Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[atemu1234]

I personally use it in my campaigns, but I don't have any PCs who actually want to learn the subsystem and put it into use. What's your opinion?

[Threadnaught]

I like it, the Crusader looks like a fun Class to play. Swordsage has two other variants, one of which very few are willing to discuss seriously. And Warblade is, wow, it's like a not boring version of Fighter.

Then there's the Maneuvers and Stances, so many interesting ways to attack with a weapon. Stances offer small bonuses all day long and are therefore awesome. I like breaking the game as Wizard, but ToB Classes get to do special crazy stuff all day long, without running out of powers.

Never underestimate how enjoyable constantly using powers can be.



It's the only book I have that I willingly broke my price limit for.

[Flickerdart]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

[The Insanity]

What's your opinion?
It's positive.

[atemu1234]

It's positive.

Are you Aladeen, or Aladeen?

[VoxRationis]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

[facelessminion]

I loved the book, and am tickled pink with how well Dreamscarred Press is managing Path of War thusfar.

[malonkey1]

I'm a fan. I actually liked it so much that I pre-ordered all the Path of War stuff from DSP. I feel like ToB gives a lot more options to martials, although I will admit that many of those options are still "whack a guy". But with ToB, you can whack people in more varied and useful ways!

[Darrin]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

*slow clap* Nicely done.

[Studoku]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.
You ban clerics? That seems a little harsh.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

...First time I've ever seen a sig-worthy post without it already being called out. May I?

[Threadnaught]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

I hate the Player Handbook, far too anime. D&D is supposed to be about medieval fantasy, where characters die of cholera and toil away on the turnip harvest, not fight epic monsters and perform heroic deeds like some {scrubbed} Japanese cartoon character.

[molten_dragon]

It's one of my three favorite 3.5 splatbooks. I can generally find a use for some martial adept levels with almost any mundane build I'm considering. It adds a lot of fun to my gaming experience.

[WhamBamSam]

I love ToB to bits. It might just be my favorite D&D book. It has some sloppy editing in a few places, but that's 3.5 for you. In general, it's a fantastic resource that I want to be on the table in any 3.5 game, even if I don't plan on using anything out of it.


I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.Would you have thought it cruel if the ToB classes had been printed in place of the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk in the PHB? Because the ways to play a warrior from before the book came out pretty much don't function alongside anything else that's even remotely magical.

Also, I really like the maneuver system. It doesn't feel vanican to me, it feels like martial arts, even if some of the disciplines/higher level maneuvers do a few unrealistic things.

[Val666]

Best book eva

[Averis Vol]

I really like it, but I kinda dislike the maneuver schools were divided up. I just feel like some should be available to the other classes (like setting sun being available to warblades, Iron heart being available to crusaders......Swordsages get basically everything anyways, no beef there thematically.),and maybe they should be a little less magical and a bit more mystical, the obvious difference being how flashy they are, desert wind, I'm lookin at you.

But even more so, I think just throwing on more damage and making everything explode isn't really progressive seeing how high damage is already inflated.

[Divide by Zero]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

So you dislike that it makes martial characters more relevant?

For what it's worth, ToB classes actually multiclass really well with the core martial classes, there's just less incentive to take them to level 20 (not that there was much in the first place...).

[Zanos]

It lets martial characters make a decision other than "power attack amount" and "target", so I love it. I typically play casters, but it's nice to be able to optimize a bit more without overshadowing other characters.

[Aegis013]

One of the greatest subsystems in 3.5. Use of the book is always encouraged (though not required) at my table.

[pwykersotz]

I use it, I like it. I don't love it.

The Tome of Battle give some much needed love to martial characters. I respect that. Unfortunately, it also has a ton of frustrations like needlessly complex refresh mechanics (Crusader), poorly defined boundaries (Iron Heart Surge), allowing skill checks to replace saves (this would be fine if the skill system weren't cracked wide open), and no sense of what an appropriate use of abilities outside of combat would look like.

All in all, 7/10 rating.

[facelessminion]

So you dislike that it makes martial characters more relevant?

For what it's worth, ToB classes actually multiclass really well with the core martial classes, there's just less incentive to take them to level 20 (not that there was much in the first place...).

Let's not Rudisplork this thread by goading others, please. They said exactly what they dislike, why not just accept that as is?

I emphatically disagree with them, but doing so isn't going to somehow make debate of the type you're trying to start worthwhile.

[Blackhawk748]

I enjoy it, though ive only played a Warblade a few times and i really dont have much interest in playing the other two, maybe the Swordsage. Even though the Warblade is strictly better than the Fighter i still find myself playing Fighters more than Warblades, probably just familiarity.

[OldTrees1]

I have only 2 complaints about the system. It is great. Could have been better, but it is great.
1) I prefer abilities not to be expended/unreadied.
2) I prefer abilities the build together. ToB is more about active abilities(most maneuvers) than about passive abilities(just the stances).

[Squirrel_Dude]

If I had the option I'd replace the fighter and the monk in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with the Warblade and Swordsage without a second thought.* I love them that much. My favorite thing about the system (and I love psionics for the same reason): 1 initiate working alone = powerful, 2 initiates working together = powerful^2. The synergy between classes encourages teamwork among player characters.



*Well... that also assumes Tome of Battle would be appropriately edited before it was put into the Core Rulebook. Easily my biggest problem with the book.

[facelessminion]

If I had the option I'd replace the fighter and the monk in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with the Warblade and Swordsage without a second thought. I love them that much.

If you work with PF, have you had the opportunity to look at the Path of War stuff? :)

[Squirrel_Dude]

If you work with PF, have you had the opportunity to look at the Path of War stuff? :) I took part in the playtest. Can't wait to get the full .pdf on Tuesday.

[RenaldoS]

The fluff is very boring, although the crunch is good. I actually think some of the classes are a little too strong at low levels and this scares a lot of DMs away from using the book.

[Firechanter]

It's my favourite splat. I was skeptical when I first heard of it -- I am effing lazy and hate getting into new subsystems -- but this one is really worth the while. Of course it has its shortcomings, such as shoddy editing and some inconsistent stuff. But on the whole it's melee done right.

Oh and I never had the feeling that it was "too anime" or anything, and at this point I should add that I am not particularly fond of anime, so if it felt like that I would probably not like it. It does feel somewhat like Wuxia, though, but that's cool.

I generally prefer playing Melee types, and Warblade is my favourite melee class evar.

What's not to like about ToB:
- Some maneuvers are downright broken, as in "they don't do what they should do, and do things they shouldn't"; primary candidate of course Iron Heart Surge. But there are fixes for that.
- Martial Lore is another useless skill. Just ignore it.
- Martial Scripts are ill-conceived, an utterly stupid idea. Ignore.
- Let's better not talk about Weapons of Legacy.
- some maneuvers have strange level ratings compared to the rest of the game. For instance, if you want Pounce... you can take 9 levels of Warblade and use Pounce as a maneuver once or twice in an encounter... or you can take 1 level of Barbarian and do it all the freaking time. It would make more sense as a level 3-4 maneuver.
- Class design has some flaws. Crusader doesn't have a proper capstone, for instance. Warblade has some unnecessary shortcomings, such as the lack of Ranged weapon proficiencies or certain skills missing from the class list which would befit the "intelligent warrior" type. Also, the stance progressions are broken (especially for the Warblade).

That looks like a rather long list, but if you compare that to all the stuff that's great in this book, and realize that half the issues are solved simply by ignoring them, and the rest is easily fixed, it's really not a big deal.

Long story short, ToB is lovely. I wouldn't want to play 3.5 without it again, and its absence from Pathfinder is one of the main reasons why PF will never replace 3.5 as my preferred system.
[Yes I know about PoW, but it's 3rd Party and none of the PF GMs I can play with will allow that.]

[Hiro Protagonest]

The only thing that'd get me to consider playing 3.5 is Warriors & Wuxia, in my sig.

[malonkey1]

*Well... that also assumes Tome of Battle would be appropriately edited before it was put into the Core Rulebook. Easily my biggest problem with the book.

Well, to be fair, I have a sneaking suspicion that WotC granted the 3e/3.5 writers Protection from Editors (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtectionFromEditors), trying to go the opposite direction of certain, more restraining individuals in TSR's upper echelons. *Cough*Lorraine Williams*conspicuous cough*, which, as a downside, meant that the books were poorly edited. As an upside, the game developers didn't have to make campaign settings (Spelljammer) purely out of rebellion. As another downside, the game developers didn't make stupid awesome campaign settings like Spelljammer.

That said, I've noticed that many gaming books released after 2001, with a few exceptions (Kudos, New World of Darkness), are full of typographical errors. I wonder if there's a reason for this?

[Chronos]

Quoth VoxRationis:

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.
I agree with this. Tome of Battle would be good as an additional option if they had first fixed fighters (which really can be done: All you need to do is create a bunch of really good feats), but as it is, if the problem is that fighters are outclassed by other classes, the solution is not to make yet more classes that outclass fighters.

[Sith_Happens]

I am currently playing a Warblade. It is buckets of fun. My Bard in another campaign is using the Undersong/Diamond Mind save-replacer combo with Perform (Oratory); when I explained to that DM what the end result of stacking continuous Undersong and Novice Diamond Mind x3 on the same ring would be, she approved it specifically because of how hilarious of an image it is ("Fireball? Recite poetry at it for half damage").


I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

/thread

[Studoku]

I agree with this. Tome of Battle would be good as an additional option if they had first fixed fighters (which really can be done: All you need to do is create a bunch of really good feats), but as it is, if the problem is that fighters are outclassed by other classes, the solution is not to make yet more classes that outclass fighters.
So, instead of making the warblade, they should have given the fighter the warblade's maneuver progression, HD, skills and proficiencies. But it'd be called fighter to make sure your irrational wishes were met?

[Teapot Salty]

Makes muggles worth it? I hate it. Has interesting and versatile subsystem that is fun to play? How can anyone like it?


Honestly, it is my favorite book in 3.5. Easily and without a doubt.

[Troacctid]

It's pretty cool. I like how friendly it is to multiclassing, and how it allows martial characters to scale into the lategame. I've played a character who dipped Crusader at 4th level and had a lot of fun with it. I especially like that it uses standard action strikes instead of full attacks. Full attacks are probably my least favorite thing about 3.5--not being able to move and full attack is incredibly lame.

[Anlashok]

I agree with this. Tome of Battle would be good as an additional option if they had first fixed fighters (which really can be done: All you need to do is create a bunch of really good feats), but as it is, if the problem is that fighters are outclassed by other classes, the solution is not to make yet more classes that outclass fighters.

