Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[Segev]

This is all I'll say about SAO in this thread; we should start another if we really want to discuss it:

I enjoyed the anime series, and while you could argue that there are bad elements to it, the storytelling was engaging enough that I kept wanting to see the next episode (after they stopped having Kirito be all loner). My only gripe is the karma houdini. I won't say who that is; I'm fairly sure those who've seen it know who I'm talking about.

[Vaynor]

I'm actually a bit unclear on whether that applied to the mostly irrelevant progression discussion, or only to the completely irrelevant proficiency discussion, especially as Aquillion found that post in this thread, rather than in the new thread made for the off topic stuff. With that in mind...

The Red Towel: If you expected me to sort through over ten pages of off-topic discussion then you vastly overestimate my patience. It applied to all off-topic discussions concerning unarmed strike or unarmed strike progression. I'm only not closing this thread because the actual topic seems to have been reinvigorated, but seriously, stop talking about unarmed strike in this thread.

[Galen]

I treat the ToB as if it was PHB errata. The Warblade, Swordsage and Crusader are just what the Fighter, Monk and Paladin should have been to begin with.

[Flickerdart]

Speaking of Unarmed Strikes, people always focus on the maneuver system and seem to forget that ToB has other things in it, like Superior Unarmed Strike and Snap Kick, which open up unarmed combat to non-terrible classes.

[Just to Browse]

Speaking of Unarmed StrikesNO FLICKERDART WHAT ARE YOU-


people always focus on the maneuver system and seem to forget that ToB has other things in it, like Superior Unarmed Strike and Snap Kick, which open up unarmed combat to non-terrible classes.

... Oh, OK. :smallredface:

Snap Kick is a great feat to have all the time. It's one of those feats like Improved Initiative that I'm always willing to throw on a build if I have a feat to spare.

[Rubik]

NO FLICKERDART WHAT ARE YOU-

... Oh, OK. :smallredface:Pretty much my reaction to a T.

[Studoku]

Why play a fighter when you can be a warblade? The only two reasons are "I want to be an archer fighter" and "because reasons, I'm not using ToB"
Then don't play a fighter. Seems simple enough.

[eggynack]

The Red Towel: If you expected me to sort through over ten pages of off-topic discussion then you vastly overestimate my patience. It applied to all off-topic discussions concerning unarmed strike or unarmed strike progression. I'm only not closing this thread because the actual topic seems to have been reinvigorated, but seriously, stop talking about unarmed strike in this thread.
Sorry 'bout that then. Just wasn't really sure if I was supposed to swap responses over to the other thread in this particular case, which I probably would have done with the proficiency argument more readily.

Then don't play a fighter. Seems simple enough.
Indeed. The real issue people seem to have is that they're not the same, because they're not in a lot of ways, but once you get to things that do the same thing with different mechanics, it feels like you reenter the world of druids and clerics.

[Curmudgeon]

Speaking of Unarmed Strikes, people always focus on the maneuver system and seem to forget that ToB has other things in it, like Superior Unarmed Strike and Snap Kick, which open up unarmed combat to non-terrible classes.
Those two feats are the elements of Tome of Battle I use the most. You can skip the whole Monk/Unarmed Swordsage quagmire and move directly to having a good close range attack to pair with your choice of reach weapon, with no class level investment. D&D has thousands of feats, yet only a few of them provide better benefits simply by adding (unconstrained) character levels. I think ToB adding one such feat to the list makes a significant, welcome, contribution.

[TheCrowing1432]

Unarmed Strikes are crazy powerful.

Natural, Light and Sometimes even martial weapons, with a whole bunch of modifiers and stuff you can add to them.

[aleucard]

Unarmed Strikes are crazy powerful.

Natural, Light and Sometimes even martial weapons, with a whole bunch of modifiers and stuff you can add to them.

