

A single ninth level maneuver costs 45kgp. Assuming you can find a caster with the maneuver known and craft wondrous item in the world world we can't find or afford armor enhancements. How many spells does a paladin get in a day at level 16? Well it looks like 2 eternal wands of each level would cover all by the highest level. Which comes under 45kgp at 32,280. Getting a 4th level wand is expensive at 21,000. But the second 3rd level wand isn't needed just yet. 2 first and second eternal wands, 1 third level eternal wand, and a 4th covers the entirety of a paladins ability to cast, including 1 of the highest level abilities. And that's to outright replace the paladin, not mimic it.

The paladin, on the other hand, has 1 maneuver of the highest ability, without the ability to recover it in combat. War Leader's Charge does not work without an assumed party. The Devoted one is weaker for a paladin, only healing 100 hp. The Stone dragon ability to deal 2d6 damage sounds good.

Worst case: they wait a day, which gives any other prepped casters that -may- be in the party time to rearange their spells too, and casts it on the most vulnerable member of the party or the one most important to defeating the foe. Even if it's not the best possible option it's still better than nothing.
Except as noted above it is beyond pathetic.

I've always found the assumption that a large creature can't get into most dungeons to be at odds with the fact it's usually assumed the beat-sticks will be under enlarge person during most fights if not permanently. Its also an assumption that the paladin is of a small race.
Small paladins are actually the way to go for a mounted character. Squeezing and rough terrain at early levels are easier to avoid of you only take up one square.

As for share spell used with divine power it -can- be interpretted to give the mount BAB equal to its master's character level if the master is casting it on himself and sharing the effect with the mount, rather than casting the spell on the mount directly. That's a bit cheesy though.
"You" in a personal spell is the subject.

Otherwise, at +12 it's just slightly below -any- medium base attack class at that level but still above the BAB of a poor base attack class. Hit it with bull's strength or give it a belt of giant's strength for decent-ish attack bonus even at level 20.

So like a monk then?
Divine Power does not stack with Belt of Strength. Just a friendly reminder.

Kelb, have you ever played a paladin? Do you even lift?

The premise of your argument is hoping I don't know how to add combined with praying I haven't played the class before.

lord_khaine

2013-07-19, 12:45 PM

and bright green for when i'm completely serious.

I cant help but notice your post contain no bright green whatsoever :smalltongue:

Eldest

2013-07-19, 01:27 PM

Charisma is a bad stat for paladins.

Just pulling this one bit out.... what?

Blightedmarsh

2013-07-19, 02:31 PM

Fates

2013-07-19, 02:40 PM

Charisma is their primary casting stat. Unfortunately as a stat it really does little in comparison to other stats. Most characters (barring sorcerers and similar) can safely dump charisma to high hell and back with little to no consequence.

If it were any other stat there would be better side benefits. Wisdom for example; particularly when considering the DC's of many of their cleric spells are based off of wisdom and not charisma.

Eh?

To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the paladin’s Wisdom modifier.

In what way is charisma their primary casting stat?

Manly Man

2013-07-19, 02:52 PM

It's the paladin's casting stat in Pathfinder, so perhaps his memory just shuffled a thing or two on him?

As for my thoughts on comparing Tome of Battle to the other classes, I've actually had good experiences with the core class and their initiator counterpart working together in concert with one another. Depending on what you aim to do, having both actually makes it easy to find ways for them to synergize in combat. One of my best experiences was with a Fighter and a Warblade, the Warblade focusing on Iron Heart and White Raven while the Fighter was going for a tripper build. There was a bit of action abuse, what with some of the stuff that White Raven lets you do, but it was actually quite excellent for battlefield control, and it was done without a lick of magic. The role-playing opportunities one has when an initiator meets the core class it's based off of are very interesting as well.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 03:16 PM

Paladin can heal 100 damage with LoH at level 20 for 36,000 gp? For that much you can afford 219 healing per day from eternal wands of CLW.What? LoH's doesn't cost the paladin anything. Where are you getting 36k from? The cloak of charisma? In any case I already said it was supplementary to healing items. The paladin could buy several wands of CLW to use and -still- have that extra from LoH's to top off instead of wasting part of a charge.

Also, attacking random objects is fine with Martial Spirit, by RAW. Not necessarily. The last line reads "Each time you hit an opponent in melee, you can choose a different recipient within range to recieve this healing." Random objects aren't opponents.