So I find two things terribly erroneous with this idea

A) First and foremost, the idea that because one class fails to fulfill its niche that every other class with the same niche must be similarly bad. Yes, it would be nice to have more cool toys for the fighter, but that seems entirely separate from whether or not the Warblade is a good class.

B) The comparison itself is entirely incorrect in the first place. A tripper, intimidatomancer, or reasonably optimized ubercharger can all be entirely competitive with the Warblade on the battlefield and exist at comparable levels of power. So... yeah.

[molten_dragon]

Tome of Battle would be good as an additional option if they had first fixed fighters (which really can be done: All you need to do is create a bunch of really good feats)

I really wish they had done this too. Before it went out of print I was hoping 3.5 would print a feat compendium to go with the spell compendium and magic item compendium.

[Daishain]

I really like it, and it is rather... unlikely that I will ever willingly play a pure melee character without at least some TOB mixed in there. I'm quite likely to be using it for gish dips as well.

That stated, it could use some rewrites. Not everything is as balanced or clearly defined as it could be, and we need a reliable means to refluff the system so that they fit a wider variety of character archetypes.

Case in point, a favorite character type of mine would be the jaded, been through the abyss and back fighter. Not likely to brag about accomplishments, and if they have a particular goal in mind, they keep it to themselves where possible. Their combat skills would be varied, brutal, effective, and to the point. And certainly don't come with a pretentious name.

Meanwhile, their mechanical TOB equivalent would be the Warblade, a flashy gloryhound that doesn't seem to care for much beyond being in the spotlight. Just a little bit of dissonance there.

[Pex]

Wonderful book to give warriors fun things to do besides "I attack", but it has one awful, terrible, horrendous flaw. The progression of when you get a stance for any class does not match the maneuver level of the class's stances. All that needs to be done for the most simple fix is to allow martial adepts to change a known stance. Every 5 levels beginning at level 5 works.

[Alex12]

Love ToB. Love it love it love it. I like playing characters that can contribute in a variety of ways both in and out of combat, and ToB lets you do that. The other DM in the group allowed it, but didn't have any particular liking of it up until he saw Path of War's Warlord. Now he's playing one.

[Karnith]

Tome of Battle is one of my favorite books, because it really made playing (non-spellcasting) melee characters fun and interesting while staying pretty well-balanced. I could really do without all of the Nine Swords metaplot garbage, though.

fixed fighters (which really can be done: All you need to do is create a bunch of really good feats)
I get the feeling that WotC thought that they were putting out a bunch of really good Fighter-only feats/ACFs later in 3.5's run (e.g. Dungeoncrasher, the Weapon Mastery line, or the PHBII Fighter ACFs), but just really didn't understand what good feats looked like.

[Flickerdart]

...First time I've ever seen a sig-worthy post without it already being called out. May I?
Help yourself.

[Red Fel]

I'm a big fan. Admittedly, I prefer melee characters to casters, but even with its so-called "semi-Vancian" almost-casting, I really like ToB.

Do I adore it? No. It has flaws. Yeah, I said it. It has flaws. It suffers from poor editing and a lack of supplemental material. It's sadly stand-alone. And because it fixes mundanes by implementing a new mechanical system, it isn't actually seen as a mundane fix. (Or, put differently: A debate - in which I've participated - often entails the question, "Why create a new class instead of simply fixing Fighters?")

That said, my biggest beef about melee, much as I love it, has been stated upthread. Casters can throw a fireball, or fly, or ensnare a mind, or move the earth, or do a number of things in combat. Even half-progression casters have options. Melee? Melee can attack, full attack, or power attack. We can do some cute trip attempts and the like, sure, and Barbarians can rage, but that's about it. ToB - the biggest reason I love it - gave melee options. It gave melee actual class features, actual tactical decisions.

Before ToB was a thing, I had a Fighter who dual-wielded longswords. At one point, he found himself airborne, and wanted to dive swords-first onto his opponent. The DM shrugged and cobbled together some house rules on the spot. The enemy was reduced to bloody giblets, which was admittedly great fun, but there was a certain sadness in knowing that was a sort of once-in-an-ever thing. ToB has actual mechanics for that sort of thing. There are several maneuvers for jumping into the air and ripping your enemy to pieces. There are also effective maneuvers for tanking. And for turning melee attacks into touch attacks. And for allowing melees to fly. And to teleport. And so on.

ToB gave melee options. That was its greatest gift, the Best Possible Thing. Is it perfect? No. In an ideal world, we shouldn't have needed ToB. We should have had Fighters already able to do this stuff. But it's still wonderful.

Short version? I am a large device designed to circulate cooled air.

Also, Flickerdart wins.

[Kazyan]

The book? Yeah, it's neat. They make you recalibrate CR at levels of optimization that aren't "I'm a spellcaster, so I win", though, and Crusaders have an issue: they are indestructible and made of powerful at-will abilities that include unlimited healing. This means that, to challenge them, you basically have to threaten their lives--and everyone else is easier to kill than them--or do something weird.

The debates and the burn-the-heretic mentality surrounding the book? Not nearly as neat.

[A Tad Insane]

The additions options and cool feats for non-spellcasters is, as most people agree, is amazing. However, its fluff leaves something to be desired, and it's really hard to integrate it mid-way into anything without feeling awkward.

The crusader is badass, able to be a righteous warrior without stepping to much on the the paladin's toes. The swordsage is also cool, but its crunch eclipses the monk, though not the fluff. The warblade is a flatout better version of a fighter in every way but one sub-optimal form of combat.

[SaintRidley]

It's a book. I'm kind of positive toward it, though I still only kind of barely understand the subsystem.

[jedipotter]

I dislike the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the worst books WotC ever published.

[Chronos]

Quoth Studoku:

So, instead of making the warblade, they should have given the fighter the warblade's maneuver progression, HD, skills and proficiencies. But it'd be called fighter to make sure your irrational wishes were met?
No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Leave the fighter completely untouched, with no maneuver progression, d10 HD, and his same skills and proficiencies (note, by the way, that giving the fighter the warblade's proficiencies would be a step down). Just make some more good feats for him. Like, you know how good Shock Trooper and Stormguard Warrior are? Make about fifty new feats that are even better than those. Of course, any melee class could take them (including warblade-- Remember, my position is that more options are great, alongside the fighter), but that's fine: Melee of all sorts could use some help. And the fighter could take over twice as many of them as anyone else, and would so get over twice as much help.

[geekintheground]

i really enjoy the book. its fun to WONDER what to do during a turn. to have to think "should i do this? or perhaps this?". without ToB theres moving and/or attacking. i just enjoy having options during a fight, and ToB gave that to mundanes.

[Rubik]

I dislike the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the worst books WotC ever published.No surprise there.

[Svata]

I dislike the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the worst books WotC ever published.

You have admitted you have never read the book. Your opinion is irrelevant until such time as you do so.

[torrasque666]

No surprise there.

You have admitted you have never read the book. Your opinion is irrelevant until such time as you do so.
Couldn't..... just couldn't let it go, could you?



I personally use it in my campaigns, but I don't have any PCs who actually want to learn the subsystem and put it into use. What's your opinion?

I have been trying my first crusader out and its been working fine. I play on roll20 though, so no way in hell was I going to make a ton of separate decks in the game for my possible readied maneuvers. So I made an excel document that randomizes them instead. Took me 3 or 5 hours. I thought I was good at excel...

[rockdeworld]

Reaction image:
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140624202046/pokepasta/images/7/7c/Pikachu_best.jpg


Leave the fighter completely untouched, with no maneuver progression, d10 HD, and his same skills and proficiencies (note, by the way, that giving the fighter the warblade's proficiencies would be a step down). Just make some more good feats for him.
That sounds like a terrible class to me personally, because of this: "How about, at 17th level, instead of the ability to summon Angels, turn into a dragon, and rewrite reality, you get a nice +1 to your base attack bonus?" (originally by Frank IIRC).

[OldTrees1]

Reaction image:
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140624202046/pokepasta/images/7/7c/Pikachu_best.jpg


That sounds like a terrible class to me personally, because of this: "How about, at 17th level, instead of the ability to summon Angels, turn into a dragon, and rewrite reality, you get a nice +1 to your base attack bonus?" (originally by Frank IIRC).

Reading comprehension? He said good feats. As in better than Shock Trooper.
As in "Take 3 turns a round, run up walls, and your attacks threaten Daze(decent save)" or something better as a 16th level feat.

[facelessminion]

So, instead of making the warblade, they should have given the fighter the warblade's maneuver progression, HD, skills and proficiencies. But it'd be called fighter to make sure your irrational wishes were met?

You're making some of the most ridiculous strawman attacks I've ever seen.

[Zaydos]

Personally I like it. I can build rogues and fighters who outperform my friends but I don't like playing them ("I attack"), warblade gives me tactical options and even makes "I attack" a tactical option (because sometimes full attack is better than any maneuver you know). I mean it needed a real errata, and I think the Devoted Spirit maneuvers and teleportation ones should have been flagged Supernatural, but that's my only real complaint (other than Warblades getting a stance at 4th instead of 5th).

[Red Fel]

Reading comprehension? He said good feats. As in better than Shock Trooper.
As in "Take 3 turns a round, run up walls, and your attacks threaten Daze(decent save)" or something better as a 16th level feat.

The thing is, right, somebody hands you a platter made of solid silver, right? Not, like, silver-plated steel or something, but solid silver, right? And you say, "Yeah, it's nice, and all, but I have this wooden plate, see? It's wood, right? And I'd rather it be made out of solid gold. Why couldn't it be made out of gold?"

That's an exaggeration, but it makes my point. Instead of recognizing that ToB is this Very Good Thing - maybe not the Best Thing Ever, but a Very Good Thing - and enjoying ToB for what it is, there seem to be people who say, "Yes, ToB is nice, but why couldn't they have taken the regular melee classes and simply made them into the Best Thing Ever?"

No, no, that's an exaggeration again. Sorry. Let me try this one more time.

There are mundane classes. We'll focus specifically on the Fighter. Someone comes along and says, "Here's Tome of Battle, there's a class in it called the Warblade. It's like a Fighter, but does a lot more." And the reaction is not, "Wow, that's a great class, I'll use it now, thanks," but instead, "Yeah, that's nice, but why couldn't you take Fighter and make it better instead? Why do we even need a new class?"

And you know what? That's not an unfair point. It's a shame that we needed a new class to be what Fighter should have been all along. But we did. We really, really did. Fighter's only class feature is Fighter Bonus Feats - feats which any class can take. Fighters simply get more of them. Coming up with new feats wouldn't just make Fighters better - a rising tide raises all ships, after all.

