Looking from input from those who think ToB classes should be banned

[Oddman80]

For starters, if you think ToB classes should be available without restrictions, then this thread is not for you. Please do not comment.

For those who think it should be banned, or somehow restricted, I would like to ask the following:

Would you consider allowing the ToB classes to their corresponding core classes as a level 7 prestige class, so long as the 1/2 level per character level = initiator level benefit was removed?

With this model, players that have at least two levels in Paladin, could begin to take Crusader at level 7 (as a Crusader 1 initiator). Same would go for 2 fighter levels getting you access at level 7 to Warblade initiator level 1, and 2 Monk levels getting you access at level 7 to Swordsage initiator level 1.

At that point into the character level progression, it doesn't seem like the concern over OP'd characters would be as applicable. Compared to the spells the Wizard/Sorcerer would have handy by level 7, the level 1 ToB maneuvers & stances seem rather meek.

If you are still hesitant, are there any other prestige class prerequisites you think could be added, in order to make you consider it as an acceptable addition to game-play?

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

[Curmudgeon]

I can think of two simple reasons why a DM could reasonably ban Tome of Battle classes:

They don't own the book.
They don't have time to read the book in order to properly run a game using those classes.

Those are general rules which would apply to any supplementary game system (psionics, skill tricks, & c.). Reason # 2 is more pertinent to Tome of Battle than most such; the book requires multiple readings to find where the authors have buried fundamental rules. :smallmad:

[John Longarrow]

To understand the scope of what you are looking for, would this also include banning Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid/Archivist/Favored Soul/all other full casters?

And are you looking to remove all of the existing initiator prestige classes also?

[nedz]

3. You are running a Tier 5/6 game.
4. The players are unhappy with it — for any reason.

[squiggit]

At that point into the character level progression, it doesn't seem like the concern over OP'd characters would be as applicable. Compared to the spells the Wizard/Sorcerer would have handy by level 7, the level 1 ToB maneuvers & stances seem rather meek.
You could say the same comparing them to first level spells too though

[eggynack]

5. The game is at a very low level of optimization, such that the high optimization floor of ToB classes will cause balance issues.

[Oddman80]

To understand the scope of what you are looking for, would this also include banning Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid/Archivist/Favored Soul/all other full casters?

And are you looking to remove all of the existing initiator prestige classes also?

I am only referring to the deciples of the 9 swords classes - crusader, swordsage, warblade

[Oddman80]

3. You are running a Tier 5/6 game.
4. The players are unhappy with it — for any reason.

Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.

[Oddman80]

You could say the same comparing them to first level spells too though

true - but number of uses of the spells per day is an issue. By level 6, the spellcasters have quite a variety and quantity of spells available per day.

[eggynack]

I am only referring to the deciples of the 9 swords classes - crusader, swordsage, warblade
Yes, but if you're banning based on power level, then you shouldn't ban ToB classes unless you also want to ban those classes he listed, because they're more powerful than the ToB ones. If you're banning based off of other criteria, like the ones Curmudgeon listed, then you can fairly ban ToB without lopping off the higher tiered classes. However, those criteria aren't really ones we can tell you about, as they tend to be personal. I can't tell you about how well you know the system, after all, and neither can I tell you whether the book's fluff appeals to you.

Edit:
Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.
If these are your criteria, then I would advise using the system. The classes are a little front loaded, but other characters won't likely have much difficulty keeping up, and classes like the cleric are going to become extremely powerful later on if they aren't extremely powerful already. Basically, if you institute this rule, then you should logically also institute a rule that disallows taking cleric levels after 6 or something.

[Malroth]

I feel the classes are a bit too front loaded for low level play but i'd allow them as prestigue classes at levels 5+ if the player was willing to blow a feat on Martial study beforehand.

[Oddman80]

I feel the classes are a bit too front loaded for low level play but i'd allow them as prestigue classes at levels 5+ if the player was willing to blow a feat on Martial study beforehand.

Requiring that feat actually makes a lot of sense. thanks.

Yeah - it has been stated by a number of players in the campaign that it is odd that t1 & t2 classes are allowed, but there is a ban on t3 ones for being OP. The DM has said he hates ToB - but it seems like the reason was because it made early lvl characters overpowered. that was the concern of one of the other players as well - i was just looking for input if you thought those concerns could be allayed by what i proposed. Thanks for the replies thus far.

[Seerow]

Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.


This to me says "Majority rules". The guy's already playing a Cleric, why hamper the fun of the rest of the group who wants ToB classes to appease one guy who isn't even playing a character in the same category?

[Jeff the Green]

This to me says "Majority rules". The guy's already playing a Cleric, why hamper the fun of the rest of the group who wants ToB classes to appease one guy who isn't even playing a character in the same category?

Yeah... Warblade et al. are less front-loaded than a cleric. You get domains and turning at 1st; there's literally no reason not to PrC out. Initiators gain a lot by staying in their class.

[Graypairofsocks]

Yeah... Warblade et al. are less front-loaded than a cleric. You get domains and turning at 1st; there's literally no reason not to PrC out. Initiators gain a lot by staying in their class.

I have heard that the Warblade capstone is very good.