In combat. Since protection from evil's duration is long enough for pre-buffing it only costs in-combat actions when fighting on the defensive, as opposed to proactively seeking an enemy.I'm guessing you meant to delete this and messed up?

Doubly double standard comboed with a side helping of Smite Evil sucks compared to maneuver. If you can find the cloak, you are paying an exorbitant amount of gp for a piddly improvement regardless.For it to be a double standard I'd have to be saying that the crusader can't buy anything at all. I'm not saying that. I am saying that the investment he'd have to lay down to get wands is -noteably- higher than the investment a paladin has to make to get maneuvers, both in character resources and monetary resources. This is demonstrably true. We can't have a meaningful discussion if you insist on arguing with your straw-man instead of me.

Charisma is a bad stat for paladins.I shouldn't even need to say that this is untrue. It falls behind strength and con, to be sure, but it's at about the same value as wisdom, or perhaps a bit ahead; being tied to smite evil, divine grace, lay on hands, number of turn attempts, turning damage, and it figures into the calculation of a number of divine feats. That you would argue that it's a bad stat for a paladin is mind-boggling, nevermind wrong.

The maneuvers are largely without value unless you can recover them.This is also absurd. A crusader's maneuvers recover at the beginning of every 4th round, 3rd if he took extra granted maneuver; a typical fight lasts 3-5 rounds, less in a high-op environment; a crusader -may- recover maneuvers -once- in any given combat but is just as likely not to recover at all. On a similar note, and as an aside, the swordsage's recovery method also means that he'll rarely use the same maneuver twice in one encounter. Only the warblade is likely to recover maneuvers with any real frequency. The default once per encounter from martial study isn't so dramatically worse than having a recovery method as you seem to think.

Sure, paladin items suck compared to the ones a crusader would make...This is a fairly baseless judgement. I don't see a crusader making a belt of giant strength or a periapt of wisdom, much less spell trigger or spell completion devices of any sort, or even that soulfire armor you're so proud of. Martial scripts and CotWR are very nice items, but to say they outweigh everything a paladin can make if he invests in crafting is just plain absurd.

Hey, you are wrong. Double standard. A wand with a spell a paladin can use is quite common yes? But we don't have soul fire? Then how do we have ToB items? Would that not be more difficult to an insane degree to procure? A higher CL and a lousy class combination is required to meet someone capable of making these items.You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said, or even implied, that soulfire armor was rare or unavailable. All I said was that it was expensive and that you don't necessarily know when or even if you're going to need it and that it was a less liquid asset than a wand that can produce the same effect if you -don't- need that effect regularly. You're beating the tar out of your straw-men in this debate but you're barely addressing me at all anymore.

Oh sure, but only by your crooked standards. The crusader does not need 19 UMD if they are prebuffing, since he doesn't need a success on a roll.Every failure eats into the duration of any shorter buffs that he wants to lay down and he -still- had to invest in UMD with at least a few skill points or he couldn't even make the attempt; a resource the paladin didn't have to.

A single ninth level maneuver costs 45kgp. Assuming you can find a caster with the maneuver known and craft wondrous item in the world world we can't find or afford armor enhancements. How many spells does a paladin get in a day at level 16? Well it looks like 2 eternal wands of each level would cover all by the highest level. Which comes under 45kgp at 32,280. Getting a 4th level wand is expensive at 21,000. But the second 3rd level wand isn't needed just yet. 2 first and second eternal wands, 1 third level eternal wand, and a 4th covers the entirety of a paladins ability to cast, including 1 of the highest level abilities. And that's to outright replace the paladin, not mimic it.Still didn't say that magic items are rare and monetary expense -is- a factor in decision making and optimization efficiency.

That said, why in the world do you think that could begin to cover the paladin list? You've mimiced his spells per day, but you've barely touched his list, especially if spell compendium is in play. As for the CotWR, crafting collaboration is a thing. A crusader can ask his wizard, cleric, artificer, -paladin-, bard, etc buddy to help him make one.