Let me make this clear: There is nothing, under the rules of 3.5 at the time Tome of Battle was published, that could improve the Fighter without improving everyone across the board. There was no way to improve the Fighter specifically, as it was written.

That's why we needed Tome of Battle. We needed a fresh concept. Warblade and Crusader gave it to us. A functional melee chassis with actual class features. And perhaps maneuvers weren't the way to do it. It's a fair complaint. Why should somebody who wants a functional combat chassis have to use the maneuver system?

But maneuvers are what we got. Maneuvers, the Warblade, and the Crusader. And there are those who, rather than simply appreciating what actually emerged in the twilight days of 3.5, seem to wish for something that will never exist outside of homebrew.

There is no Fighter fix coming. But there is Tome of Battle.

[Pan151]

I dislike it. It is 4e beta - it does not belong in 3.5.

[Vhaidara]

It was my favorite splat until I read Magic of Incarnum. Now it is in second, just because Totemist is bosslike

[jedipotter]

Couldn't..... just couldn't let it go, could you?


Welcome to the dark side...we have cookies!

I did read it the other day, to win a bet and get free pizza. It was such a waste of time, but it did not take to long. It's horrible....

Really, if WotC wanted to ''fix'' the mundane classes....why did they just not do it with 3.5E? It would have been a good time to do it. But I really don't like how they just tack on a wacky subsystem.

And if they wanted to fix combat.....why not, well, you know, fix combat. It does not do any good to add more classes and tons of ''not spells''.

Such a bad book...

[rockdeworld]

Reading comprehension? He said good feats. As in better than Shock Trooper.
As in "Take 3 turns a round, run up walls, and your attacks threaten Daze(decent save)" or something better as a 16th level feat.
Fighter doesn't get a feat at level 17, was my point. I also meant no disrespect to the creator of that idea.

[malonkey1]

It was my favorite splat until I read Magic of Incarnum. Now it is in second, just because Totemist is bosslike

If you look at my sig, it's quite apparent that I'm also a fan. </plug> :smalltongue:

[torrasque666]

{Scrubbed}

[eggynack]

I did read it the other day, to win a bet and get free pizza. It was such a waste of time, but it did not take to long. It's horrible....
So, y'know, now that you've apparently read the book, and still apparently hate it, do you have any criticisms of the book founded on things that are actually in the book? I mean, apart from the desire for them to fundamentally alter a system from the PHB, presumably forcing everyone to purchase this weird combat errata, which, I'm actually not sure what you'd want it to change. Seems like a lot to expect out of what's ostensibly just another splat book.

[OldTrees1]

The thing is, right, somebody hands you a platter made of solid silver, right? Not, like, silver-plated steel or something, but solid silver, right? And you say, "Yeah, it's nice, and all, but I have this wooden plate, see? It's wood, right? And I'd rather it be made out of solid gold. Why couldn't it be made out of gold?"

That's an exaggeration, but it makes my point. Instead of recognizing that ToB is this Very Good Thing - maybe not the Best Thing Ever, but a Very Good Thing - and enjoying ToB for what it is, there seem to be people who say, "Yes, ToB is nice, but why couldn't they have taken the regular melee classes and simply made them into the Best Thing Ever?"

No, no, that's an exaggeration again. Sorry. Let me try this one more time.

There are mundane classes. We'll focus specifically on the Fighter. Someone comes along and says, "Here's Tome of Battle, there's a class in it called the Warblade. It's like a Fighter, but does a lot more." And the reaction is not, "Wow, that's a great class, I'll use it now, thanks," but instead, "Yeah, that's nice, but why couldn't you take Fighter and make it better instead? Why do we even need a new class?"

And you know what? That's not an unfair point. It's a shame that we needed a new class to be what Fighter should have been all along. But we did. We really, really did. Fighter's only class feature is Fighter Bonus Feats - feats which any class can take. Fighters simply get more of them. Coming up with new feats wouldn't just make Fighters better - a rising tide raises all ships, after all.

Let me make this clear: There is nothing, under the rules of 3.5 at the time Tome of Battle was published, that could improve the Fighter without improving everyone across the board. There was no way to improve the Fighter specifically, as it was written.

That's why we needed Tome of Battle. We needed a fresh concept. Warblade and Crusader gave it to us. A functional melee chassis with actual class features. And perhaps maneuvers weren't the way to do it. It's a fair complaint. Why should somebody who wants a functional combat chassis have to use the maneuver system?

But maneuvers are what we got. Maneuvers, the Warblade, and the Crusader. And there are those who, rather than simply appreciating what actually emerged in the twilight days of 3.5, seem to wish for something that will never exist outside of homebrew.

There is no Fighter fix coming. But there is Tome of Battle.

That was a delight to read.

I do not think the plate analogy is ideal so I will modify it slightly.
Let us say you and your friend are at a restaurant. There are only 2 things on the menu: A plate of cold plain pasta or a 4 star plate of arroz con pollo. Your friend orders the pasta. When you ask why he replies "Sure that arroz con pollo you have looks good, but I prefer pasta. I just wish the cooks spent as much time on the pasta as they did on the arroz con pollo. I would have loved a real spaghetti dinner."

As for the rising tide:
Let us say you and your friend have some money and some stocks. Your friend has $50 and 18 shares of Company Inc. while you have $200 and 7 shares of Company Inc. Each stock starts worth $1. (68 << 207) What if the stock grew to $5? (140 < 235) $10? (230 < 270) $20? (410 > 340)

However your conclusion is right on. Tome of Battle is a great boon to 3.5. It may not have satisfied all of the pasta lovers, but the chicken lovers got to switch from pasta to chicken. It was even much better quality too. Even we pasta lovers should salute ToB for the good it brought while we dine on our pasta (perhaps even with a garnish of chicken :) ).


Fighter doesn't get a feat at level 17, was my point.
Oh, I thought you were addressing the buff that was in the post you quoted. I did not expect you were criticizing the poster for not also asking for the dead levels to be fixed.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrubbed}

[afroakuma]

I did read it the other day

Yeah... I don't believe you. That said, I'm not going to bother with it. Nobody should.

You said your piece, and people shouldn't goad you back here if they has a problem with your position. That's their issue. Best thing you can do, now that you've posted your opinion in a reasonable and straightforward fashion, is disengage. Don't participate in efforts to undermine the validity of your opinion.

To anyone wanting to hammer at jedipotter's position, this was the thread to state it in and the original statement was done in a reasonable fashion. Let's not break this thread by throwing it off into a tangent attacking one poster's opinion or the validity thereof. Nobody stands to gain anything from doing that, judging by the outcomes of the last seventy trillion of these.

[eggynack]

Don't participate in efforts to undermine the validity of your opinion.
I don't know if the validity of her opinions on this topic can be any more undermined. It's possible that the only place she can go from citing things that aren't in the book, or talking about things that are in the book and citing errors that just don't exist, is up. Then again, I've thought that in the past and been mistaken.

Edit:
To anyone wanting to hammer at jedipotter's position, this was the thread to state it in and the original statement was done in a reasonable fashion. Let's not break this thread by throwing it off into a tangent attacking one poster's opinion or the validity thereof. Nobody stands to gain anything from doing that, judging by the outcomes of the last seventy trillion of these.
It's only apparently reasonable because she didn't actually provide any reason whatsoever for her opinion. Also, I think I have at least a little to gain. She could present an actually decent reason for disliking ToB, which would be a curious thing in and of itself, or she could somehow sink her position lower in a way I can't possibly anticipate, which would be even more interesting, though perhaps not unexpected. Only downside is if her current position is equally unfounded in relation to her old position, and while that's definitely possible, the chance that she has actual understanding of the book she's criticizing is enough to make the other two upsides worth pursuing.

[VoxRationis]

Fighter's only class feature is Fighter Bonus Feats - feats which any class can take. Fighters simply get more of them. Coming up with new feats wouldn't just make Fighters better - a rising tide raises all ships, after all.

Let me make this clear: There is nothing, under the rules of 3.5 at the time Tome of Battle was published, that could improve the Fighter without improving everyone across the board. There was no way to improve the Fighter specifically, as it was written.


Actually, there's precedent for fighter-exclusive bonus feats. It's a shame all of them in the PHB are Weapon Specialization and company, but they're there, and people could have expanded that list, should they have chosen to. They could have made a whole chapter, theoretically, of really good, versatile, fighter-exclusive feats, or at least made a subchapter of them like they did Divine or Wild feats. With a series of well-designed fighter-exclusive tactical feats, I think they could probably have done much of what they were trying to accomplish with maneuvers, without spitting on all the fighters.

[afroakuma]

I don't know if the validity of her opinions on this topic can be any more undermined. It's possible that the only place she can go from citing things that aren't in the book, or talking about things that are in the book and citing errors that just don't exist, is up. Then again, I've thought that in the past and been mistaken.

How is a post like this going to get the thread back on the rails, though? I know what's been said in the past, you know, others know, but we are expected to check external baggage at the door when entering a new thread. What's been done in other threads doesn't matter here unless we open the door to trouble. Let the matter die. You're not going to solve the root of the problem; nobody is.

[malonkey1]

Hang on. I actually want to hear Jedipotter's opinions on exactly why he doesn't like the ToB. I'm not being sarcastic, or attempting to start a fight, or anything. I honestly have a curiosity as to what specifically about the Tome of Battle is off-putting, unpleasant, or un-fun to JP.

[eggynack]

How is a post like this going to get the thread back on the rails, though? I know what's been said in the past, you know, others know, but the rules of this forum stipulate that external baggage is supposed to stay checked at the door. What's been done in other threads doesn't matter here unless we open the door to trouble. Let the matter die. You're not going to solve the root of the problem; nobody is.
It's not like this is particularly off the rails of the main topic of ToB opinions. I mean, what are the rails, if not figuring out what this actual opinion is.

Hang on. I actually want to hear Jedipotter's opinions on exactly why he doesn't like the ToB. I'm not being sarcastic, or attempting to start a fight, or anything. I honestly have a curiosity as to what specifically about the Tome of Battle is off-putting, unpleasant, or un-fun to JP.
Very true. If there's an actual answer here, I think it's one well worth knowing, because I've been seriously curious about the answer to this question for days at least.

[jedipotter]

Yeah... I don't believe you.



I'm shocked......

I don't like the book, I don't really have anything else to say here......

[afroakuma]

I don't like the book, I don't really have anything else to say here......

Well, there you have it, gents. Shall we carry on anon?

[torrasque666]

There. He's said it. END OF DISCUSSION. LET THIS FINALLY DIE.

[eggynack]

Well, there you have it, gents. Shall we carry on anon?
Tally ho then. {Scrubbed} I think options in combat are neat.