A bitch and a half to enchant meaningfully, though, and if your primary configuration isn't doing the job, either you're enchanting each striking surface separately, which has its own problems, or you're stuck with either Scorpion Kama if you got MIC access like that (it's a set item, which may have its own baggage, though if you're going monk full-tilt the rest of it can be useful) or begging your DM to either let your Gauntlets adjust to your Unarmed Strike damage (not that much of a stretch, they're explicitly called out as scaling to the non-class version, but still) or let you enchant handwraps or something as weapons. If you got a crafter in your party and your DM's feeling generous, he MAY be able to swap out your enchantments for equal-level ones with minimal cost, but that's iffy on its own right and will still take a significant amount of time. That's assuming that you can enchant Unarmed Strikes in the first place, which may or may not be available, in which case you're stuck with oddball items like the NoNA or the AoMF if you're really desparate and can convince your DM to let it accept better enchantments than just +1 Atk/Dmg.

EDIT: And really, the only things powerful about it are the difficulty in disarming someone of them (even literally disarming the Unarmed striker won't do the trick, you'll probably kill/neutralize them outright before you pull it off) and their base damage dice. Someone who's truly trying to put a hole in something would be able to do so with a toothpick if they could 2-hand it, the weapon's base damage rarely matters in the slightest as long as it's not directly countered (like a normal whip, for instance, or something that only deals non-lethal damage no matter what). Go look up an Ubercharger, and calculate what percentage of that damage comes from the weapon itself.

[Rubik]

Actually, unarmed strikes are one of the easiest weapons to enhance, to the point where you can hit epic numbers of enhancements (+11 or more) with little to do.

A monk using a tooth of Leraje (+5 enhancement bonus), stacked weapon crystal of lesser energy assault (acid/cold/electricity/fire/sonic - the equivalent of five +1 weapon enhancements, for cheap) and least fiendslayer (+1 equivalent) and least truedeath (+1 equivalent) and least returning (+1 equivalent), battlefist (+9 in non-enhancement bonus weapon qualities), Item Familiar (Unarmed Strike) (+3 equivalent), Ancestral Relic (Unarmed Strike) (+10 equivalent), Kensai (+10 equivalent), five chronocharms (each with a necklace of natural weapons item ability attached to it) (+45 equivalent), gauntlets of extended range (added to battlefist for the equivalent of the Distance quality, and stacks therewith), bracers of striking (+20 equivalent), and a few others. Such as going warforged, enhancing his slam attack, and using Bestial Strike to add another +9 on there (or FAR more if you use the above to enhance his slam attack, too).

Granted, those numbers above are the max, and it'll be expensive as all get out to boost ALL of those all the way up to +10 all the way around, and multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack (although +X equivalents do), but there's no x10 epic modifier, so it's a helluvalot cheaper, overall, and you can't do that with anything but a ranged weapon with ammo (but nowhere near that extent).

[Curmudgeon]

A bitch and a half to enchant meaningfully, though ...
Actually, trivially easy. Just get a Necklace of Natural Attacks (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060707a) (bottom of the page).

[aleucard]

Actually, trivially easy. Just get a Necklace of Natural Attacks (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060707a) (bottom of the page).

The list of DM's who'd allow an online reference like that is surprisingly limited.

[Rubik]

The list of DM's who'd allow an online reference like that is surprisingly limited.It's also in Savage Species.

[Curmudgeon]

The list of DM's who'd allow an online reference like that is surprisingly limited.
Really? Why is that? It's an official 3.5 update to an item in a pre-3.5 supplement.

[Anlashok]

The list of DM's who'd allow an online reference like that is surprisingly limited.

I haven't met a DM who wouldn't in almost a decade worth of play.

[Calimehter]

its most ardent supporters claimed that anyone else who was running D&D without it was an of ignorant, incompetent, and/or mean-spirited heretic who didn't know how to run D&D



To be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant. Ignorance is only a bad thing if you refuse to stop being ignorant :smalltongue:

And the people who insist on being ignorant often are incompetent and/or mean spirited.