The paladin, on the other hand, has 1 maneuver of the highest ability, without the ability to recover it in combat. War Leader's Charge does not work without an assumed party. The Devoted one is weaker for a paladin, only healing 100 hp. The Stone dragon ability to deal 2d6 con damage sounds good.FIFY. The paladin can't actually use those. He doesn't meet the initiator level requirement. He's only able to use 5th level and lower maneuvers, but many of those don't really become obsolete on their own, they only do so because higher level maneuvers do the same thing but better. A paladin, however, isn't limited to just those three disciplines when buying his CotWR or taking martial study. This pretty much nullifies your cost argument above, ill-concieved as it was even if a paladin could use that particular item.

Except as noted above it is beyond pathetic.When you simply assume that a superior option is definitely in play, sure. There's no guarantee that it is though. And just so you can't straw-man again, I'm talking about not in play because you didn't know it'd be needed ahead of time, not because it wasn't available.

Small paladins are actually the way to go for a mounted character. Squeezing and rough terrain at early levels are easier to avoid of you only take up one square.It's not an automatic decision. Squeezing and rough terrain avoidance -or- reach, damage potential, and HP's. Nevermind there are just as many ways to temporarily shrink as there are to temporarily grow. It's just not that clear cut.

"You" in a personal spell is the subject.Not going to argue this one, not because there's no argument to be made but because it's just not worth the effort.

So like a monk then?
Divine Power does not stack with Belt of Strength. Just a friendly reminder.Forgot about the enhancement to strength in divine power, since it's primary ability is the BAB increase. Divine favor then. My point was that the mount will almost certainly be subject to buffs that a monk wouldn't necessarily have available, more like a bard or a psychic warrior than a monk.

Kelb, have you ever played a paladin? Do you even lift?I have, quite successfully, I might add thank you very much. I don't understand what the sarcastic comment means, but I'll assume it was supposed to be insulting until you clarify.

The premise of your argument is hoping I don't know how to add combined with praying I haven't played the class before.

My arguments are based in logic and actually address yours, as opposed to the arguments I want you to be implying when you're not.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 03:53 PM

If it was an insult, why would I put it in blue?

Wands are core. You provided all of the decent buffing spells from the core, and I pointed out you can cover them easily. "Not knowing you need them ahead of time?" Isn't that the reason why we have armor enhancements, wondrous items, and wands? Because otherwise you would ha

Any implication of a fallacy in my argument is insulting. I am only operating under the assumptions you are providing me. We can't use items to invalidate your argument? Then the paladin has items to have a cloak of charisma, but a crusader can not use wands?

Crusader has 4 skill points per level. He could pick up the same 2 skills as the Paladin, and still have points leftover to CC UMD. The wands you want to use, going by your list, usually have a min/level duration.

The cloak of charisma is a mighty waste. Compare the benefits of the last +2 (+4 to +6) to it's cost. +20 healing, +1 saves, and +1 attack on situational hits? Horrendous. Cloak of charisma past +2 should be one of your later purchases, if you get it at all. Individual purchases would probably give you much more mileage.

Also, I was using the item to give the paladin a selection of maneuvers. You don't need IL to qualify, just prerequisite maneuvers. A paladin can use the Stone Dragon 9th easily. The only way he would limited by IL would be with taking feats, which would give the crusader build a feat lead to do other things. If the issue is 'mimicry' this is what you wish to address.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 04:34 PM

If it was an insult, why would I put it in blue?Sarcasm can be used both to prevent an implicit insult or to deliver one. Your tone, as I percieved it, was getting hostile.

Wands are core. You provided all of the decent buffing spells from the core, and I pointed out you can cover them easily.Those are just the party buffs, there're also self-buffs and utility spells on the list. Crusaders can't provide restoration effects or remove status ailments until they get the 9th level strike of righteous vitality.
"Not knowing you need them ahead of time?" Isn't that the reason why we have armor enhancements, wondrous items, and wands? Because otherwise you would haLooks like your last line was cut-off there. Those items are for when you know you'll need the effect but not exactly -when- you'll need the effect. I'm talking about when you didn't know you'd need the effect at all; say, for example, the DM rarely throws out save-or-die effects, then suddenly you learn that a nightwalker is in the dungeon you're already exploring. Do you go back to the nearest large city to find someone capable of adding soulfire to your armor at serious expense or do you just make do with the spell? Obviously, you make do with the spell. Simply assuming that save-or-die effects will -always- be in play at high levels is fallacious and can lead to buying a soulfire enhancement that -you'll never use-; wasting not just the gold you spent on the enhancement but the extra it adds to any enhancements bought after it.