[Pex]

I dislike the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the worst books WotC ever published.

How shocking.

/sarcasm

[blackspeeker]

I just got a copy the other day and have always wanted to play it, I've always allowed it in my games, no one's played them while I've been DM though, I imagine due to an equal level of unfamiliarity. I've only been in one game where they were banned, for the usual started reasons which I respect and didn't feel the need to fight the guy on.

Does anyone know how path of war compares in pathfinder?

[Rubik]

Tally ho then. {scrub the post, scrub the quote} I think options in combat are neat.I do rather agree that having something aside from "move to enemy, roll d20, add attack modifiers, roll damage" is more interesting than doing the same thing round after round. I'm honestly not sure why someone would find performing the same action (or a variation thereon) more interesting than being able to do that plus a bunch of other things.

[Jon_Dahl]

I hate it and I ban it. No one misses it.

[Vhaidara]

I hate it and I ban it. No one misses it.

May I ask why you hate it?

[Turion]

I just got a copy the other day and have always wanted to play it, I've always allowed it in my games, no one's played them while I've been DM though, I imagine due to an equal level of unfamiliarity. I've only been in one game where they were banned, for the usual started reasons which I respect and didn't feel the need to fight the guy on.

Does anyone know how path of war compares in pathfinder?

I actually like Path of War better, to be honest. The recovery mechanisms have a bit more verisimilitude to them IMO, the new disciplines open up several more combat styles (archery, unarmed, shield combat), and I am absolutely in *love* with Steel Serpent and Broken Blade. Also, the writing is a lot clearer (looking at you, Iron Heart Surge) and the devs are really approachable; most if not all of them post here and on the Paizo forums, as well as on DSP's. I do really like ToB, but I've been more than impressed with DSP's port.

[The Glyphstone]

I hate it and I ban it. No one misses it.

If you always ban it, how can anyone miss what they've never been able to have? Not saying you should change, but it seems like a logical loop.

[eggynack]

If you always ban it, how can anyone miss what they've never been able to have? Not saying you should change, but it seems like a logical loop.
I think it works, logically speaking anyway. He hates it and he bans it, both in the present tense, which does not preclude the possibility of a dark and horrible past with the book. Other possibilities are that he's been the player in games where it isn't banned, because while he bans it, others don't, and he doesn't miss those times, or that while he's never experienced ToB, other party members have, and thus have cause to either miss or not miss it. Those latter two would work even if the first two claims applied to the past, such that he's never not banned it.

[Eslin]

I hate it and I ban it. No one misses it.

How can they not miss it if they haven't had it?

[HunterOfJello]

I like it a lot. I brought it to the table once and received negative reactions to it all around. Eventually each player ended up reading it and changed their minds about the general ideas regarding it.

I played crusader for a short time and dropped it since I ended up being a bit too effective at my role at low levels (dwarf crusaders can be quite hardcore at level 1-3), I've played warblade once or twice, and I've played both a magical swordsage and a swordsage who avoided all supernatural maneuvers.

I liked the two swordsages the best. The swordsage who focused on strength and not obtaining the supernatural maneuvers ended up surprising me. He was nowhere near as feat intensive and ended up not being much weaker for it either. Setting Sun and Diamond Mind are very fun.



I think the book was a great exercise in attempting a new subsystem of classes. I think that each base class was written intelligently and well composed (other than obvious typos). I liked about half the prestige classes and strongly disliked the other half. This is generally the norm for most books and a 50:50 rate for approving of PrCs is actually pretty high.

I liked most of the maneuvers although I thought there was a lack of variety in many places and quite a few of the maneuvers packed significantly less of a punch than they should have. Some of the stances are golden and others are highly dissapointing. This book could have benefited immensely from a Complete book dedicated to it.