[ngilop]

I do not 'ban' ToB at my table but it seems that my players think it is 'too complicated' or 'is too much like spells'
but I think your idea of 'make ToB classes PRCS is fregging brilliant

only I would make swordsage=rogue, that just always made more sense to me than monk.


I would LOWER the entry and let the fighter 'go into' warblade at level 5 instead of 7 maybe even level 4.

yes the warblade capstone is really nice 'hello dual stances!'

as opposed to low level TOB classes being OP.. name 1 low level maneuver that can end whole encounter like glitterdust, colorspray sleep, or entangle can? I can't.. but then I do not have ToB memorized.

[Adverb]

If you compare ToB stuff to other hitty classes, they're amazing! If you compare them to full caster types, they suck less than fighters and barbarians.

Two other problems with them - one, they have per-encounter stuff, so if you like to push your parties with lots of encounters/day, ToB have serious stamina. Two... like a lot of non-core classes, if you've been doing D&D for a long time - since before 3.0 - then you'll find that ToB classes, especially Swordsage, don't "feel like" D&D. The old D&D where you sucked at being a mage for a long time until you were eventually super awesome, and where each class had their own XP curve.

But they are a ****load of fun for a lot of people, and that's a pretty good argument in their favor.

[Graypairofsocks]

Two other problems with them - one, they have per-encounter stuff, so if you like to push your parties with lots of encounters/day, ToB have serious stamina.

Doesn't the warblade rearm maneuvers just by attacking?

[Rakaydos]

Doesn't the warblade rearm maneuvers just by attacking?
Eh, there's attacks and attacks. To recharge your "ignore DR and Hardness and do extra damage" maneuver (and all your other maneuvers), you use a vanilla attack and a Swift action. You cant use a maneuver to recover maneuvers.

[nedz]

Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.

You could suggest delaying Cleric access to domains and TU; since Clerics are even more front loaded, and a higher tier.

Really though I'd just take a show of hands, this will get people to commit and make it a group decision.

[Khedrac]

2. They don't have time to read the book in order to properly run a game using those classes.
This has an additional facet that applies to banning odd sourcebooks for spells etc. as well:

How well do you trust your players to get the rules right? - I.e. how much do you trust their competence (not their honesty)?

Something I have seen far too often is a player creatively misinterpret the rules. Not because they want to cheat, but simply through error (the rules can be very confusing) or by getting carried away in the spirit of the moment (it happens to me on occasion and it's good to have someone point out that it "doesn't work like that").
As a DM I find I need to be very familiar with any odd set of rules any player wants to use, just in case the player gets something wrong.

Things like Psionics and the ToB rules (and Incarnum and ToM) are very different to the core rules and thus intrinsically more complex to keep in mind simultaneously with everything else. If only one player wants to use one of them, then it can be a lot of extra work for the DM to keep 1 player happy - and it can be much easier just to say "sorry, no".

[Endril]

I'm in a similar situation myself. I'm running a game where a player that recently started playing made a bard/swordsage, and I was concerned that he was a bit underpowered, until he started doing a lot of damage with his special attacks, and causing those around him to do a lot more extra damage than just the +2 his inspire courage was granting. And even though I skimmed through ToB and tried to understand the rules, I honestly have no idea how he was doing it. I just trusted that he was doing it right. It's a book I've been meaning to read over and possibly place some limitations on, and I made him aware he may be facing that later. I've already had to do a few things... take away the celerity spells that grant extra standard actions, limit contingent item to one per person, require abrupt jaunt to take a move/swift action instead of immediate until level 7 or 9, etc.

So I'm in agreement with what others have said. If you haven't read the book, and he's causing balance problems, your best bet is to either read the book and find ways to balance it to your party, or cut down your work load by just saying no. I also don't think making base classes into prestige classes is a bad idea at all, since pushing abilities back into higher levels tends to be a quick fix for balance problems.

All that being said, I like that there's a book that helps put fighter-types on par with spellcasters, even if they pretty much just made warrior classes that do the same thing but call it something else (again, I haven't read enough of the book to be sure, but that's what it looks like to me).

[John Longarrow]

Oddman80,

Something that may give you the feel and flavor your looking for with a lot less work would be having feat requirements to take ToB classes.

Weapon Specialization before you can go into Warblade.
Superior Unarmed Strike before you can go into Sword Sage.
Lay on Hands before you can go into Crusader.

Those are just ideas, but it will allow you to direct people into the classes at about the same time your casters are getting some pretty heavy hitting spells while still keeping the maneuver levels comparable.

[Person_Man]

If anything I would say that Tome of Battle classes are not flexible enough. The fact that they can't change out their Maneuvers Known each day can lead to monotonous 4E style combat, where some players use the same handful of Strikes in the same order in every combat. (It's far less of an issue at mid-high levels, especially for the Swordsage).

Of course, I dislike games with Tier 4 and 5 classes, so maybe that's just me.

[jedipotter]

For those who think it should be banned, or somehow restricted,



I ban the whole book...cover to cover. Nothing you ask would change that.

[EisenKreutzer]

I ban the whole book...cover to cover. Nothing you ask would change that.

Out of curiosity, why do you ban Tome of Battle?