Any implication of a fallacy in my argument is insulting. I am only operating under the assumptions you are providing me.No you're not. You're making assumptions about what you -think- I'm implying. I don't imply things in these discussions because implication can't be properly conveyed without body-language. I've only said exactly what I meant.

We can't use items to invalidate your argument? Then the paladin has items to have a cloak of charisma, but a crusader can not use wands?I never said that. I'm saying that cruaders being able to use wands is a niche thing that can't be assumed because of the investment costs which, just to reiterate, are a feat, skill points, and serious amounts of gold. Of those, the crusader only has more skill points, and not many more at that.

Crusader has 4 skill points per level. He could pick up the same 2 skills as the Paladin, and still have points leftover to CC UMD. The wands you want to use, going by your list, usually have a min/level duration.Again, that's not a complete list of paladin buffs that a crusader might want to emulate and failures eat into the durations of shorter duration buffs. Nevermind that a paladin can use those buffs at -zero- cost several times per day and it's -always- a monetary drain for the crusader to simply have them available as well as with each use.

The cloak of charisma is a mighty waste. Compare the benefits of the last +2 (+4 to +6) to it's cost. +20 healing, +1 saves, and +1 attack on situational hits? Horrendous. Cloak of charisma past +2 should be one of your later purchases, if you get it at all. Individual purchases would probably give you much more mileage.I'm not arguing that the cloak should be at the top of the paladin's shopping list, only that it should definitely be on the list. A +1 to saves is never something to sneeze at either, nevermind the extra turn undead use and however that might interact with any divine or devotion feats the paladin -may- have.

Also, I was using the item to give the paladin a selection of maneuvers. You don't need IL to qualify, just prerequisite maneuvers. A paladin can use the Stone Dragon 9th easily. The only way he would limited by IL would be with taking feats, which would give the crusader build a feat lead to do other things.

This is not absolutely certain. CotWR says you must meet the contained maneuver's prerequisites. Since you must meet the initiator level to choose a maneuver by every other means that they are aquired, IL is, arguably, a prerequisite to the maneuver as well. The alternative is that any martial adept can pick up mountain tombstone strike as soon as he's got 45k to drop on it. I very seriously doubt that this is RAI and it's arguable whether it's RAW so I choose to err on the side of caution and assume the conservative interpretation. In any case, three 6th level maneuvers is probably better than 1 9th level maneuver most of the time anyway.

Snowbluff

2013-07-19, 05:17 PM

Sarcasm can be used both to prevent an implicit insult or to deliver one. Your tone, as I perceived it, was getting hostile. It should be getting hostile, but that would be unnecessary. The argument being presented is merely insubstantial, rather than openly insulting or effective.
The problem here is that resistance to [Death] Effects is in the list of necessary equipment, and and something you are expected to encounter by LEVEL 16. Damn straight I am going out of my way for it.

If I am unlikely to use it, then I would settle for Deathward Armor. Eitherway, it's going to come up and you are going to buy an item for it.

It's just an example of how useless the paladin list is. Too little, too late.

No you're not. You're making assumptions about what you -think- I'm implying. I don't imply things in these discussions because implication can't be properly conveyed without body-language. I've only said exactly what I meant.
What is the assumption then? The crusader has money, the Paladin has money. The Paladin's 'mimicry' is crap and they have to spend more money to get anything done.

I am arguing attempting to achieve replacement is possible for a crusader, while mimicry is impossible for a paladin. The implication that it is not true is actually quite incredible.

Skills and wands
It is not zero cost. It is costing valuable actions.

Paladin is MAD compared to Crusader. To get that awful cloak, you are investing money that the Crusader would not. The crusader will simply have more dough to spend than the paladin. Eternal wands cover a huge portion of the list.

If they are using the same item set, then the paladin would have wands to supplement his piddle spells/day, which would mean the crusader does. Niche does not describe owning wands.

After all of this, paladin casting is still wasted compared to owning any worth more than 200 gp.

Cloak
Well, the +1 save is 1000gp, so if that's what you are interested in, you might want to start there.

Concerning IL

Reading the section on prerequisite, IL is only when you learn a maneuver. Prerequisite only refers to maneuvers known.