One of my favorite things about this book is it gave some great options for people who wanted to play gishes. Both in the sense of the Jade Phoenix Mage and RNV as well as pure swordsage or crusader. The swordsage embodies the magic+sword user and pulls it off far better than any class I had seen in the past. This is a departure in some ways from classic d&d, but I found it very satisfying. Crusader is also amazing since it brought about a holy swordsman and walking tank to the game. We finally had a character who heals in combat and isn't resented for it as well as a real tank class other than the highly disappointing Knight.

~~~


If you were always disappointed in the PHB Fighter class, then this is the book for you. If you liked the Fighter and thought it was perfect as-is, then this is not the book for you.

I always hated the Fighter.

[rockdeworld]

If you always ban it, how can anyone miss what they've never been able to have? Not saying you should change, but it seems like a logical loop.
Vacuously true. They don't miss it because there's nothing to miss. Or in more plain English terms, they've never had a experience of it, so they wouldn't miss the experience of it.

[Psyren]

I enjoy what it represents:

- Granting martial classes Ex and Su abilities to represent their mastery of combat.
- WotC finally realizing that "magic" and "spellcasting" are not synonyms and never were.
- Coming up with distinct fighting styles, balanced not just with the rest of the game's enemies but also with each other.
- Coming up with a resource system that gets away from the "per day" paradigm but is still more limited than "at-will" or having arbitrary cooldowns.
- Coming up with three unique chassis to use these abilities and still get unique toys all their own.


It lacked polish (being in dire need of editing and errata) and they mistagged a small number of maneuvers, but beyond all that I respect the spirit/intention behind it, much like I do for BoED and ToM.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Help yourself.
Danke Schon.

I was actually unintentionally pointed at Bo9S by someone that gave it the moniker "Book of Broken Swords", and pretty much everything from my first impression onwards told me that that were hilariously wrong. I think the flaws in the book have been thoroughly commented on, as have the strengths, but I've never really looked at the classes in the book as simply "stronger than X", but more along the lines of "a situational replacement for X" - There were some exceedingly feat heavy builds that only worked with Fighter, some concepts that worked better with Paladin than Crusader especially with the splat love Paladin got, and some... uh. Nevermind about Monk and Swordsage; Swordsage was just needed there.

I only wish that there had been ranged or more overtly magical options in the book; if there was ever a portion of the game more in need of help and interesting mechanics than martial melee combat, it was martial ranged combat. Of course, homebrew and 3pp has fixed that now, so it's not a big deal anymore.

[huttj509]

My main thought on the ToB (which I generally love):

It could use a few hits from the errata bat, and not a document that typos to Errata for a different book after 5 lines.

[Gwendol]

It's an interesting subsystem, with well-designed classes. However: ranged combat was somehow missed, or perhaps planned for a later publication date? Lack of balance between maneuvers and stances. Bad editing, some things make little sense (IHS, for one), and the back-story is... best avoided.

Agreeing with Chronos on fixing the fighter (which would have helped all other martial classes published prior to ToB, and those classes too).

[Alent]

Hmm. It has some of the most powerful extraordinary melee classes in the game, layered up in interesting packages, with PrCs built to emphasize mesh builds of the initiators with some of the other more common sub systems. The versatility is amazing and addictive, and there's even an interesting "canonical path" for those who want to master the entire subsystem on a single character.

I want to love it, I really do. The few times I've DMed it's welcome at the table, but no one else wants to use it. But the truth is, I think it's editing and execution makes it terrible.

Bear in mind that I don't have anywhere near as much first hand experience with the book as I'd like, and haven't reviewed it in long enough to have forgotten most of the less interesting maneuvers, so this is generally how I feel when referencing the book:

My primary complaint comes from the way very little actually seems to have been thought through to it's logical end. There's redundant, non-scaling things like the mountain hammer line that could have really just been one skill with scaling- we're used to seeing things like "2d6+1d6/3 levels" in wizard spells. There's abilities I can't imagine taking put in blank slots because of the color in the blanks design, and I'm not sure if it's because I've overlooked a rule or if they really are filler just there to give me something to take to meet the "must have 3 maneuvers of the ____ discipline" requirements. (I guess they're also there because of the no duplicate maneuvers readied rule) Then on top of that, the lack of Thrown weapon and/or Archery support is just sad. Sure, there's maneuvers you CAN use with ranged weapons, but nothing designed for them.

I think taking Maneuvers to 9ths caused pointless bloat when something more along the lines of the Warlock's 4 grades of invocations would have allowed for a more natural variety.

The iffy execution combined with the extremely bad editing process, disjointed writing technique, and horrible disorganization, the few times we used it it was almost a DM ruling per maneuver and trying to figure out why it was such a mess lead me to the unofficial errata thread- but only after the campaign was over. The misunderstandings created the impression it's a broken OP book for most of the group,and invited horror stories about misunderstandings from past groups, like the strongheart halfling setting sun tossin' colossal creatures. If I hadn't found the errata it would've continued to have that reputation, now at least it's "Questionable".

I'd still like another chance to actually use it, now that I have a better understanding of my mistakes last initiator, preferably with the DM running more than 1 encounter/day. It's really difficult to convince people of the good, average performance of initiators when it seems very much the same side by side with a 5 minute workday wizard.

[Curbstomp]

Tome of Battle can be pretty broken if the writing gets misinterpreted, but seems to scale okay with a lot of the casting classes. That said, most Tome of Battle classes are a lot stronger than core fighter, ranger, or paladin. So if you are going for low-magic you might want to ban ToB. In middle-to-high-magic settings it seems fairly balanced.

Personally I like playing fighters. I view innovative combat styles as a fun challenge. But every once in a while I'll go for full-power mage. Those characters have greater survivability than the fighters, but take a lot more work to play and properly utilize. ToB classes seem to fall between the two in terms of upkeep.

[Flickerdart]

Personally I like playing fighters. I view innovative combat styles as a fun challenge.
Seems like maneuvers are much more innovative as combat styles than "full attack every round."

[Zombimode]

ToB is one of my most referenced splatbook. The classe are great, the feats are great, the maneuvers are great. Many "warriors" in my settings make use of some ToB stuff. Either a level dip, a feat (most often Martial Study) or even single class Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage (although I avoid Crusader as a class for NPCs - to much bookkeeping).

I can't stand those part of the art that is comic-like. I don't care for the fluff. Usually I complete ignore it including all references to the nine schools. So far, using a maneuver is not different from using a feat (like Improved Trip or Intimidating Strike) from an in-world perspective.

In the event that I will get a player who wants to use the ToB-fluff in my current Eberron campaign, I will establish the nine schools as the ancient high schools of combat of the Dhaakani Empire. There may be a (very limited) revival of the nine schools, but for the most part, techniques of the Dhaakani combat schools have sipped into the fighting tradition of other cultures. This way I still can use ToB stuff for my NPCs without referencing the nine schools or other ToB fluff.

[bekeleven]

Wow, a lot of mundane hate in this thread. I find that between tactical feats, power attack and similar, combat maneuvers, tactical repositioning, defensive combat, etc., mundane combat isn't boring unless all your encounters are incredibly samey. And that's mostly a DM issue.

That said, if you look past the fluff, editing, the nine swords, and... you know what? Look past everything except the class descriptions, the maneuver descriptions, martial study, martial stance, and rings of diamond mind. There, that's a solid 2.5 chapters of awesome and an item that makes spellcasters better.

[Curbstomp]

Flickerdart-

I meant grappler, tripper, wall-breaker, shield-thrower, grenadier, dual shield-wielder, net-and-trident, pick-and-hammer, etcetera

[Harlot]

I really like it and have used it quite a lot.

I like that you can build a monk-like build that actually works and feels very monk-y (with the right maneuvers)
And that you can enhance the deadliness of the rogue sneak-attack to make it an actual threat (with the right stance, can't remember the name this very moment.)

I think that it is the versatility of the builds that appeal to me.

[backwaterj]

Much of what I have to say has been said before. Yes, the editing's bad and the errata I'm convinced is a twisted joke. Yes, it's a shame they didn't spend at least some of that effort on fighter-specific feats and general martial fixes. Yes, the fluff is silly but I typically ignore it like I do with most non-campaign fluff. Classes aren't built right for stance progression but that's just more excuse to multiclass, which the system rewards anyway.

With all the negatives, ToB is an astoundingly good system that makes martials reasonably competitive and very fun to play. Martial characters are actually rewarded for tactical thinking and battlefield movement, and given lots of cool toys to accomplish this. It's pretty much everything I enjoyed from 4th edition without the soul-sucking homogenization and travesty of a skill system, and a lot simpler to play to boot.

I've played alongside a Warblade whose player kept forgetting half his class features. He still kicked butt.

I've only observed Swordsage in action briefly, but again it seemed to do what it said on the package.

The Crusader is one of my all-time favorite 3.5 classes, especially if you fluff the character as serving a luck deity (such as the little guy to the left). Practically unkillable, does decent heals in the same action he's smacking things, and even provides buffs for your teammates? In short, a paladin that actually works? I'll take it. The random mechanic also plays very well; it's sort of like a solitaire deck-building minigame.

And Thicket of Blades + spiked chain + Combat Reflexes? Wow. I think I kill more stuff when it's not my turn! :smallamused:

Overall, it's on my short list of favorite splatbooks and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Kane0]

It's great fun!

[Necroticplague]

Like all other martial things; I find it useful in moderation. When I build things, I typically just take small parts from a wide array of sources. Thus, just like how I find fighter dips useful to pck up a prereq, I find dipping into an initiator class to be useful, thanks to the frontloading (get the most benefit/level out of 1 level). I like it overall, but, like someone else said, I think it suffers from some unnecessary bloat due to having to make 9 levels for 9 schools.

That said, I'd probably have done it differently. Split it up into 4 levels; apprentice, journeyman, master, grandmaster. And would try and splitting maneuvers into starters, chain, and finishers. Starters would be similar to boosts, or else simply be minor attacks to start off a combo (something like "Slashing mongoose: swift action, one melee attack, gain a momentum point, and an extra if it hits" or "shadow attack: move action, your next attack rolls attack twice and uses higher roll, gain a momentum point, and an extra if the attack that benefits from this maneuver hits). Generally have little scaling, but at least nice little benefits. Chains would be the main abilities you use, that require a momentum point, but don't usually use them, and would normally be similar to what we call strikes or counters now (ex; "sticks and stones: standard action, requires one momentum point in momentum pool, make an attack that deal an extra 1d6/initiator level damage and ignores regeneration and damage reduction, gain a momentum point if this attack hits."). Some might scale with current momentum pool count. And finishers would be abilities that release incredibly potent effects, but require a minimum of momentum points to use (ex: "its over: full-round action, requires 5 combo points. Make an attack. If it hits, it is considered a coup-de-grace, lose all momentum points, deal an extra 10 damage for each point lost.). Makes a bit more sense then arbitrary refresh mechanisms, and helps with the idea of them being different from casters or normal martial. While the former become weaker as the battle continues, and the latter simply stay the same, an initiator actually grows in power as the battle rages on until they end it in one large flash of glory.

[Curmudgeon]

I just can't get past the idea of a martial maneuver only being usable once per encounter. It's the equivalent of telling Chuck Norris that no, he can only roundhouse kick one enemy in a fight. Even though Chuck could probably take out a NI number of foes with a single roundhouse kick, he'd be greatly offended at the limit. Chuck likes roundhouse kicks, and Tome of Battle not only says that he's not allowed more than one, it also says he'd need 5 minutes of rest before he's ready for the next kick. (That's just crazy, because Chuck Norris never needs to rest.)

[atemu1234]

I'm glad we got the inevitable JP argument part of the thread out of the way. Now for the fun stuff.

Can we list the good things and the bad things about the book, and relevant houserules and homebrew, along with decent 3p content?

I also have a tendency not to weigh in on my own opinion threads. But I did intend to use this thread to ask the people who use it what their opinion on it is.

Also, just realized the typo in the title. Darn.

[amalcon]

It's sort of like the Magic of Incarnum stuff for me: I like it a lot in theory, but in practice there's a lot of poorly designed and edited stuff in there. A level 5 character can turn a swift action into an extra turn for anyone in the party? An ability is meant to remove debuffs, but is unusable when under the most debilitating ones? The book hints at an alternative unarmed fighting class, that's not fleshed out enough to actually use? An already-decent feat makes the Swordsage recovery mechanic obsolete?