Not quite a textbook example (needs more vitriol) but not bad at all!

[eggynack]

Not quite a textbook example (needs more vitriol) but not bad at all!
The issue is that some anti-ToB folk actually just don't understand the thing they hate. There are other anti-ToB folk, ones who go into their hatred with full knowledge of the thing they hate. With them I disagree, where I would simply say that those of the first group are wrong. Point is, some who dislike it actually are ignorant, and claiming as such is fair, while claiming that all who dislike it are ignorant is inaccurate and unfair. Keledrath has stated the former, while your example ToB lover was a person who stated the latter.

[Just to Browse]

Not quite a textbook example (needs more vitriol) but not bad at all!


its most ardent supporters claimed that anyone else who was running D&D without it was an of ignorant, incompetent, and/or mean-spirited heretic who didn't know how to run D&D


To be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant. Ignorance is only a bad thing if you refuse to stop being ignorant

And the people who insist on being ignorant often are incompetent and/or mean spirited.

This is certainly a textbook example of something. But not what you think it is.

[Calimehter]

The issue is that some anti-ToB folk actually just don't understand the thing they hate. There are other anti-ToB folk, ones who go into their hatred with full knowledge of the thing they hate. With them I disagree, where I would simply say that those of the first group are wrong. Point is, some who dislike it actually are ignorant, and claiming as such is fair, while claiming that all who dislike it are ignorant is inaccurate and unfair. Keledrath has stated the former, while your example ToB lover was a person who stated the latter.

I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Keledrath's statement. He only mentioned "anyone who things ToB is overpowered . . .is ignorant" without covering any of the other ground you did in your next-to-last sentence. He may not have meant that anyone who disliked ToB thought it was overpowered, but by omitting other cases and just jumping on that one . . . especially as a direct reply to my statement that was *not* restricted to people who think ToB is overpowered . . .well, it conveys the kind of impression I was describing earlier, even if it was not intended. Just too quick to pull the trigger on the "ignorant" label.

As a side note, I'm not even sure that saying "ToB is overpowered" is always wrong. If you're saying it is overpowered compared to optimized high level magic spells . . . then yeah, you are pretty much wrong. If you're saying its overpowered because its (acknowledged by its supporters) high optimization floor is too much for a low-op table (which doesn't have to be a gaming style borne of ignorance - gentlemens' agreements are a thing), then the statement may actually be correct, even if it is correct only for that (not altogether uncommon) situation and not all situations.

[eggynack]

I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Keledrath's statement. He only mentioned "anyone who things ToB is overpowered . . .is ignorant" without covering any of the other ground you did in your next-to-last sentence. He may not have meant that anyone who disliked ToB thought it was overpowered, but by omitting other cases and just jumping on that one . . . especially as a direct reply to my statement that was *not* restricted to people who think ToB is overpowered . . .well, it conveys the kind of impression I was describing earlier, even if it was not intended. Just too quick to pull the trigger on the "ignorant" label.
I don't see how providing a particular example in which a ToB-hater is ignorant gives any way over to a blanket claim of ignorance. His argument was that some people who hate ToB actually are ignorant. I don't think there's a real onus on him to make the inverse claim.

As a side note, I'm not even sure that saying "ToB is overpowered" is always wrong. If you're saying it is overpowered compared to optimized high level magic spells . . . then yeah, you are pretty much wrong. If you're saying its overpowered because its (acknowledged by its supporters) high optimization floor is too much for a low-op table (which doesn't have to be a gaming style borne of ignorance - gentlemens' agreements are a thing), then the statement may actually be correct, even if it is correct only for that (not altogether uncommon) situation and not all situations.
His stated comparison was explicitly between ToB and a competent wizard,so it seems fair to say that his claimed situation was the first.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I don't see how providing a particular example in which a ToB-hater is ignorant gives any way over to a blanket claim of ignorance.

It's typical human way of thinking with absolutes/generalizations. "[your/this] reason for hating ToB is ignorant and wrong" gets twisted into "anyone who hates ToB is ignorant and wrong because I love it".