The method is not refers to as 'learning,' and IL is not mentioned in the entry. I don't see how this could be read any other way.

3 is quite small a number, considering Crusader gets that many granted with 1 feat, with two others free. Crusader's number granted surpasses the paladin's known at all times if a paladin is waiting for higher level maneuvers.

The highest level maneuver a Paladin has from a feat is 5th, at level 18 (IL9). Just a friendly reminder. You've made a few factual errors, and I just want to point them out so you don't make them in the future. :smalltongue:

eggynack

2013-07-19, 05:52 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 06:18 PM

It should be getting hostile, but that would be unnecessary. The argument being presented is merely insubstantial, rather than openly insulting or effective.I could almost say the same about yours, but you also included such gems as "Have you ever even played a paladin?"

The problem here is that resistance to [Death] Effects is in the list of necessary equipment, and and something you are expected to encounter by LEVEL 16. Damn straight I am going out of my way for it.That list is not RAW and it -is- subjective. Not every game will absolutely need all of those things. In fact, I'd argue that most games don't even require -most- of those things. Maybe you'll need death ward by level 16 maybe you'll never need it at all. In the latter case it's a waste of money.

If I am unlikely to use it, then I would settle for Deathward Armor. Eitherway, it's going to come up and you are going to buy an item for it.or it's not and buying any item for it is a waste of money. Except that's a binary statement that just isn't true. You want a permanent item if it's likely to come up frequently, but otherwise a wand or a manual casting is sufficient. You keep throwing out these absolute statements about subjective matters and saying that they're facts. They're not.

It's just an example of how useless the paladin list is. Too little, too late.Not compared to the crusader's ability to do the same it's not. If you really wanna bring the primary casters into this both the paladin and the crusader are going to be nothing but a couple of farts in a hurricane.

What is the assumption then? The crusader has money, the Paladin has money. The Paladin's 'mimicry' is crap and they have to spend more money to get anything done.This is demonstrably false. The assumption is that they both have a limited resource in their gp (because WBL) and that they need to be reasonably thrifty with it. The cost of novice and scholar CotWR isn't excessive and the effect is renewable to give the paladin a few maneuvers that are inarguably a good benefit for the cost. That it mimics the crusader to an extent is a side-note really. A crusader, on the other hand, has to spend a similar amount of gold for -every- third level spell that he wants to be able to use if he's buying a wand and substantially more for every 4th level spell and these are all eventually expended. This is before devoting the necessary character resources of feat and skill points. It's just not a great investment, especially when you consider how very many more good paladin spells there are compared to the number of good maneuvers that a paladin might want.

Also, eternal wands are restricted to 3rd level and lower -arcane- spells. Alot of the paladin list can't be made into them and they're not substantially cheaper than regular wands for the few that can.

I am arguing attempting to achieve replacement is possible for a crusader, while mimicry is impossible for a paladin. The implication that it is not true is actually quite incredible.I'm not implying that it's not true, I'm flat-out stating it. The cost to outright replace a paladin with a crusader is high enough that it would interfere with the crusader's ability to be an actual crusader. The reverse is also true. The two are similar, to a certain extent, in their role in the game setting but neither is capable of outright replacing the other and still doing the job that's expected of them.

It is not zero cost. It is costing valuable actions.Actions aren't a meaningful cost for this comparison. Even if they were, the crusader maneuvers that buff allies tend to severely restrict his offensive ability by giving him little or no bonus to his attack and damage and/or limiting him to one attack in that round. That's a net result of another tie.

Paladin is MAD compared to Crusader. To get that awful cloak, you are investing money that the Crusader would not. The crusader will simply have more dough to spend than the paladin. Eternal wands cover a huge portion of the list.For the reasons I mentioned above, no they don't, and even if they did it would -still- take substantially more gold than you're suggesting to completely cover all of the decent buffs a paladin can use for free.

If they are using the same item set, then the paladin would have wands to supplement his piddle spells/day, which would mean the crusader does. Niche does not describe owning wands.Niche does describe owning wands you can't use. If the paladin spends the same character resources on UMD then the whole thing falls apart because at that point -all- wands and staves are on the table.

Also, I get the feeling you think I'm arguing that the paladin is superior. I'm not and never was. I'm only arguing that they're of -much- closer ability than is generally accepted.

