Tome of Battle/Path of War Thoughts

[ArendK]

*Sighs*

Maybe this is just a pointless ramble, but here's my two cents on a subject that is largely irrelevant. I've been gaming solidly and dedicatedly for about 10 years now. I started with an old-school 2nd Edition group, dabbled in 1st, then popped up to 3.5. And with it, and me actually paying attention to gaming forums, I've noticed a trend.

In 1st/2nd edition, there was a trend. As my uncle and my original mentor to the game put it; "In First Edition, there are rules for making characters, and rules for killing characters. Take that for what it's worth, but it is what it is."
Second edition got rule heavy (Combat and Tactics book anyone?), then I picked up 3rd edition, and saw how it did more of it's own thing. 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e followed, and I've gotten to see these games evolve.

This is just my thought as far as balance/issues.
In the early editions, there were no bones to be made of it; at low levels, a caster surviving to the next level was a bloody miracle or showcase of skill. Physical types dominated the battlefield with ease. Why? Because there isn't much more to it than "I hit stuff." However, as the game goes on and everyone starts getting levels, the focus always changed. It became the inverse; Casters were now the shining focus, and physical types were struggling to keep up.
To me, that was how it should always be. Struggle in the early levels to get to thrive later on. If I wanted them to be balanced against each other level for level, I'd fire up WoW or 4e (nothing against them, just personal preference).

Then I really started looking at the Tome of Battle. Not going to lie, I initially took a look at it years ago and my reaction was more akin to Gollum and the elven rope...

I'm fine with the fighter in Pathfinder; I know they aren't terribly versatile, but such is life. I know the Barbarian or the Ranger can outshine them and still do other things. Doesn't bother me.

The idea is that the Ranger/Barbarian take some level of skill to play and use their other strengths just as well. Fighters fight. It's easy, and very straightforward.

Now, I'm looking at Tome of Battle and Path of War several years later. And part of me is seeing how I could make a game more interesting with them. It'd add more of an anime flavor to the game (I typically go nitty-gritty with my style, but that has been declining) as far as martial characters. It'd lose that nitty-gritty style I have come to favor, but it might add something to the game.

In other words- ToB/PoW might have a new believer.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

A few things: Time of Battle better emulates actual Comcast flow as very rarely one could continue to fight with the exact same maneuver hit after hit. Also, if you look to actual sword fighting techniques and training you get things like the Vom Tag strike - literally, "From Day." Then there's the fact that anime is not a genre, but rather a medium. Calling ToB "anime" it's no different than calling it "to movie."

Finally, considering how much casters get from even level 1in 3.5, why can't fighter types have nice things? The linear warrior-quadratic wizard Nat have been nice prevalent in the past, but that does not good game design make.

[Terazul]

In other words- ToB/PoW might have a new believer.

Well that's great that you (and subsequently your groups) may have found something new to add fun to your games!



Now, I'm looking at Tome of Battle and Path of War several years later. And part of me is seeing how I could make a game more interesting with them. It'd add more of an anime flavor to the game (I typically go nitty-gritty with my style, but that has been declining) as far as martial characters. It'd lose that nitty-gritty style I have come to favor, but it might add something to the game.

...But where exactly are you getting this? I see several people who read the book for the first time come away with this impression and I can't imagine how. Roughly only ~15% of all maneuvers are (Su), only available to one initiator class, and most of all the other maneuvers boil down to "I hit this guy really hard", or "I use my skill to reposition myself/inhibit him/resist this form of attack"... Which is all stuff that already happens in the game.

[LTwerewolf]

ToB is fast becoming one of my favorite supplements. I'm not sure why people have such a problem with it. It really isn't any different from an abjurant champion or swiftblade. Casts magic, uses sword vs casts magic mostly with sword. It's like as soon as you take the (su) tag off abilities (and two of those schools still have su on a lot), then it's immediately anime {Scrubbed}. What it really does is give 3 classes that can be built in a myriad of ways that take a little longer to become irrelevant due to casters.