[Calimehter]

His argument was that some people who hate ToB actually are ignorant. I don't think there's a real onus on him to make the inverse claim.

Yes, but his statement was issued as a direct reply to my own fairly broad statement that ToB defenders often appeared overzealous to condemn. Issuing an immediate reply that is restricted to a specific subset of the anti-ToB crowd to whom the "ignorant" label can be most safely applied without referring even once to the remaining anti-ToB crowd to whom that label cannot be so safely applied . . . well, that does not exactly dispel the perception that the pro-ToB crowd is quick to jump to applying such labels, now does it?

[Vhaidara]

The issue is that some anti-ToB folk actually just don't understand the thing they hate. There are other anti-ToB folk, ones who go into their hatred with full knowledge of the thing they hate. With them I disagree, where I would simply say that those of the first group are wrong. Point is, some who dislike it actually are ignorant, and claiming as such is fair, while claiming that all who dislike it are ignorant is inaccurate and unfair. Keledrath has stated the former, while your example ToB lover was a person who stated the latter.

Eggy described my point exactly.

The big point of my post was that little bit following what you quoted. The part about Wizard being a million times more overpowered than anything from ToB (again, excluding abuse of IHS and WRT. And probably not even then). Therefore, if you believe ToB is overpowered, you are ignorant of what a wizard can do. I also went on to say that this ignorance is not a bad thing. The problem is when people go
TOB OP, AUTO-BAN, BURN THE STUPID BOOK
without ever actually reading it or getting second opinions.

There are groups that auto-ban monks for being overpowered. Are they ignorant? Yes. Does that make them bad? No. If they come on here and have it demonstrated (probably by reading some Pickford threads) that monk is garbage compared to wizard and still insist on banning monk for being overpowered (as opposed to banning it for being a trap), that is when they are being incompetent and mean-spirited.

[eggynack]

Yes, but his statement was issued as a direct reply to my own fairly broad statement that ToB defenders often appeared overzealous to condemn. Issuing an immediate reply that is restricted to a specific subset of the anti-ToB crowd to whom the "ignorant" label can be most safely applied without referring even once to the remaining anti-ToB crowd to whom that label cannot be so safely applied . . . well, that does not exactly dispel the perception that the pro-ToB crowd is quick to jump to applying such labels, now does it?
Of course it doesn't dispel that perception. It wasn't meant to. His argument is that people who love ToB absolutely do say that members of the opposition are ignorant, but that it's a completely fair and justified accusation some amount of the time. If you want to make a generalization based on his argument, it would be that such accusations are always predicated on some actual ignorance, but my suspicion is that the truth, and his claim, lie somewhere between the accusation never being justified and it always being justified. The essential challenge, I suppose, would be to find situations in which the accusation is made where it isn't justified, but again, we're really working with theoretical argument constructs here.

[OldTrees1]

It's typical human way of thinking with absolutes/generalizations. "[your/this] reason for hating ToB is ignorant and wrong" gets twisted into "anyone who hates ToB is ignorant and wrong because I love it".

This is only exacerbated by humanity's tendency to slip into generalization language when speaking about a single case.

Ex: "To be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant."

This statement assumes but does not state that "Balance is defined by Wizards being played properly, rather than being defined by Bards or Barbarians being played properly". The unstated assumption creates a generalization language when we can tell a specific language was intended in order to make the logic valid.

[Vhaidara]

Ex: "To be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant."

This statement assumes but does not state that "Balance is defined by Wizards being played properly, rather than being defined by Bards or Barbarians being played properly". The unstated assumption creates a generalization language when we can tell a specific language was intended in order to make the logic valid.

I felt that the implication there was, in fact, that a properly played wizard broke all semblance of balance. And I thought I made it fairly clear. My apologies if it was not.

[Calimehter]

Of course it doesn't dispel that perception. It wasn't meant to.