[Ssalarn]

If anything I would say that Tome of Battle classes are not flexible enough. The fact that they can' change out their Maneuvers Known each day can lead to monotonous 4E style combat, where some players use the same handful of Strikes in the same order in every combat. (It's far less of an issue at mid-high levels, especially for the Swordsage).

Of course, I dislike games with Tier 4 and 5 classes, so maybe that's just me.

I noticed the same thing. They almost always end up with a rotation of opener, round 2 boost, finisher, recharge, even if they potentially have a couple other maneuvers available. Regardless, it still beats the snot out of "I hit it with my sword/axe/lance/bow" over and over.

I like the idea of bringing them in as PrCs if the group is unsure about them. That at least gets them in at a point where people with philosophical hold-ups about what does or does not fit in the fantasy world they envision will be a little more accepting of the idea that a guy can swing a sword so hard the air around it briefly catches fire.

I've always personally had a small problem with Fighters at levels 6 and up, who in many ways have exceeded the bounds of mortal limitations as we understand them in our reality, still being stuck doing the same things they could at level 1, granted with more and larger numbers added to the mix. It stretches the bounds of my imagination to think that going from knowing how to swing a sword to being really good at tripping or grappling and swinging your sword a couple extra times over the course of 6 seconds is supposed to in some way reflect an equivalent amount of growth and experience as the guy who started with the ability to conjure up a few small splashes of corrosive liquid and can now create his own personal planes of existence.

[Fouredged Sword]

I would really like to see it redone with a PRC for each path. You would get access to one and only one school, but at an accelerated rate (10 class levels, 7 bab prereq keeping it all endgame), but with interesting class features tied into each level.

You get the capstone and 9th level strike at the final level (likely your 20th due to skill / bab prereqs)

Class prereqs
13 skill ranks in the path skill
Martial study (path strike)
Martial Stance (path stance)

[Kuulvheysoon]

I would really like to see it redone with a PRC for each path. You would get access to one and only one school, but at an accelerated rate (10 class levels, 7 bab prereq keeping it all endgame), but with interesting class features tied into each level.

You get the capstone and 9th level strike at the final level (likely your 20th due to skill / bab prereqs)

Class prereqs
13 skill ranks in the path skill
Martial study (path strike)
Martial Stance (path stance)

Actually, I really like this idea. Or maybe even more ambitious - a prestige class like Prestige Paladin/Ranger.

You know, 15 levels, requires say 8 ranks in any two martial skills (it could create problems with Iron Heart/Stone Dragon, which have the same skills - something to think on), Martial Study for 2 different disciplines, Martial Stance in one. Then they could have a Major discipline and a minor (to give enough class features to last the whole 15 levels). Maybe something like the Ardent's power selection (must have more in their primary discipline then theur secondary), and letting them switch primary halfway through (or give them Stone Dragon free? If doing that, then just ban them from taking Stone Dragon as one of their 2 disciplines, as they'd get it anyways. That'd certainly solve the skill issue, if nothing else).

There was a homebrew class somewhere that mastered 1 discipline only; perhaps draw from there for inspiration?
EDIT: Found it - TG Oskar's Blademaster (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?120539-Complete-(-)-Martial-(or-yet-another-ToB-homebrew)-The-Blademaster-(base-class))

...Damn, now I want something like that.

[Fouredged Sword]

At one point I played around with this idea. I like the idea of a major and minor path. Lets say 15 levels. I think I am going to take this to homebrew later, if nobody beats me to it.

[Kuulvheysoon]

At one point I played around with this idea. I like the idea of a major and minor path. Lets say 15 levels. I think I am going to take this to homebrew later, if nobody beats me to it.

If you do, link me to the thread. I'm very interested (and I may be running a d20 Avatar game soonish, and a prestige class like that would probably fit perfectly).

[Metahuman1]

First, I'd tell the cleric he doesn't have any room to talk about front loaded since he's playing one of the most front loaded Teir 1 classes in the game.


Second, here's what I'd do. At 6th level, either crack open the players handbook 2 and send them on a rebuild quest, or go "end of campaign chapter 1, chapter 2 starts next session and picks up X months later, during which time you all got some nice training in."

Then swap out fighter/barbarian/ranger/rouge/monk/paladin levels for appropriate levels, based on players desires, for swordsage/warblade/crusader. This way they get the benefit if not seriously falling behind casters super badly, but you don't have to worry about them being over kill in the early levels. Trust me, by level six, the casters are pulling far enough ahead that if your warriors don't start getting something, there gonna become utterly obsolete.

[ddude987]

At one point I played around with this idea. I like the idea of a major and minor path. Lets say 15 levels. I think I am going to take this to homebrew later, if nobody beats me to it.

I look forward to seeing it.

In regards to op,
I think level 7 is to late to be doing the prestige into ToB classes. If you really are set on not allowing ToB classes to be entered as normal I would either drop the level to 5th and keep the non initiator level classes add 1/2 initiator level or I would have them be entered at 3rd level, your first two levels being the required class to enter ToB. I would also be more flexible with the entree requirments, i.e Barbarian or Fighter for Warblade, Paladin for Crusader, Rogue or Monk for Swordsage, and probably find somewhere to put ranger and potentially other non core classes.

