ToB Question: Do They Mix Well?

[Macabros]

Do the classes in Tome of Battle mix well? Can they be put together into a build and become something more then just the bits and pieces of their parts?

What classes would you say meshes the best with the classes in a multiclass or gestalt game?

I know the books have Adaptations in the books for each class but only the Swordsage seems to have real alternatives to it.

[Lightlawbliss]

second post (among other parts)of this TOB handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2030) might help.

If there is a specific class you are interested in looking in detail at, the handbook index (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=399.0) has more info linked under base classes -> martial adepts.

[Telonius]

The classes mix fairly well. A Swordsage dip, in particular, can be very beneficial, because of how front-loaded it is. Warblade or Crusader with a dash of Swordsage going into the Master of Nine prestige class are pretty standard builds. (The big benefit of Master of Nine is the increased number of maneuvers readied).

[Macabros]

Well I was more asking for things like Crusader X/Warblade X or Warblade X/Swordsage X, etc

But thanks for the links.

[Eldariel]

ToB classes have probably the best multiclass mechanics in the whole of 3.5. That is, they actually have multiclassing mechanics. The fact that Initiator Level is your level + ½ level in all other classes makes all the difference. ToB classes are multiclassing gods.

[OldTrees1]

Well I was more asking for things like Crusader X/Warblade X or Warblade X/Swordsage X, etc

But thanks for the links.

Sure. Although I would think it would be an unequal distribution.
Say: Crusader 4/ Warblade 1/Crusader +2/Warblade +1/C +2/W +1/Eternal Blade 10
Aka Crusader 8/Warblade 3/Eternal Blade 10

[lsfreak]

They mix well mechanically. But if you're building a character that already has multiple ToB classes, it can be quite a headache keeping track of what you qualify for through each class (which IL belongs to which disciplines, multiple ILs for a single discipline granted through multiple classes, etc).

EDIT: I should say multiple maneuver pools mix well mechanically. You can run into MAD problems pretty fast if you're after class features beyond maneuvers, and you have to be a little careful about making sure you can actually use the maneuvers you pick - a crusader + swordsage focusing on strikes quickly reaches the point where you have more maneuvers than you know what to do with, and most of them may well sit there unused during a given encounter, doing you no good. Same if you're overly focused on boosts or counters, especially if you've got something else eating up your swift actions as well.

[nedz]

The Idiot Crusader is built using a mix of ToB classes, so yes they can mix well.
Obviously you could make a build where they didn't mix too well, but that's not really the point.

[jedipotter]

Do the classes in Tome of Battle mix well? Can they be put together into a build and become something more then just the bits and pieces of their parts?

They mix well if your a ToB fan and you play loose with the rules and most of all have the ToB rules rule.

But for other games....ToB does not mix well. The ToB stuff is just to radical. The ToB stuff just does to mesh with the normal rules well. And it can lead to endless arguments about maneuvers and such.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But for other games....ToB does not mix well. The ToB stuff is just to radical. The ToB stuff just does to mesh with the normal rules well. And it can lead to endless arguments about maneuvers and such.

ToB doesn't really mix well with, say, WoD or L5R but it blends just fine with the rest of 3.5 D&D. It's no more extreme than spell casters and maneuvers don't cause any more arguments than spells. Why can't non-casters have nice things?

[Studoku]

ToB doesn't really mix well with, say, WoD or L5R but it blends just fine with the rest of 3.5 D&D. It's no more extreme than spell casters and maneuvers don't cause any more arguments than spells. Why can't non-casters have nice things?
Because maneuvers are unrealistic and break the laws of physics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because maneuvers are unrealistic and break the laws of physics.

I know that's sarcasm, because blue text, but that argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. Seriously, simple maxed jump ranks lets a guy in armor and toting several dozen pounds of gear jump seven feet in the air by level 10 and the same character can leap across a 25ft gap with no chance of failure as long as he's not being chased.

That's pushing or exceeding world records set by men wearing a tank-top and gym shorts doing their level best with only moderate effort and carrying half their own weight in gear. Realism has long since waved "bye-bye" before even mid-level.

[avr]

By mid-level if you can't break a law of physics or two you're going to get some tender part of your anatomy handed to you. That's just the sort of game D&D - or really any game where you can actually slay dragons - is.

[AstralFire]

@OP: The reason you're not getting specific builds is that unless you're trying to hybridize ToB with another specific optional subsystem (psionics, binding, etc), it's extremely easy to just eyeball it. ToB does not require high-op planned builds because it has a relatively decent effectiveness floor at low optimization. In a gestalt optimized game, I did very well with a simple Fighter/Halfling Outrider//Swordsage/Master of Nine that I didn't really op much at all.