There are people that are going to hate on it just because it's not core, because it's different, and you're going to get the people that haven't even read through it that just heard "it's anime" and hate on it because of that. God forbid mundanes get nice things.

[ArendK]

I suppose "Anime" was too vague a term. But using the statement "Dragonball Z-esque" or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" would be too specific?

Either way, it's just my natural sensibilities. Having studied swordsmanship for longer than I've been playing D&D, I know the same "maneuvers" don't work over and over again; most duels and matches don't last that long either. I think it may just be my natural sensibility towards the way I learned the game and my own thought of "he's a swordsman. Beat someone with skill and skill alone, no supernatural hijinks." Again, side effect of my own training and prejudices.

I did read through it when I first came across it. Again, the idea of a martial based character naturally doing all this supernatural mumbo-jumbo offends the side of my brain that governs logic. But this is also a world of difference between any given table; if one table sees the ToB/PoW as overpowered and not right for their group due to the same reasons or even "fighters don't get nice things" theory, and they still have fun at the table, then so be it.

If a group has more fun with those books, then by all means, have at it.

I'm thinking to introduce it, since not all players I'll have likely have access to the book, I might slowly introduce the abilities as boons and bonuses for the players if they aren't already familiar with them.

I'm not calling ToB a bad book; just not right for my normal groups.

[Xerlith]

It is basically a combat maneuver system done right - thanks to this, mundanes (well, melees) have interesting and tactical options instead of "I full attack" or "I use a special maneuver of questionable usefulness in which I sunk half my feats to be half-competent". It is flavorful, but the default flavor can be easily chnaged or ignored - make up your own! I can see Iron Heart being just a style of combat created to fight a bunch of opponents, while Tiger Claw has either the graceful two-weapon fighting option or a brutal animal-like rage stuff going for it... Possibilities are countless.

[LTwerewolf]

Only a few schools have that (su) tag. Take warblade for example. Where is the (su) tag on any of their skills? All they've done is name the maneuvers and stances. Is a maneuver name what makes it anime? If that's the case, then you'll be disappointed to know the european swordsmen did that too. Posta de falcone (falcon stance), zornhut (rage guard), fuehlen (basically sense motive). There's nothing in ToB that says you have to scream out the move name as you use it like they do in those animes and movies.

The different schools were supposed to be fashioned after different culture's fighting styles. Desert Wind was supposed to get that persian/arabic feel to it, like the dervish. devoted spirit is supposed to be the paladin-esque school, diaond mind is one of the more asian (more japanese specifically) themed schools. Iron Heart is your western european style. There are exceptions here and there in each school, but that's what they're overall emulating.

[Eldan]

I'd suggest just kicking the standard fluff for ToB and look just at the rules. The Warblade doesn't have supernatural power, it's just blade skill. The Crusader is essentially a Paladin. The Swordsage, of course, is very much a monk/wuxia/shonen character.

[Terazul]

I'd suggest just kicking the standard fluff for ToB and look just at the rules. The Warblade doesn't have supernatural power, it's just blade skill. The Crusader is essentially a Paladin. The Swordsage, of course, is very much a monk/wuxia/shonen character.

...Yeah, basically. The Warblade doesn't have access to anything supernatural whatsoever, it's all skill. The Crusader technically doesn't either, as his effects come from just raw zeal; only the Swordsage gets the two supernatural schools, and isn't even required to take any maneuvers from them whatsoever. Heck, even if he did, a core Monk would still have more (Su) class features than him and options for being a straight up DBZ character (Fiery Fists, Fiery Ki Defense, Ki Blast feats, I'm looking at you), if an ineffective one. While the classes in the book mechanically have a bunch more options, flavor and action wise it isn't different from anything a Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, or Barbarian already would do.

I do still understand the book isn't really for everyone! You'll have to forgive me though, the whole "too X" thing is just a real sore spot for me and subsequently I wonder how people draw some of the conclusions they do.