[eggynack]

Second, here's what I'd do. At 6th level, either crack open the players handbook 2 and send them on a rebuild quest, or go "end of campaign chapter 1, chapter 2 starts next session and picks up X months later, during which time you all got some nice training in."

Then swap out fighter/barbarian/ranger/rouge/monk/paladin levels for appropriate levels, based on players desires, for swordsage/warblade/crusader. This way they get the benefit if not seriously falling behind casters super badly, but you don't have to worry about them being over kill in the early levels. Trust me, by level six, the casters are pulling far enough ahead that if your warriors don't start getting something, there gonna become utterly obsolete.
This certainly seems more elegant than the PrC solution, but I still have to question the central logic at work here. In particular, if the warblade has to begin as a fighter and be retrained to warblade, then logically, the cleric should start as a cleric and be retrained to, I dunno, maybe some kind of paladin//healer thing, allowing the healer slots to run sanctified spells. It seems only fair that, in stripping away the warblade's best levels, you also strip away those of the cleric.

[Metahuman1]

This certainly seems more elegant than the PrC solution, but I still have to question the central logic at work here. In particular, if the warblade has to begin as a fighter and be retrained to warblade, then logically, the cleric should start as a cleric and be retrained to, I dunno, maybe some kind of paladin//healer thing, allowing the healer slots to run sanctified spells. It seems only fair that, in stripping away the warblade's best levels, you also strip away those of the cleric.

I'm glade you like it. =)

[Taffimai]

The idea of making them prestige classes is interesting, and I think the Martial Study feat (and perhaps a number of ranks in the associated skills for their disciplines) are good requirements.

Another idea is to allow the classes, but ban Adaptive Style and Sudden Recovery (feats), then make sure the DM understands how recovery mechanisms and readied manoeuvres work. This tones them down quite a bit, and it might also appease the cleric player to see the others also having to pick their "spells" in advance.

By the way, have a non-confrontational talk with your cleric. People don't usually begrudge other players to play what they want unless they are somehow unhappy with their own character. Make sure he doesn't feel like he's stuck just playing band-aid while everybody else gets to do the cool stuff.

[Anlashok]

Metahuman's rebuild idea is a good one.

If you do make them PrCs you're going to have to remake the classes though, compress maneuver gain to 10 levels and shift all the class features and capstones down...

Actually now that I think about it that might be a bit fun: Martials tend to suffer more and more as the game goes on, so speeding up their access to normally endgame initiator tools might be nice. Take full dungeoncrasher or Zhentarim progression (etc) into a compressed Warblade that gets Dual stance by 16 or 17? Yum.

I think the best starting point though is laughing uncontrollably at a cleric complaining about other classes being too frontloaded or too powerful.

[Kuulvheysoon]

At one point I played around with this idea. I like the idea of a major and minor path. Lets say 15 levels. I think I am going to take this to homebrew later, if nobody beats me to it.


I look forward to seeing it.


The idea of making them prestige classes is interesting, and I think the Martial Study feat (and perhaps a number of ranks in the associated skills for their disciplines) are good requirements.

Beat you to it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?345315-Prestige-Warblade-WIP&p=17391051#post17391051), man. I had a spare hour this afternoon to whip something up. I'd welcome any (and all) commentary and help finishing it off.

[Metahuman1]

The idea of making them prestige classes is interesting, and I think the Martial Study feat (and perhaps a number of ranks in the associated skills for their disciplines) are good requirements.

Another idea is to allow the classes, but ban Adaptive Style and Sudden Recovery (feats), then make sure the DM understands how recovery mechanisms and readied manoeuvres work. This tones them down quite a bit, and it might also appease the cleric player to see the others also having to pick their "spells" in advance.

By the way, have a non-confrontational talk with your cleric. People don't usually begrudge other players to play what they want unless they are somehow unhappy with their own character. Make sure he doesn't feel like he's stuck just playing band-aid while everybody else gets to do the cool stuff.

I would say no on the skills unless you are deliberatly only gonna mandate one or two ranks, or else want to actively make sure they don't go to the ToB till 10th level or so.

Classes like the fighter don't get many of the disapline related skills like Concentration, Balance or Diplomacy. Heck, the fact that it downgrades skill use by making it harder to have the maxed ranks in the disapline skills is actually another reason not to make them PrC's but to retrain them instead, cause your still nerfing them even once they get in.

[Fouredged Sword]

Getting martial study grants the associated skill as a class skill for all classes. If you meet the feat prereqs, the skill prereqs are easier.

[Mnemnosyne]

Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.
One out of six players is complaining about ToB classes. That player is playing one of the most powerful classes in the game, being a tier 1 caster that is also fully capable of filling melee roles with near top-shelf competence. Also, he's playing the most front-loaded class in D&D, with all class features immediately granted at level 1, making it a very popular dip, and he's the one complaining that ToB classes are front-loaded?

This seems very much like a case of someone who really, really doesn't like non-magical classes having anything nice at all, rather than a valid and well-reasoned complaint, otherwise it seems like Cleric should be the first class he'd want to ban, considering how much Clerics get at level 1.

[ericgrau]

How much ToB you allow all depends how well optimized your group is. I think allowing them at any level might get someone to pick a ToB class, but it gets less and less likely as you get to higher and higher level. So depends how often you want to see them.