I don't ban it, actually I use it a lot, but it requires ad-hoc ruling on an almost constant basis. I like that it creates warrior classes that are actually interesting to play, and provides options to actual fighters through feats that could make them interesting to play. The fact that these interesting things are quite strong is nice too. It's just a lot more work to fix than some of the older subsystems are.

[Vogonjeltz]

I personally use it in my campaigns, but I don't have any PCs who actually want to learn the subsystem and put it into use. What's your opinion?

I don't like the artwork, I don't think it meshes well with the core rules thematically (like later 3.5 products it suffered from overcodification, making up rules to do things that would have normally been covered by ability checks or a DM decision).

It would have been better if Manuevers were a variant or addition to the regular classes rather than making up 3 new classes and leaving everything else in the dust.

Otherwise it looks fun.

[Hecuba]

Tome of Battle clearly fills a niche that was much in demand in the context of 3.5's class dynamics.
The basic structure and balance of the subsystem works well with the higher-powered tone of the late 3.5 metagame.

Poor editing is readily apparent.
The system does not scale down well: if playing on the lower-powered portion of the curve, it will likely seem overpowered.
Ultimately (though this is by no means limited to ToB), the continuous addition of subsystems to 3.5 irked me a bit. I have great interest in playing an all psionics game or an all ToB game or even an all Truenaming game. What I see more often, though is a game with Wizards AND Psions AND Swordsages (and occasionally Trunamers). It ends up too patchwork for my tastes.

[WhamBamSam]

I just can't get past the idea of a martial maneuver only being usable once per encounter. It's the equivalent of telling Chuck Norris that no, he can only roundhouse kick one enemy in a fight. Even though Chuck could probably take out a NI number of foes with a single roundhouse kick, he'd be greatly offended at the limit. Chuck likes roundhouse kicks, and Tome of Battle not only says that he's not allowed more than one, it also says he'd need 5 minutes of rest before he's ready for the next kick. (That's just crazy, because Chuck Norris never needs to rest.)That's not really what's going on. He can go on throwing his roundhouse kicks as much as he likes. It's his fancy spin kicks, trick kicks, kicks involving some sort of feint, kicks that inspire his allies to forget their flesh wounds, counters, and weird unaccountable bits of badassery that need some manner of resetting. It'll also take a lot less than 5 minutes unless he hasn't trained for that sort of thing at all, and why would that be the case here?

[paperarmor]

I'm for it other than the serious issues mentioned earlier a minor bugbear of mine with the book is the fluff of Warblades as gloryhounds if the mechanics used charisma for the same they used int for in thier crunch so I just refluff them as brilliant tacticians and call it a day.

[aleucard]

In general, I prefer looking at the mechanics alone when it comes to character-creation, and figuring out how those mechanics can be fluffed into fitting my concept. As such, the fluff of the vast majority of ToB may as well be non-existent for me. Obvious exceptions are things where the fluff is hard-wired into mechanics, such as Devoted Spirit lending the quasi-Paladin feel the fluff for a Crusader suggests.

For the meat of the book, I like the fact that it actually gives a sensible reason behind higher-level Primary Casters not just carting around a pet Solar or something and using that instead of having to share loot with a martial. Its heavy compatibility with multiclassing also means that it can easily fit into almost any build one could name, adding much-needed versatility to existing martials. My biggest issues are 1) how little editing/playtesting has obviously went into this book (though that particular problem is system-wide more often than not), 2) how easily comparable it is to spellcasting and/or invocations (which kinda screws with the player, since now their martial characters echo their casters to potentially-uncomfortable levels), and 3) how few bones it throws to martials outside of the unarmed and 2-handed melee type (sword-n-board, dual-wielding, single-weapon (as in, not 2-handed), and non-throwing ranged are all ignored, though several maneuvers and stances can be put to use by those groups (it feels almost accidental)). The prestige classes are for the most part interesting and have unique and effective abilities without being absurdly overpowered outside of threading loopholes a la Tippy, and for the most part casters are in a better position to play that game anyway. The fact that it obsoletes entire segments of the 3.5 library chafes, but to be fair large segments of the 3.5 library probably shouldn't have been printed in the first place, and obsoleting ****ty things is better than obsoleting entire playstyles.

[Shining Wrath]

A good start. Has some rough edges - who uses the pre-battle stare down mechanism? Who uses the Martial Lore skill? but a good start.

Oh, and they need to go back and look at the levels at which different classes get stances, because some of those actually make dipping let you be better at the main class.

But it's Nice Things For Melee. And that's rare. It's too bad it was the last thing they did for 3.5.

[malonkey1]

I just can't get past the idea of a martial maneuver only being usable once per encounter. It's the equivalent of telling Chuck Norris that no, he can only roundhouse kick one enemy in a fight. Even though Chuck could probably take out a NI number of foes with a single roundhouse kick, he'd be greatly offended at the limit. Chuck likes roundhouse kicks, and Tome of Battle not only says that he's not allowed more than one, it also says he'd need 5 minutes of rest before he's ready for the next kick. (That's just crazy, because Chuck Norris never needs to rest.)

I'd probably stat Chuck Norris as a Gestalt Unarmed Strike Fighter//Warblade, so he can easily replenish maneuvers. The "flourish" he makes after an attack is "being Chuck Norris".

[Vhaidara]

The book hints at an alternative unarmed fighting class, that's not fleshed out enough to actually use?

Huh? Unarmed swordsage is fine. You switch to Monk proficiencies, and get the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability. Done.


An already-decent feat makes the Swordsage recovery mechanic obsolete?

Well, the Swordsage recovery mechanic obsoletes itself by being that terrible. It is NEVER worth a full round action to get a single maneuver back. Adaptive Style is a feat tax to give the Swordsage a recovery method.

[2xMachina]

I dislike the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the worst books WotC ever published.

On the other hand, I love the Tome of Battle! I think it is one of the BEST books WotC ever published.

[Chronos]

Quoth Red Fel:

Fighter's only class feature is Fighter Bonus Feats - feats which any class can take. Fighters simply get more of them. Coming up with new feats wouldn't just make Fighters better - a rising tide raises all ships, after all.

Let me make this clear: There is nothing, under the rules of 3.5 at the time Tome of Battle was published, that could improve the Fighter without improving everyone across the board. There was no way to improve the Fighter specifically, as it was written.
It wouldn't actually improve everyone. No matter how good you make fighter feats, wizards aren't going to want to take them: They're going to want to take more metamagic feats, or reserve feats, or other feats that improve what they actually do. Now, making more good fighter feats would also improve barbarians, paladins, and rangers, since they're likely to want the same sorts of feats that fighters do... But you know what? That's a feature, not a bug. They can use the help, too. Not as much as fighters can, but then, they wouldn't be helped as much as fighters are.

As for the objection that fighters have dead levels at odd-numbered levels: Yeah, but then, so do sorcerers, mostly, and wizards have mostly-dead levels at all the even levels.

Back to the topic of Tome of Battle, one other thing I personally dislike about it is that I don't like per-encounter mechanics. It feels too much like video games where there's a separate "exploring mode" and "combat mode" that work differently. I much prefer the notion that time is time, in or out of combat, and it's not always clear just when one encounter ends and the next starts. Think of the Battle of Helm's Deep, or the Battle of Azure City: Was that one encounter, or dozens? I think that in a properly-designed rule system, the answer to that question shouldn't matter. If you want something that behaves effectively like a per-encounter mechanic, then do something like the Binder, where abilities refresh after five rounds (or pick some other refresh period), regardless of what's happening in those five rounds.

[ericgrau]

Some have fun with it, some don't. That's all that matters so I don't think my own opinion on it matters. Play what you like.

But IMO I don't like it. It introduces some X to Y substitution and bypassing Z which is problematic in lower power games. And a little bit of other power creep. Also even the "non-magical" stuff is pretty much magical. You can try to fluff it as mundane but it's a force fit. "I strike so hard I overcome a werewolf's resistance to non-silver!" Bwa? I don't use it but I would have little problem using it if pushed by campaign house rules or some such (e.g., PHB classes replaced with ToB). If I were to DM I would allow ToB with some small limitations. I'd also call all or almost all maneuvers SLAs (even those) and call it a day on the style questions. Bear in mind I'd also limit most high power stuff, even moderately high power, so that those using other options aren't behind. At Playground optimization levels I'd expect no nerfing.

[malonkey1]

Some have fun with it, some don't. That's all that matters so I don't think my own opinion on it matters. Play what you like.

But IMO I don't like it. It introduces some X to Y substitution and bypassing Z which is problematic in lower power games. And a little bit of other power creep. Also even the "non-magical" stuff is pretty much magical. You can try to fluff it as mundane but it's a force fit. "I strike so hard I overcome a werewolf's resistance to non-silver!" Bwa? I don't use it but I would have little problem using it if pushed by campaign house rules or some such (e.g., PHB classes replaced with ToB). If I were to DM I would allow ToB with some small limitations. I'd also call all or almost all maneuvers SLAs (even those) and call it a day on the style questions. Bear in mind I'd also limit most high power stuff, even moderately high power, so that those using other options aren't behind.

I always interpreted the DR bypass maneuvers as "I hit so hard, durability's pointless."

[ericgrau]

I always interpreted the DR bypass maneuvers as "I hit so hard, durability's pointless."
I call that doing more damage. And what if the DR/hardness is 30? 100? DR/epic? What about others w/o the ability who hit really hard? It kind of makes sense but it's a stretch; that's what I mean. You have to try harder and use terms that are as general as possible to put fluff on it. All rules hand-wave the details to some degree, but some hand-wave a bit more than others.

[Anlashok]

And yet no one seems to mind at all stretching their minds even further to justify half the **** a wizard does.

[ericgrau]

That's b/c it's magic. I have no problem fluffing ToB as magic. Nor any problem giving lots and lots of magic items to mundanes. EDIT: Nor is it the worst offense in the world. I'd play with it w/o a refluff if I had to. But personally I'd say "it's magic" for the sake of ease of story and move on.

[Kazyan]

And yet no one seems to mind at all stretching their minds even further to justify half the **** a wizard does.

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when you have no reason to assume the other wrong is being used in the first place.

[Fax Celestis]

As someone very very into (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?64856-Ancestral-Soul-ToB-Discipline) the (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103406-Army-of-One-Discipline) homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?99529-The-Sublime-Gunslinger-s-Art-Black-Rain-Discipline) scene (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?131567-3-5-Tome-of-Battle-Discipline-Chthonic-Serpent-(PEACH)), some (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?85614-I-m-A-Leaf-On-The-Wind-Discipline) of the (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5712.0) best (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?71422-Discipline-Holy-Word-Discipline) homebrews (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?102215-ToB-Discipline-Infinite-Torment) I have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240364-3-5-The-Flash-Vanguard-Class-amp-Lightning-Fox-Discipline) ever (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?98474-ToB-Discipline-Ninefold-Damnation) seen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?86266-Quicksilver-Aegis-Discipline) have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?101008-Just-Who-The-Hell-Do-You-Think-We-Are!-Discipline) been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?98409-Sleeping-Goddess-Discipline) TOB (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?162222-Stygian-Nightmare-3-5-ToB-Discipline-PEACH)-related (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?40991-Twin-Spirit-Discipline).

[Vhaidara]

I call that doing more damage. And what if the DR/hardness is 30? 100? DR/epic? What about others w/o the ability who hit really hard? It kind of makes sense but it's a stretch; that's what I mean. You have to try harder and use terms that are as general as possible to put fluff on it. All rules hand-wave the details to some degree, but some hand-wave a bit more than others.

Then make them Su, not SLA. After all, monk gets Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine fists as an Su ability.

[kellbyb]

That's b/c it's magic. I have no problem fluffing ToB as magic. Nor any problem giving lots and lots of magic items to mundanes. EDIT: Nor is it the worst offense in the world. I'd play with it w/o a refluff if I had to. But personally I'd say "it's magic" for the sake of ease of story and move on.

Funnily enough, you know what the chapter in Tome of Battle that details maneuvers is called? Blade magic.

[malonkey1]

Funnily enough, you know what the chapter in Tome of Battle that details maneuvers is called? Blade magic.

This is true. That said, the term "mundane" has a different meaning in D&D-world than in our world. Mundane basically means "not outstanding" or "everyday". To be fair, depending on the setting, that can still be pretty astounding compared to our world. Hell, "mundanes" in our world have access to incredible things compared to, say, Ancient Rome. We have strange "oracle-machines", as well as machines that can carry across the globe faster than sound can travel, the ability to send messages along thin metal filaments, and we've captured the sun in tiny glass globes! The average person of our time is unto a god to them.