After all of this, paladin casting is still wasted compared to owning any worth more than 200 gp.This.... doesn't make sense. What exactly were you trying to say here?

Well, the +1 save is 1000gp, so if that's what you are interested in, you might want to start there.That's a +1 resistance bonus on a cloak of resistance +1. Increasing it from +4 to +5 costs 9k; which is a closer comparison to the 20k to go from cloak of charisma +4 to +6. A cloak of charisma +2, at 4k, costs less than going from a cloak of resistance +2 to a cloak of resistance +3 for a -greater- net effect; +1 to saves -and- attack bonus on a smite, one more turning attempt, and <level> more HP's from LoH. You're making poor comparisons and oversimplifying. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not just yet.

Reading the section on prerequisite, IL is only when you learn a maneuver. Prerequisite only refers to maneuvers known.It's a debateable point. I don't really feel like arguing over it since a paladin may or may not actually -want- any of those maneuvers over anything else he could spend 45k on.

The method is not refers to as 'learning,' and IL is not mentioned in the entry. I don't see how this could be read any other way. Move that last thing I said here. (stupid wii only lets me see two lines at a time when I'm typing.)

3 is quite small a number, considering Crusader gets that many granted with 1 feat, with two others free. Crusader's number granted surpasses the paladin's known at all times if a paladin is waiting for higher level maneuvers.A) extra granted maneuver only grants -one- extra maneuver each time the crusader refreshes. B) Duh. The point isn't to beat the crusader at his own schtick, it's to borrow some of the good ones to supplement the paladin's own thing.

I repeat, if you want to effectively do both at the same time, RKV is a thing.

The highest level maneuver a Paladin has from a feat is 5th, at level 18 (IL9). Just a friendly reminder. You've made a few factual errors, and I just want to point them out so you don't make them in the future. :smalltongue:

What "factual errors"?

As for 5th level maneuvers law-bearer and radiant charge are solid at that level, not fantastic but solid. Elder mountain hammer's ability to bypass DR and hardness is okay-ish (though that can be accomplished much earlier with other mountain hammers) and flanking maneuver is good at any level if you have allies to take advantage of it. I don't see the problem. Yeah, it'd be nice if he could use higher level stuff but this is supplementary to the paladin's normal routine, not a replacement for it. He's still going to be leaning more on his mount and spell buffs than the handful of maneuvers he picks up.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 06:26 PM

This is getting kinda heated for a side discussion. Maybe we should have something like, "Crusaders vs. Paladins: The Ultimate Conflict". I might start it up now. In fact, I'ma just do that, so you folks should probably not also do that.

Edit: Made the thread hereabouts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293358). I hope that it can suffice as a proving ground.

It's not really a side discussion though.

It's entirely relevant to the question of whether or not ToB is "overpowered" and whether or not the classes therein replace their core counterparts. At least the crusader doesn't.

Boci

2013-07-19, 06:30 PM

It's not really a side discussion though.

It's entirely relevant to the question of whether or not ToB is "overpowered" and whether or not the classes therein replace their core counterparts. At least the crusader doesn't.

Not really. Reguardless of who is stronger, the difference will be small enough that neither would be "overpowered".

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 06:34 PM

Not really. Reguardless of who is stronger, the difference will be small enough that neither would be "overpowered".

That's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

Qwertystop

2013-07-19, 06:36 PM

Yeah, I agree with Boci. At this point you two have taken half the thread to argue an issue that, at most, has very small relevance, and doesn't work very well at all for the general purpose of this thread. We're not here to place exact borders on whether one class is better than another, just to explain away the main reasons for banning ToB. The fact that such a discussion persists is enough evidence that neither goes so far beyond the other as to break the game, for these purposes. With that determined, an actual conclusion is mostly unnecessary for this thread even if you do somehow manage to objectively find one, and the intervening barely-below-shouting crowds out more relevant things.

Lord Haart

2013-07-19, 06:36 PM

It it a subdiscussion that's better be separated in a different thread (along with all the posts already written on the matter, except the ones that started it), because A) it made my awesome post to be mostly ignored, B) it debates a single very specific comparison ignoring all other matters, C) that very specific comparison has barely anything to do with this thread, since this thread is about whether or not TOB is overpowered rather than about whether or not ToB classes are straight-up replacements for core classes that have unique abilities not replicated anywhere in ToB and D) i really don't see anybody but you two still getting your discussion and having enough strenght left after reading through all of it to try and reply to you both.
And now you made three five a lot of people in a row go entirely off topic. For that you shall be confounded.

eggynack

2013-07-19, 06:39 PM

It's not really a side discussion though.