IMO level 5 could be a good level to still seem them used sometimes without the mechanics having big effect on game play.

But I kinda wonder if it's worth learning so much mechanics for only a minor effect. It may be easier to ban it until you're ready, unless you are bored and already know the system. Bringing maneuvers to more players like others are suggesting does give way more purpose to the book though.

[Werephilosopher]

One out of six players is complaining about ToB classes. That player is playing one of the most powerful classes in the game, being a tier 1 caster that is also fully capable of filling melee roles with near top-shelf competence. Also, he's playing the most front-loaded class in D&D, with all class features immediately granted at level 1, making it a very popular dip, and he's the one complaining that ToB classes are front-loaded?

This seems very much like a case of someone who really, really doesn't like non-magical classes having anything nice at all, rather than a valid and well-reasoned complaint, otherwise it seems like Cleric should be the first class he'd want to ban, considering how much Clerics get at level 1.

I agree. I had to reread what you said a few times, Oddman80, because it was hard to wrap my head around the irony. If one of the players who actually wants to play an initiator class is willing to learn the system and help the DM understand it, I don't think the guy with access to Divine Metamagic should be allowed to veto that idea by himself. It's not like he even has to learn about the system himself.

[Vaz]

Compared to spellcasters, even in melee, ToB characters can fall behind in campaign effectiveness. When a Druid is running as an Enlarged Lion's Charging Legendary Ape with Bite of the Werebear focused on using its Quarterstaff to its best ability (or possibly as a Planar Shepherd running as a Pit Fiend etc), it's still capable of doing better than ToB classes due to the rest of the utility it brings to the table on top of that.

Cleric Persisting Divine Power and Consumptive Circle.

Wu Jen Master Transmogrifist with Giant Size and Polymorph.

Duskblades, even.

These are not even the most dangerous combinations of characters, and they're still up there and capable of dealing with threats along the same lines of a BSF like the Warblade (and yes, it is a Big Stupid Fighter, because if it wasn't Stupid, it would be a caster and fight better than a fighter).

Including "front loaded", or "dip friendly" classes like Warblades make higher level fighting more fun. One of the main complaints with fighters is that they're little more than "Round 1, Charge. Round 2, if enemy is still there, Full Attack. Round 3, Full Attack etc etc ad nauseam" With a Divine Power Cleric, it can be much the same. "Travel Devotion, Full Attack. Full Attack. Full Attack. Full Attack."

Tome of Battle gives such characters something different to do, if they wish rather than full attack and throw down a load of dice. This time, they can shout Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip which is insanely fun to say, and when you suddenly find out that you're throwing 40 or so dice down at the screen, you can still have fun, even on a boring old melee build.

And with things like Shadow Jaunt line, you can do stuff normally reserved for casters. Admittedly, later on, but no longer will you find yourself having to rely on having a rogue climb to the top of a tower with rope, and then make a climb check to follow him up there. You can either teleport yourself or use Balance in the Sky to get up there. Alternatively, you can use Mountain Strike to bring the top of the tower down to a more manageable level.

[Ssalarn]

Alternatively, you can use Mountain Strike to bring the top of the tower down to a more manageable level

That made me smile. :smallsmile:

[Metahuman1]

How much ToB you allow all depends how well optimized your group is. I think allowing them at any level might get someone to pick a ToB class, but it gets less and less likely as you get to higher and higher level. So depends how often you want to see them.

IMO level 5 could be a good level to still seem them used sometimes without the mechanics having big effect on game play.


Kinda my suspicion, more so if you happen to notice this player taking Divine Metamagic, and/or persist spell, and also happens to be prioritizing con and/or asking to use the spellcraft rule for researching spells to make cleric versions of Druid and Wizard Buffs. More so since he took the extra front loaded version of the cleric that traded some BAB, a good fort save, a few proficiency's and a hit die size for an extra domain, way more skills out of the box, and more casting. What with the BAB being worked around with Divine Power and a couple of other buffs and a hefty Con Score getting around the lost proficiency's and fort save/hit die issue quite handily.

He's not doing it cause he really has a problem, he's doing it cause he want's caster supremacy to make absolutely sure he's THE big dog and that short of buying into caster supremacy and supporting caster supremacy by playing casters, there's not squat anyone can do about it.

Honestly if he was doing this at my table I'd point blank tell him "If you don't like the system, there's the door if you hate it that much, if not, your not required to use it, just don't complain of others, including me, the DM, doing so.".

[The Grue]

Druids have been banned. but wizards, cloistered clerics and sorcerers are all allowed. only one out of 6 players (the cleric) didn't want ToB classes, because he feels it gives too much good stuff away too quickly. That's the main reason i was thinking about proposing the delayed access.

Out of curiosity, is it your policy as DM to allow a player to decide how other players play the game?

If it is I would allow the cleric player's request, but I would also allow the player who requested ToB to veto Clerics and Wizards for exactly the same reason.

[ericgrau]

Kinda my suspicion...
Or they might only be allowing only cloistered cleric because for them it's less powerful since they don't use a lot of tricks. It could be ToB is a problem, or it could be totally fine. The OP will have to tell us what kinds of builds the clerics and others have, then that'll help figure out exactly what's par for their group. Until then the OP is the best judge of what's too much or too little in his group.