[WhamBamSam]

Some have fun with it, some don't. That's all that matters so I don't think my own opinion on it matters. Play what you like.

But IMO I don't like it. It introduces some X to Y substitution and bypassing Z which is problematic in lower power games. And a little bit of other power creep. Also even the "non-magical" stuff is pretty much magical. You can try to fluff it as mundane but it's a force fit. "I strike so hard I overcome a werewolf's resistance to non-silver!" Bwa? I don't use it but I would have little problem using it if pushed by campaign house rules or some such (e.g., PHB classes replaced with ToB). If I were to DM I would allow ToB with some small limitations. I'd also call all or almost all maneuvers SLAs (even those) and call it a day on the style questions. Bear in mind I'd also limit most high power stuff, even moderately high power, so that those using other options aren't behind. At Playground optimization levels I'd expect no nerfing.Extraordinary does imply something beyond the ordinary, even if that something isn't magic. Being able to cut/punch through something really hard through pure skill is a common fantasy trope even in stories where magic isn't really a thing. Yes, Mythbusters busted cutting a sword with a sword, but the fact that it's a common enough trope for them to test means that it's exactly the sort of thing that a master swordsman in a fantasy world should be able to do, whether or not it's 100% supported by real world physics.

Also, making maneuvers Su or Sp makes them more powerful in just about any instance where you aren't in an Antimagic Field, as they'd work with various metamagic analogues and things, and in the case of SLAs allow you to qualify for things that require a caster level. Unless you then take away the Sp/Su-ness and say "they work exactly like Ex abilities except when it's useful for an ability to be Ex, because screw you."

[Fax Celestis]

It doesn't just imply it, it outright says it.


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

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

Extraordinary abilities are supposed to be a way for noncasters to compete with casters, but for some reason people are okay with making spells able to break reality but not extraordinary abilities, even though they both say they can.

[ericgrau]

Then make them Su, not SLA. After all, monk gets Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine fists as an Su ability.
That's great too.

As for Su boosting combos, I think it's hard to do unless the ability is defined as having a spell level. It has something analogous to a spell level, but you don't have to make it one. Anything else works just as well on smite evil. Or like most things you could simply allow it except when it gets broken (as defined relatively by your group).

Ex can very technically fit but they tend to be more like superman than like gandalf. Actually the wording doesn't necessarily say it fits since breaking the laws of physics can mean a lot of things. It's merely vague. "Not X" could be nearly anything, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

[Windstorm]

personally I like it for the simple reason that it allows a martial character to have more choices about how they interact with and affect the game in combat situations. it is also the only good source of mechanics for actually playing the classic braggart fighter archetype who is so loud that the enemies have to focus on him (the various stuff that makes it a very bad choice not to hit him first; mostly referred to on here as the 'control tank' archetype)

[DarkSonic1337]

Beyond the desert wind fire thing, shadow hand teleporting, and iron heart surge I really don't see what's supernatural (as in SU tag) about tome of battle.

A lot of the maneuvers are attack really fast, move really fast, react really fast, concentrate really hard, ect for some "bend" the laws of the universe effect. The exact kind of thing I'd expect a fantasy hero to be able to do.

Tome of Battle is NOT MUNDANE. But really, I don't want to play a mundane character in a fantasy world, I want to play an extraordinary one!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

My feeling on Tome of Battle is that it's good, not great. What it does it does extraordinarily well but it doesn't solve the primary problem with playing non-casters.

[Rubik]

Beyond the desert wind fire thing, shadow hand teleporting, and iron heart surge I really don't see what's supernatural (as in SU tag) about tome of battle.

A lot of the maneuvers are attack really fast, move really fast, react really fast, concentrate really hard, ect for some "bend" the laws of the universe effect. The exact kind of thing I'd expect a fantasy hero to be able to do.

Tome of Battle is NOT MUNDANE. But really, I don't want to play a mundane character in a fantasy world, I want to play an extraordinary one!Except those are all Nice Things, and non-casters can't have Nice Things. Consequently, the Nice Things in Tome of Battle must be for casters and must therefore be magic.

[Psyren]

I always interpreted the DR bypass maneuvers as "I hit so hard, durability's pointless."

No, it's more mystic than that - like the wizened master who has become more physically frail with age yet can still smash a concrete block or stack of bricks with his palm. Physical strength/"hitting hard" has very little to do with that trope.

[Morty]

Tome of Battle is quite a good book given what it has to work with. It's not perfect, but there's only so much you can do with what passes for a non-magical combat model in 3e. And 3e in general. And it finally acknowledges that martial combat is every bit as tactically complex as spell-slinging - the martial maneuvers aren't ideal at representing the ebb and flow of combat, but they get closer than anything else in any D&D material before that book. It's still just a band-aid on 3e's glaring, underlying issues - but as a band-aid, it does a pretty swell job.

As far as why they didn't just fix the fighter instead... honestly, I don't think they could have done that. They're a business, so I doubt they would have been allowed to say "alright, so the martial classes in the Player's Handbook are hopeless - here's how you do it properly'. It would have been true, but outright declaring existing, core material to be obsolete without publishing a whole new edition... I doubt it would have flown. So instead they had to dress it up in all the 'blade magic' nonsense and treat them as alternatives to the PHB martial classes, instead of straight upgrades. So I wouldn't call it a reasonable expectation. Besides, as others pointed out, there's no real way to save the 3e fighter without completely stripping it down and starting from scratch. Take what you can get.

Apart from that, although I've ever experienced it myself, I can easily imagine ToB classes being overpowered in a low-level, low-op environment. Imagine a group with a traditional fighter (or barbarian), rogue, cleric and wizard. Then throw a warblade into the mix. While the fighter is making her one attack per round or charging, the rogue is trying to get into position for his measly d6 or 2d6 sneak attack and the spellcasters are wondering if they should spend one of their handful of spells on the encounter... the warblade is busting out two cool maneuvers every combat. That's not ToB's fault - it's the problem with the low levels in a core-only game being pretty poor. But it doesn't really matter if it ends up disrupting a game.


As someone very very into (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?64856-Ancestral-Soul-ToB-Discipline) the (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?103406-Army-of-One-Discipline) homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?99529-The-Sublime-Gunslinger-s-Art-Black-Rain-Discipline) scene (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?131567-3-5-Tome-of-Battle-Discipline-Chthonic-Serpent-(PEACH)), some (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?85614-I-m-A-Leaf-On-The-Wind-Discipline) of the (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5712.0) best (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?71422-Discipline-Holy-Word-Discipline) homebrews (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?102215-ToB-Discipline-Infinite-Torment) I have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240364-3-5-The-Flash-Vanguard-Class-amp-Lightning-Fox-Discipline) ever (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?98474-ToB-Discipline-Ninefold-Damnation) seen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?86266-Quicksilver-Aegis-Discipline) have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?101008-Just-Who-The-Hell-Do-You-Think-We-Are!-Discipline) been (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?98409-Sleeping-Goddess-Discipline) TOB (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?162222-Stygian-Nightmare-3-5-ToB-Discipline-PEACH)-related (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?40991-Twin-Spirit-Discipline).

That's a part of another thing that ToB introduces - design space. 3e books are notorious for introducing a bucketful of spells each, because spells are easy to design and throw at every book, and on the players' side, they're easy to cherry-pick for your character. You can also make up a homebrew spell to suit your game's purposes, as a GM. But non-magicians? They're stuck with feats and class features, both of which are a harshly limited resource. Maneuvers provide martial types with the same design space magic-users have. Suddenly they can have new, exotic or specifically-tailored techniques just like the magicians.

[WhamBamSam]

That's great too.

As for Su boosting combos, I think it's hard to do unless the ability is defined as having a spell level. It has something analogous to a spell level, but you don't have to make it one. Anything else works just as well on smite evil. Or like most things you could simply allow it except when it gets broken (as defined relatively by your group).

Ex can very technically fit but they tend to be more like superman than like gandalf. Actually the wording doesn't necessarily say it fits since breaking the laws of physics can mean a lot of things. It's merely vague. "Not X" could be nearly anything, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.Looking over it, there aren't as many big winner combos as I thought, because most of the meta-Su stuff has limited uses/day. Still Empowered Leading the Charge is worth the feat, and if Extend Supernatural Ability were 3/day instead of 1/day it'd be a very solid option for Su-Crusaders.

As for SLAs - apart from other things not directly related to the maneuvers that you can qualify for by virtue of having a CL - that basically comes down to what I was saying about making them magic without making them magic. "So you don't provoke an AoO when you do this, and even though it has a maneuver level, that's different from a spell level, so you can't quicken or maximize it. But don't be fooled! It's really an SLA, even though it works like an Ex ability in almost every situation. You can't use it in an AMF, because that'd offend my delicate sensibilities."

I'm not sure what you mean about Superman vs. Gandalf. Superman is mostly Ex. Gandalf is mostly Su/spellcasting. ToB is much more "leap tall buildings in a single bound" than "you shall not pass!" Yes, even the Thicket of Blades lockdown types who are less about jumping and more about preventing people from passing.

[Ansem]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

No one in the groups I play with allowed it and all the DM's I played with ban it instantly {Scrubbed}
Luckily not a fan either, as it just seems to be a failed attempt to make mundane function like Wizards.

[Morty]

No, it's more mystic than that - like the wizened master who has become more physically frail with age yet can still smash a concrete block or stack of bricks with his palm. Physical strength/"hitting hard" has very little to do with that trope.

I see no reason not to describe those maneuvers differently based on who performs them.

[Xerlith]

As a DM I love the book. It lets me quickly put an NPC antagonist to fight WITHOUT worrying about optimization. I grab a chassis, fill out the blanks (Weapons, stats), grab some random feats and maneuvers and... It works beautifully. In a T3-T4 environment I normally play it's a great boon.

As a player, I like non-magical badassery. So if I can, I sneak a level or two somewhere in my build - I like gishes because of options, but they mostly come down to "I buff, I smack". In-combat options for melee? My go-to choices are the Duskblade and the Initiator Trio.

[Rubik]

No one in the groups I play with allowed it and all the DM's I played with ban it instantly {Scrubbed}
Luckily not a fan either, as it just seems to be a failed attempt to make mundane function like Wizards."Move faster, hit harder, take punishment like a brick wall, and recover quickly" is magical?

Your version of magic is boring.

Or really hilarious. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?195049-Help-Me-Be-Annoying-with-a-Barbarian-Wizard)

[RolkFlameraven]

I hated it. The idea seemed very OP at first glace and my thought was if you really wanted to do "blade magic" use one of the PRCs that let you do magic with a blade.

But if it was a WOTC book it was free game to use in all my games because if I was going spend the money on the book I'm going to use it! A few years later someone decided to do so, they rolled up a Warblade we all loved it, it wasn't anywhere near as broken as we had thought and now I'm playing a Warder from Path of War in my PF game.

YMMV but for everyone who hates it or bans it out of hand, you might want to play with it at lest once, it could change your mind as it did mine.

[Chronos]

Quoth Rubik:


"Move faster, hit harder, take punishment like a brick wall, and recover quickly" is magical?
No, but "expend a slot to produce an effect that you could have produced last round if you wanted to, but which you now can't do again until you've refreshed that slot, no matter what else is going on in the battle" is like a wizard.

[Fax Celestis]

No, but "expend a slot to produce an effect that you could have produced last round if you wanted to, but which you now can't do again until you've refreshed that slot, no matter what else is going on in the battle" is like a wizard.

Mechanics != description

[lytokk]

My experience with TOB has been limited, but I do like it. So far, I've only played a single session with my warforged crusader, and I loved it. Really looking forward to the next session, or using any of my backup characters which are all out of the same book. Other than the editing problems, the main thing it lacks for a mundane fix is some archery support. Also it suffered from coming out at the end of 3.5, and it would have been more interesting if it had gotten support from other sources, such as more prestige classes. Also it should have flat out given fighter full IL progression, perhaps a choice of one of the schools, since if you're using the book, you're using the material anyway.