It's entirely relevant to the question of whether or not ToB is "overpowered" and whether or not the classes therein replace their core counterparts. At least the crusader doesn't.
It's really side discussionish. People don't have problems with ToB power at high optimization levels. They have a problem with it at low optimization levels. The classes have an aberrantly high optimization floor, and that creates occasionally problematic results. Sure, if you play a super optimized paladin, things gain some measure of parity. However, in most cases, you're looking at a replaced paladin. Things getting wonky at the maximum power level doesn't tell us everything. In the meantime, if the argument was ever related to the core discussion, it really isn't now. I don't see the problem in shifting to a new thread.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-07-19, 06:50 PM

It's really side discussionish. People don't have problems with ToB power at high optimization levels. They have a problem with it at low optimization levels. The classes have an aberrantly high optimization floor, and that creates occasionally problematic results. Sure, if you play a super optimized paladin, things gain some measure of parity. However, in most cases, you're looking at a replaced paladin. Things getting wonky at the maximum power level doesn't tell us everything. In the meantime, if the argument was ever related to the core discussion, it really isn't now. I don't see the problem in shifting to a new thread.

Since the concensus seems to be that it's problematic for this one, I'll move over to the other thread.

But to this in particular, I was never talking high or even mid-op levels, in the discussion that snowbluff objected to as a reasonable comparison. In that discussion we showed that at basic reading comprehension levels of optimization (read; only the most blatantly obvious things you'd have to be mentally handicapped not to pick up) their ability to defeat enemies in combat was basically identical.

That's why we've been arguing pretty much everything else about the two classes and letting a little bit of optimization potential creep in. In the strictest sense of comparison, the paladin can use wands and the crusader can't. The stuff that would allow a crusader to do so is available to -everyone- and so are the things that allow a paladin to gain maneuvers.

Since offensive maneuvers don't change the parity in offense all that's left is buffing and the paladin has a -slight- edge, since he has out of combat utility buffs that the crusader can't match.

That's the last I'll say on the matter in this thread.

Aegis013

2013-07-19, 07:32 PM

Also, I was using the item to give the paladin a selection of maneuvers. You don't need IL to qualify, just prerequisite maneuvers. A paladin can use the Stone Dragon 9th easily. The only way he would limited by IL would be with taking feats, which would give the crusader build a feat lead to do other things. If the issue is 'mimicry' this is what you wish to address.

I think the table on pg 39 of ToB ties Initiator Level as one of things necessary to know a martial maneuver, meaning that a 20th level non-initiator character using a CotWR would only be able to learn a 5th level maneuver or lower that also has no "x y-school maneuvers known" prerequisites.

SciChronic

2013-07-19, 08:13 PM

Argument: They simply do too much damage! Regular classes aren't that strong!
other martial classes can out damage the ToB classes. Strikes take standard actions to use, so unless you can extend your action economy (typically through multi classing, which actually hurts ToB's top-end power), you won't be making any other attacks.

Argument: Spell Casters can only use their abilities a certain number of times a day, while Martial Adepts can use their abilities forever!
maneuvers are also noticeably weaker than the damage potential of spells. its similar to how wizards gain access to higher level spells faster than sorcerers, but they get less casts per day.

Argument: Maneuvers are just as powerful as spells are! These are supposed to be regular heroes!
maneuvers are no where near as powerful as spells. period.

Argument: I'm not a big fan of the fluff...
fluff can be re-written or bent however to suit a setting. the lore of the books is in no way set in stone, and a DM can do whatever he wants with the fluff.

Argument: They completely invalidate classes with their abilities!upper tier classes already do this. a party comprised if wizards druids and clerics can fill any role and make every other class out there feel useless (aside form other tier 1 classes). this isnt to say "because it already happns its okay" though, the other martial classes have their merits, and flavor.

Argument: X Item is incredibly broken beyond belief!
the items from ToB aren't particularly strong. the discipline items allow you to use 1 more maneuver which you have to refresh as normal. and thats really the only magic item worth mentioning.