For example I've never ever played with a super powerful cleric or druid with any of my DMs. But few people knew what to do and those that did didn't want to severely outshine the rest so they avoided the tricks. One knew about DMM and immediately said let's just not use this, k? Most hadn't even heard of it. But among those that go online it's common knowledge. So it all depends.

[Metahuman1]

Possible, or, as an alternative, maybe he just likes the idea of casters being top dog period and doesn't want that even remotly challenged.

Or maybe he just likes him behing the baddest guy in the group. My current party has a dude like that who's also quite fond of running off to get solo encounters. It's getting to the point that the DM had to let the rest of the part rebuild recenlty to catch us back up, and he's in danger of the party just leaving his ass the next time he get's them in unneeded trouble just to make win himself badass and extra XP points.

[Oddman80]

Out of curiosity, is it your policy as DM to allow a player to decide how other players play the game?

If it is I would allow the cleric player's request, but I would also allow the player who requested ToB to veto Clerics and Wizards for exactly the same reason.

I am not actually our group's DM. I am just one of the players (a Spirit Lion/Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 2). This is actually my first experience with D&D- but since i got started, i went Full OCD and have been reading everything I can get my hands on. The volume of content is exciting and staggering - but amid all of it - the ToB classes really stood out to me as something I thought i would enjoy playing (but had not come across until a couple weeks after the campaigns character creation session).

If it helps, the other players in the campaign consist of a Kobold Sorcerer, a Half-elf Ranger, a Monk, and a Sparrow Hengeyoukai Bard. The cleric is a evil necromancer cloistered cleric, and while he has the ability to turn undead, there has only been one encounter with a creature with a low enough level that the cleric has been able to turn - and the DM took the minion away within 30 minutes of him acquiring it via a Great Wyrm Umbral Dragon who was mad at me for killing off an NPC (see one of my other posts).

The cleric actually died during the first encounter. He was resurrected by some witches, but something went wrong during the ritual, and they had to put his consciousness in a woman's body. Occasionally, now, he has to deal with the host body's previous owner trying to take control. It is possible that this is the root of his annoyance, though the DM has indicated if he finds a way to make nice with the soul/co-inhabitant, he will be able to take advantage of some of that souls rogue class abilities (sounds kinda gestalt, no? But what i really think is at issue, is there haven't been any low CR encounters at all. So his magic hasn't been very effective and while it is still quite early (we've only had 4 sessions i think), I believe the cleric is annoyed that he picked what he thought would be a great/powerful character but 20 hours of playtime in, and he has not yet been able to let him shine.

To let people know about the degree of Optimization allowed in the campaign, our DM has said he doesn't want cheese builds and he doesn't want it to become an OP campaign. I think for the most part the players are just reacting to getting picked off in unussually high CR encounters this early on. We do have one player who seems to have character optimization as a hobby - but he has been rather restrained. One other player tried incorporating an Epic 1000 year character history he had written into a new level 3 character (including some impossible to accquire via WBL magical items) - and that riled some feathers... For the record all of this has been discussed openly with the DM. However as some infighting had started regarding some irregular character builds, the DM decided to make some house rules.

The DM has restricted races to the following: Human, Elf, Halfing, Darwf, Half Elf, Half Orc, Hengeyokai, Tibbits, Catfolk, Dhampirs, Changelings, Samsarans, and Kitsune.

Classes have been limited to the following: Ninja, Samuria* from the Oriental adventures, Scout, Spellthief, Warlock, Warmage, Hexblade, Swashbuckler, Archivist, Barbarian, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, Bard, Cloistered Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger , Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and Witch (but only if its a female character).

All variants need ot be approved prior to being used. any other classes/races need to get approval before use. There haven't been any restrictions thus far on feats, spells, or books allowed, the the DM, when first asked about warblade, just countered with "I Hate Tome of Battle". Nonetheless - after seeing some of the early responses to this thread, I had proposed the ToB Classes as lvel 6 prestige class idea (i did not mention anything about not getting 1/2 level initiator levels) and the DM said he would consider it.

I am not even certain I want ToB for my current build (Depending on how I like working with a ranger animal companion, I may go Wild Cohort /Beast Master and just control a fleet of animals). but when i read the ToB, i really enjoyed it, and thought it gave a fun alternate style to combat. And knowing that ToB is available in the campaign would make me happy (as well as several other players).

[Oddman80]

I'm thrilled this thread took off the way it did, and that it actually inspired someone to build a Warblade Prestige Class progression. Thanks for all your input. I have enjoyed sitting back a little and watching the conversation take place these past few days.

[VoxRationis]

One out of six players is complaining about ToB classes. That player is playing one of the most powerful classes in the game, being a tier 1 caster that is also fully capable of filling melee roles with near top-shelf competence. Also, he's playing the most front-loaded class in D&D, with all class features immediately granted at level 1, making it a very popular dip, and he's the one complaining that ToB classes are front-loaded?