Which is fine . . . except that it was a reply to a statement about that very perception.

[Boci]

Yes, but his statement was issued as a direct reply to my own fairly broad statement that ToB defenders often appeared overzealous to condemn. Issuing an immediate reply that is restricted to a specific subset of the anti-ToB crowd to whom the "ignorant" label can be most safely applied without referring even once to the remaining anti-ToB crowd to whom that label cannot be so safely applied . . . well, that does not exactly dispel the perception that the pro-ToB crowd is quick to jump to applying such labels, now does it?

You know, for someone talking about the woes of jumping to apply labels, you seem awfully determined to assosiate a very human act with the pro-ToB crowd specifically.

[OldTrees1]

I felt that the implication there was, in fact, that a properly played wizard broke all semblance of balance. And I thought I made it fairly clear. My apologies if it was not.

Oh, then it was rightly criticized as being an invalid argument. Given a definition of balance X, showing Y+100>X provides no information about if Y is or is not greater than X. So showing a properly played Wizard is OP gives no evidence to support the claim that ToB is never OP for any definition of balance X. This then makes the conclusion about ignorance, ignorant.

[eggynack]

Which is fine . . . except that it was a reply to a statement about that very perception.
Well, yeah. It wasn't meant to dispel it, but it was meant to justify the actions that cause it. My statement later was meant to dispel it, as were a few later, because while some folk might act like that in some situations, it's certainly not all folk, and it's certainly not in all situations.

Edit:
Oh, then it was rightly criticized as being an invalid argument. Given a definition of balance X, showing Y+100>X provides no information about if Y is or is not greater than X. So showing a properly played Wizard is OP gives no evidence to support the claim that ToB is never OP for any definition of balance X. This then makes the conclusion about ignorance, ignorant.
Well, if we're going to go that direction, then I can equally claim that anyone who says that ToB is imbalanced is being ignorant, because they're ignoring the relative nature of balance to reach their conclusion. If the poster's claim does feature an acknowledgement of the relative nature of balance (The warblade is totally overpowered in my rogue/aristocrat/commoner party), then I suspect that Keledrath would feel that a claim of ignorance there would be unjustified.

[Vhaidara]

Oh, then it was rightly criticized as being an invalid argument. Given a definition of balance X, showing Y+100>X provides no information about if Y is or is not greater than X. So showing a properly played Wizard is OP gives no evidence to support the claim that ToB is never OP for any definition of balance X. This then makes the conclusion about ignorance, ignorant.

Except that I am saying the Y is not overpowered compared to Y+100. So if X is Core (Things already existing in the game world) and contains everything from Y+100 (full OP Wizards) to Y-100 (Core only Monks), then no comparison can be made to Y, because Y is everything. I am saying that Y is balanced compared to Y+100, not to X, because X includes Y+100.

[eggynack]

Well, this argument has certainly become oddly meta and confusing.

[Calimehter]

You know, for someone talking about the woes of jumping to apply labels, you seem awfully determined to assosiate a very human act with the pro-ToB crowd specifically.

That's fair to say. Keledrath's initial reply to my statement *was* symptomatic of the problem I was describing, for reasons already described . . . but it was a truthful statement at least, and *far* better than some of the things that have been said by . . . I'm not sure "more actively malignant" is really the right phrase, but I cannot at the moment think of a better one . . . defenders of the ToB that I have very unfond memories of, and I should have done a better job of pointing that out when making my subsequent posts.

[OldTrees1]

Except that I am saying the Y is not overpowered compared to Y+100.
Then return 2 posts.
Either
You were assuming yet not stating the assumption that balance was defined by(aka "compared to") wizards. Aka using generalization language when not intending generalization language.
OR
You were trying to conclude Y<X from Y+100>X.
Sidenote: In my notation, Y+100 was Wizards, Y is ToB. X =/= core since core is not a standard of balance. X could be unrestrained core (aka Wizard) or some other definition within core's balance spectrum.