They mix well if your a ToB fan and you play loose with the rules and most of all have the ToB rules rule.

But for other games....ToB does not mix well. The ToB stuff is just to radical. The ToB stuff just does to mesh with the normal rules well. And it can lead to endless arguments about maneuvers and such.

Please point out where anything mentioned here has been playing loose with the rules - on your own thread, not this fellow's - and also how you arrived to the conclusion that we needed another argument on how ToB fits the system thematically when the OP is merely about how well it works mechanically.

[Metahuman1]

They mix well if your a ToB fan and you play loose with the rules and most of all have the ToB rules rule.

But for other games....ToB does not mix well. The ToB stuff is just to radical. The ToB stuff just does to mesh with the normal rules well. And it can lead to endless arguments about maneuvers and such.

Yes, cause playing a Samurai that doesn't Die ever time your in a fight in an OA game, a Wuxia martial artist in a Wuxia game, a Holy Warrior who you actually believe has the favor of a Deity backing him instead of just delusions of Grandeur and a stick up his butt, or playing a Conan The Barbarian or Kal-Drogo clone/styled character or even being a GOOD Gimile or Aragorne Clone is totally not what D&D want's.

Oh, wait.

[Falcon X]

I just put together an incredible Swordsage/Scout for one of my players. Technically I combined the classes by giving it the stats and maneuvers of Swordsage and the ability progression of the Scout, but I believe it remains a solid tier 3 martial class. You could probably do something similar with pure multiclassing.

The result was a movement and spring attack based warrior. He could charge in, boost a maneuver into it's skirmish, then tumble away.
He could hop in, do an attack maneuver, then get out of there.
It could use maneuvers that utilized falling from a height to combine with skirmish, knock people up in the air, set things on fire, be a distraction, set traps, or any number of things as part of the hit and run tactics.

It's a blast to play and really got my player thinking in the full x, y, and z axis of the playing field.

[Talya]

ToB doesn't really mix well with, say, WoD or L5R but it blends just fine with the rest of 3.5 D&D. It's no more extreme than spell casters and maneuvers don't cause any more arguments than spells. Why can't non-casters have nice things?

I think they're talking about mixing from a multiclassing/mechanical perspective, with other TOB classes.

With that said, TOB thematicly seems to mix just fine with Oriental Adventures - Rokugan 3rd edition D&D (L5R).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think they're talking about mixing from a multiclassing/mechanical perspective, with other TOB classes.

With that said, TOB thematicly seems to mix just fine with Oriental Adventures - Rokugan 3rd edition D&D (L5R).

Tone really doesn't translate well through text, huh. I understood what he meant. I was saying he's dead wrong.

[Psyren]

Don't you have to multiclass them for Master of Nine? So clearly that's one reason to do it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Don't you have to multiclass them for Master of Nine? So clearly that's one reason to do it.

Strictly speaking, you don't -have- to be multiclassed to get into MoN but it's certainly easier that way. Only a crusader actually has to multiclass.

[Coidzor]

And it can lead to endless arguments about maneuvers and such.

Could you please elaborate on this point? :smallconfused: Where are you having problems that you'd need to play loose with the rules?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Could you please elaborate on this point? :smallconfused: Where are you having problems that you'd need to play loose with the rules?

If I was to guess, iron heart surge is certainly in need of DM tuning, and the stance progression of warblade is off. There are a few other points of less than stellar editing but beyond that I couldn't begin to guess.

[Person_Man]

Depends on the effective class level.

Multiclassing early and often, both general and specifically with Tome of Battle classes, tends to grant a lot of useful class abilities quickly.

However, at higher ECL, you're screwing yourself out of access to superior high level class abilities, and delaying access to superior high level maneuvers/stances.

For example, Swordsage 2/Crusader 2/Warblade 2 probably has a lot better options then Any of Those 6. But Any of Those 17 will probably be much better off then some mishmash combination of two or three classes.

[FullStop]

If I was to guess, iron heart surge is certainly in need of DM tuning, and the stance progression of warblade is off. There are a few other points of less than stellar editing but beyond that I couldn't begin to guess.

I wonder, maybe he has issues with people running with the book's language on prestige classes counting for initiator level progression. There's at least a few people that claim that unless stated otherwise, a given prestige class will count for 1-to-1 IL progression rather than 1/2 as other multiclassing does.

In addition to the obvious typos, like the swordsage's 1st level skill points.