This seems very much like a case of someone who really, really doesn't like non-magical classes having anything nice at all, rather than a valid and well-reasoned complaint, otherwise it seems like Cleric should be the first class he'd want to ban, considering how much Clerics get at level 1.

There are many reasons not to like Tome of Battle besides that.
And cleric is only "front-loaded" if you don't count spells as a class feature, which is quite frankly ridiculous. Just because a lot of prestige classes advance the spells doesn't make them class features; a lot of prestige classes also advance Animal Companion or Wild Shape, and that doesn't make those things not class features.

[Mnemnosyne]

There are many reasons not to like Tome of Battle besides that.
And cleric is only "front-loaded" if you don't count spells as a class feature, which is quite frankly ridiculous. Just because a lot of prestige classes advance the spells doesn't make them class features; a lot of prestige classes also advance Animal Companion or Wild Shape, and that doesn't make those things not class features.
I didn't say there necessarily weren't, but I did say that this particular case seems like someone who is very insistent that non-magical classes can't do anything cool.

And yes, spells are a class feature; never said they weren't. Clerics get spells at level 1, along with everything else. Needing to be advanced doesn't make them not a class feature of the class that originally granted them, and a class feature of the class that's advancing them. 19 out of 20 cleric levels only advance things that were granted at level 1, they provide nothing more than advancement of pre-existing class features.

[VoxRationis]

But 8/10 of the spells don't come at 1st level; they come gradually, in a very methodical progression, and without getting those cleric levels (or prestige classes that function like cleric levels), you can't get them. That would not fit my definition of "front-loaded." This is particularly true in that 5th level cleric spells, for instance, are not just 1st level cleric spells but 5 times as much, like 9th level sneak attack vs. 1st level sneak attack; they are qualitatively different as well as quantitative.

[BWR]

I can think of two simple reasons why a DM could reasonably ban Tome of Battle classes:

They don't own the book.
They don't have time to read the book in order to properly run a game using those classes.



You're missing one: the DM doesn't like it.

I'm in that category. This has come up before and some people on the boards couldn't seem to understand that it's possible to dislike the mechanics for reasons other than power and balance. I assure you that it is possible. I am not saying everyone should ban ToB - if that's what floats your boat, fine. I do not allow it in my games.

[ericgrau]

long post
The key then is if it adds to the fun. If otherwise there would be no ToB at all, a lot of people want to play ToB, and you find a way to introduce it without disrupting the limited optimization then it should make everyone happier and that's a plus. So ya the thread ideas are cool.

I'd pull a couple ideas you like from the thread, run them by your DM, and see what he likes.

[Mnemnosyne]

But 8/10 of the spells don't come at 1st level; they come gradually, in a very methodical progression, and without getting those cleric levels (or prestige classes that function like cleric levels), you can't get them. That would not fit my definition of "front-loaded." This is particularly true in that 5th level cleric spells, for instance, are not just 1st level cleric spells but 5 times as much, like 9th level sneak attack vs. 1st level sneak attack; they are qualitatively different as well as quantitative.
But advancing that class feature has nothing to do with granting it. Cleric 1 grants it. After that, the character can switch into other classes that advance it and grant additional class features. And the cleric is incredibly front-loaded, more than any other class because of that. Consider all the things a cleric gets at level 1:

Weapon and armor proficiency, which could be either simple weapons/light armor or simple weapons/heavy armor depending on whether he's cloistered or not.
Turn/Rebuke Undead, which can power all manner of feats and abilities.
Spells, which, even counting only level 1 cleric spells and their domains, are already far more varied and capable than a level 1 initiator's maneuvers.
Spell list access to the entire cleric spell list for the purpose of wands, scrolls, and staffs.
Domains, which grant a wide variety of abilities ranging from weak to very strong, in a number of cases stronger than the strongest feat; each domain can be valued as a very strong class feature in itself, and a cloistered cleric gets a third one.
If the Magic domain is one of the chosen ones, spell list access to the entire Sorcerer/Wizard list for the purpose of wands, scrolls, and staffs.
Good will and fortitude saves, leaving out only reflex saves, which are almost universally considered to be the least valuable type of saving throw.
At worst, a d6 hit die, if cloistered; a d8 hit die if not cloistered.
A non-cloistered cleric gets a 3/4 BAB, making them reasonably competent in melee.

Even without counting the ability to cast spells, access to the entire cleric and sorcerer/wizard spell lists for using wands, scrolls, and staffs is, alone, of equal or greater value than anything an initiator class gets at level 1. Add in the cleric's first level spellcasting, another choice of domain, and all those other abilities listed above, and you get a class that gives far, far more than any initiator class, and quite probably more than any other class in the game at level 1, although this point might be slightly arguable based on the strength of particular spell lists and class features, and can vary significantly for the cleric based on domain choices.

Not to mention, if you are arguing that the cleric isn't that front-loaded in comparison to the ToB classes, let's see what they get at 1st level, shall we?

They each get weapon/armor proficiencies better than the cleric.
They get maneuvers, which are inferior to the cleric's spells.
They get one known stance, which is inferior to the cleric's choice of domain, and furthermore there's only one stance as opposed to at least 2 domains for the cleric.
They each get two class features, of which I would say the Crusader's are the strongest. We might compare those to domains, or to turn undead; in either case, none of the initiator classes' features are favorably comparable to the cleric's comparison.
The initiators also get only one good save, except the swordsage which gets two...but even the swordsage only gets reflex and will.
They have a better hit die than the cleric, or equal, in the case of swordsage compared to non-cloistered cleric.
2/3 of them have a better BAB than the cleric.

The ToB classes not only have less things going for them numerically at level 1, but those things are largely inferior to the cleric's. The only advantage they have is non-initiator class levels counting as 1/2 toward initiator level, possibly allowing them to get more valuable maneuvers by dipping at higher level, at which point those maneuvers might arguably be considered to make them equal to the cleric...but that's a very arguable comparison. Only the most powerful maneuvers such as Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics can really even begin to close the gap with everything that level 1 cleric offers.

Keep in mind, the context of this is that a cleric player is complaining that some other class is 'too front-loaded'. At most, if that is considered a serious argument and potential problem, the only reasonable change that would be necessary is to restrict the initiator to choosing maneuvers and stances at level 1 as though they were only initiator level 1, even if they are taking it at a higher character level. All it really does is make sure that the cleric isn't even challenged in its 'best class to dip' status, but if 'too front loaded' is seriously considered an issue, then that's all that's needed to make sure that isn't the case.


Oh, and to the OP: If one player out of six is being allowed to veto classes for the rest, then perhaps you should veto cleric being allowed, if you're interested in playing a ToB class yourself. Tell the cleric you will lift your veto on the cleric, if he will lift his on the ToB classes.

[TuggyNE]

But advancing that class feature has nothing to do with granting it. Cleric 1 grants it. After that, the character can switch into other classes that advance it and grant additional class features.

Prestige classes that advance X class feature don't really count for front-loading, to my mind; the point of a front-loaded class is that all by itself, simply taking a level or three in that class will grant a great deal. If you have to then devote another sixteen+ levels to, among other things, advancing an important feature, that's not really front-loaded, now is it? Cleric is front-loaded, yes, but not because of spells.

Domain powers, spell-trigger/spell-completion items, turn attempts, and one or two other things are the actual causes of its front-loading.

[Kuulvheysoon]

*snip*
Not to mention, if you are arguing that the cleric isn't that front-loaded in comparison to the ToB classes, let's see what they get at 1st level, shall we?

They each get weapon/armor proficiencies better than the cleric.
They get maneuvers, which are inferior to the cleric's spells.
They get one known stance, which is inferior to the cleric's choice of domain, and furthermore there's only one stance as opposed to at least 2 domains for the cleric.
They each get two class features, of which I would say the Crusader's are the strongest. We might compare those to domains, or to turn undead; in either case, none of the initiator classes' features are favorably comparable to the cleric's comparison.
The initiators also get only one good save, except the swordsage which gets two...but even the swordsage only gets reflex and will.
They have a better hit die than the cleric, or equal, in the case of swordsage compared to non-cloistered cleric.
2/3 of them have a better BAB than the cleric.

The ToB classes not only have less things going for them numerically at level 1, but those things are largely inferior to the cleric's.
Point of Order - Clerics get better armor proficiencies than both the Swordsage and Warblade, and actually have access to missile weapons (compared to the Warblade), and could even have a good martial weapon with the War Domain.

[Jeff the Green]

Prestige classes that advance X class feature don't really count for front-loading, to my mind; the point of a front-loaded class is that all by itself, simply taking a level or three in that class will grant a great deal. If you have to then devote another sixteen+ levels to, among other things, advancing an important feature, that's not really front-loaded, now is it? Cleric is front-loaded, yes, but not because of spells.

Domain powers, spell-trigger/spell-completion items, turn attempts, and one or two other things are the actual causes of its front-loading.

A fair point, but there's an enormous number of classes that advance casting (including two in ToB!), a fair number that advance casting and at least one of the cleric's other class features, very few that progress maneuvers (and those are generally more restrictive in discipline), and even fewer that progress any other of the initiators' class features. This means that spells are largely decoupled from actual cleric levels in a way that maneuvers aren't.

[TuggyNE]

A fair point, but there's an enormous number of classes that advance casting (including two in ToB!), a fair number that advance casting and at least one of the cleric's other class features, very few that progress maneuvers (and those are generally more restrictive in discipline), and even fewer that progress any other of the initiators' class features. This means that spells are largely decoupled from actual cleric levels in a way that maneuvers aren't.

Hmm. Yeah, I dunno. It feels like that's more a case of "there's a whole ton of PrCs that are strictly or nearly strictly caster+", even though the effect is pretty similar; it's certainly not a feature of the class itself, or even of feats and other closely-associated material, but is an emergent property of the system as a whole.

[Jeff the Green]

Hmm. Yeah, I dunno. It feels like that's more a case of "there's a whole ton of PrCs that are strictly or nearly strictly caster+", even though the effect is pretty similar; it's certainly not a feature of the class itself, or even of feats and other closely-associated material, but is an emergent property of the system as a whole.

It's kinda built into the system, though. Of all the classes in the PHB, only one (rogue) has any class features other than spellcasting progressed in any of the DMG PrCs. And then only three, compared with seven progressing spellcasting. And only one of them actually requires it.