[Rubik]

No, but "expend a slot to produce an effect that you could have produced last round if you wanted to, but which you now can't do again until you've refreshed that slot, no matter what else is going on in the battle" is like a wizard.So that means that item creation feats are exactly like, say, Toughness, because they both take up feat slots gained at levels 1/3/6/9/etc, and thus should be treated and described exactly the same.

And smite is just like the gnome's racial spell-like abilities. Or rage. Or turn undead. Because they're all X/day mechanics, right?

Skill checks are just like making attack rolls, because they're all made by rolling 1d20+modifiers.

And truenamers are exactly like factotums, because they both use skill checks for their stuff.

[DarkSonic1337]

I think Tome of Battle would feel less "magical" (and by that I mean vancian really, since it feels in no way magical to me) if all initiators had the warblade refresh mechanic.

I'm completely FINE with being unable to use the same maneuver over and over round after round. Because these are actual techniques, not just "I swing my sword and try to hit him." After using one it's unlikely that you'll be in the correct position to use it again, and you have to make some kind of effort to regain that position.

Then again I'm actually content with the current model (though the swordsage feat tax bugs me a little).

Also I'm not convinced that the maneuver system is anything like the vancian casting system. You get a total number of maneuvers you can ready (of any level you know), rather than a bunch of different level'd slots to fill. You use them per encounter and have a refresh method, rather than having per day limits. You trade out lower level techniques for any level you can learn, rather than equivalent abilities. The only things I see in common between the two systems are that they divide up abilities into 9 levels and that you learn them as you level up.

[Fax Celestis]

I think Tome of Battle would feel less "magical" (and by that I mean vancian really, since it feels in no way magical to me) if all initiators had the warblade refresh mechanic.

I'm completely FINE with being unable to use the same maneuver over and over round after round. Because these are actual techniques, not just "I swing my sword and try to hit him." After using one it's unlikely that you'll be in the correct position to use it again, and you have to make some kind of effort to regain that position.

Then again I'm actually content with the current model (though the swordsage feat tax bugs me a little).

Swordsage feat tax is a myth. Swordsages get enough readied maneuvers that they, in practice, never actually run out. Their refresh mechanic is an emergency button.

[DarkSonic1337]

My experience with Swordsage is biased because my first swordsage was a Dvaati and the two bodies shared maneuver pools. My DM also plays with very inflated HP totals and my group fails to understand how good magical battlefield control is and how to set up inevitable victories.

It was absolutely glorious.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Mechanics != description

Exactly. "It uses similar mechanics to the magic classes" is... a game design choice. It doesn't really matter whether a game's design uses one system with variants or many subsystems, and the latter is probably harder to make. It's still not really spellcasting mechanics, ToB maneuver slots are not expendable per day, and the only ones that are similar to spells are the ones that are supposed to be, Swordsage and Crusader (I'd mark some of the Ex tags as part of the poor editing).

[OldTrees1]

So that means that item creation feats are exactly like, say, Toughness, because they both take up feat slots gained at levels 1/3/6/9/etc, and thus should be treated and described exactly the same.

And smite is just like the gnome's racial spell-like abilities. Or rage. Or turn undead. Because they're all X/day mechanics, right?

Skill checks are just like making attack rolls, because they're all made by rolling 1d20+modifiers.

And truenamers are exactly like factotums, because they both use skill checks for their stuff.

To be fair, things that share the same mechanical texture, share the same mechanical texture. Smite and Rage both share the "number per day" mechanical texture. Thus they will both feel(mechanically) like "number per day" abilities.
So yes Manuevers and Spells share the "memorize and expend" mechanical texture.

However that is where I stop disagreeing with you and start disagreeing with Chronos. While Manuevers and Spells share the "memorize and expend" mechanical texture, it would be a shame to confuse mechanical texture with source of power fluff. Manuevers share many qualities with Spells but being fluffed as spellcasting is not one of them.

Or to expand on Fax's comment: Mechanics = Mechanics != Description

[Flickerdart]

Flickerdart-

I meant grappler, tripper, wall-breaker, shield-thrower, grenadier, dual shield-wielder, net-and-trident, pick-and-hammer, etcetera
Grappling is terrible; the reasons for why it's terrible (and why fighters are terrible at it) have been explored.
Tripping is still just full attacks, only now you have AoOs too. You're still doing the same thing over and over.
Shield-throwing (and any other thrower builds) are still making full attacks all day erry day, only with a different, crappier weapon. Also, the best throwing PrC? Bloodstorm Blade, ToB. Incidentally, why would you use fighters as grenadiers? That's a terrible idea. Rogues at least get to make touch attacks for SA.
Wall-breaker isn't a style - it's just an adamantine pick you keep in your pack. Did you mean Dungeoncrasher? Because that's just trading your full attack for something else you roll over and over.
Net and trident is one terrible feat that still doesn't actually change anything - you're still full attacking, only you got to throw a net first and it cost you four useless feats.
Pick and hammer doesn't appear to be a thing.

I'm still not convinced that non ToB melee has style.

[Psyren]

I see no reason not to describe those maneuvers differently based on who performs them.

You certainly could and for the record I think ki strike is one of those abilities that could easily make the jump from Su to Ex. All I was really saying is that I understand why they made it Su to begin with.

[OldTrees1]

Grappling is terrible; the reasons for why it's terrible (and why fighters are terrible at it) have been explored.
Tripping is still just full attacks, only now you have AoOs too. You're still doing the same thing over and over.
Shield-throwing (and any other thrower builds) are still making full attacks all day erry day, only with a different, crappier weapon. Also, the best throwing PrC? Bloodstorm Blade, ToB. Incidentally, why would you use fighters as grenadiers? That's a terrible idea. Rogues at least get to make touch attacks for SA.
Wall-breaker isn't a style - it's just an adamantine pick you keep in your pack. Did you mean Dungeoncrasher? Because that's just trading your full attack for something else you roll over and over.
Net and trident is one terrible feat that still doesn't actually change anything - you're still full attacking, only you got to throw a net first and it cost you four useless feats.
Pick and hammer doesn't appear to be a thing.

I'm still not convinced that non ToB melee has style.
Tripping is full attacks and AoOs, but once it has a qualitative difference from "just attacking" can we really call it "just full attacking"? Or does calling it "just full attacking" carry the derogatory "just attacking" implication?

Or is "just full attacking" not the problem? Would you be equally unsatisfied with the following ability?
At Will: As a full round action, move and take 4 actions from the following list (list of 10 valid and useful options)
I ask because your complaint seems to be one about repeating the same action every round even when the content of the action can vary greatly.

[Flickerdart]

I ask because your complaint seems to be one about repeating the same action every round even when the content of the action can vary greatly.
The content of the action doesn't vary greatly at all (you're making attacks with a different weapon). Most importantly, any variance that does exist exists between characters - you can't be a good tripper and a good trident guy and a good shield thrower at the same time. You can be mediocre at all of those things, but that doesn't really help.

If you had the ability to pick a bunch of different "valid and useful options" then that wouldn't be just full attacking, but standard combat maneuvers are neither valid nor useful. The few that are decent need tremendous focus in order to do anything.

[Troacctid]

Full attacks also mean no variation based on the terrain or positioning. You're locked into standing in one spot regardless of tactical considerations.

[Morty]

You certainly could and for the record I think ki strike is one of those abilities that could easily make the jump from Su to Ex. All I was really saying is that I understand why they made it Su to begin with.

I thought we were talking about Stone Dragon's DR-ignoring strikes, here, which aren't tagged as supernatural. Or is it about something else?

As far as maneuvers resembling spells go, the important thing to remember is that for the longest time, spells were the only proper means of interacting with the rules in a manner that's neither confined to rolling a d20 each round or making things up on the fly. So if we want to give such abilities to other power sources than spell-casting, they're going to look like spells - because there's nothing else they can look like. The refresh mechanics is an abstraction, but a necessary one - I don't think anything more realistic or granular would have really worked.

[OldTrees1]

The content of the action doesn't vary greatly at all (you're making attacks with a different weapon). Most importantly, any variance that does exist exists between characters - you can't be a good tripper and a good trident guy and a good shield thrower at the same time. You can be mediocre at all of those things, but that doesn't really help.

If you had the ability to pick a bunch of different "valid and useful options" then that wouldn't be just full attacking, but standard combat maneuvers are neither valid nor useful. The few that are decent need tremendous focus in order to do anything.

So
1 character, 1 weapon and the following options is not varied or not "just full attacking"?
Attack(damage)
Trip(halt movement)
Knockback(move)
Cower(disarm and debuff action economy)
Stagger(debuff action economy)
True this is at ECL 10(9 with buy off).

ToB gives more options and makes them easier to find but at the cost of expending. Different strokes for different folks, just let's not underestimate either side.

[malonkey1]

My experience with Swordsage is biased because my first swordsage was a Dvaati and the two bodies shared maneuver pools. My DM also plays with very inflated HP totals and my group fails to understand how good magical battlefield control is and how to set up inevitable victories.

It was absolutely glorious.

I always wondered how exactly Dvati would interact with ToB. It's a cool race, but it plays hell on the rules.


The content of the action doesn't vary greatly at all (you're making attacks with a different weapon). Most importantly, any variance that does exist exists between characters - you can't be a good tripper and a good trident guy and a good shield thrower at the same time. You can be mediocre at all of those things, but that doesn't really help.

If you had the ability to pick a bunch of different "valid and useful options" then that wouldn't be just full attacking, but standard combat maneuvers are neither valid nor useful. The few that are decent need tremendous focus in order to do anything.

Well, you can be good at all of those things, but that's contingent on a Dark Chaos Shuffle.

[OldTrees1]

I always wondered how exactly Dvati would interact with ToB. It's a cool race, but it plays hell on the rules.

Avoid Swordsage unless you have Adaptive Style.
Crusader is best if you have an alternative Standard action. (since maneuvers are auto granted but need to complete their cycle before refreshing)
Warblade works well too. (Although one of the bodies will spend every other turn refreshing your maneuvers)

I tested out a Dvati RKV focused on in combat healing. It worked surprisingly well. Gear was a bit tight and RKV is a few caster levels behind.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm still not convinced that non ToB melee has style.
A Fighter has a style that reflects their training choices. Hit a foe hard with your guisarme, and you can push them over (Knock-Down). Hit them again as they meet the ground (Improved Trip). Kick their closer compatriot (Snap Kick triggered by the first attack) and knock them over, too. Kick them again when they're on the ground (Snap Kick triggered by the Improved Trip bonus attack). Push enemy #1 away with your guisarme (Knockback), with enough velocity for them to smack into a wall, hard (Dungeon Crasher). Kick enemy #2 hard enough to smack them into a wall, too. If the wall was close, kick them yet again (Snap Kick triggered by the Knockback bull rush attack). That's all based on one attack (could be a standard action; could also be part of a full attack in a target-rich environment).

The style: playing (shuffleboard, bowling, whatever) with your enemies. :smallcool:

[OldTrees1]

A Fighter has a style that reflects their training choices. Hit a foe hard with your guisarme, and you can push them over (Knock-Down). Hit them again as they meet the ground (Improved Trip). Kick their closer compatriot (Snap Kick triggered by the first attack) and knock them over, too. Kick them again when they're on the ground (Snap Kick triggered by the Improved Trip bonus attack). Push enemy #1 away with your guisarme (Knockback), with enough velocity for them to smack into a wall, hard (Dungeon Crasher). Kick enemy #2 hard enough to smack them into a wall, too. If the wall was close, kick them yet again (Snap Kick triggered by the Knockback bull rush attack). That's all based on one attack (could be a standard action; could also be part of a full attack in a target-rich environment).

The style: playing (shuffleboard, bowling, whatever) with your enemies. :smallcool:

I prefer to call it Chessboard when combined with 10ft natural reach since 20ft of reach is enough to place and control a few pockets of enemies.

[Fax Celestis]

A Fighter has a style that reflects their training choices. Hit a foe hard with your guisarme, and you can push them over (Knock-Down). Hit them again as they meet the ground (Improved Trip). Kick their closer compatriot (Snap Kick triggered by the first attack) and knock them over, too. Kick them again when they're on the ground (Snap Kick triggered by the Improved Trip bonus attack). Push enemy #1 away with your guisarme (Knockback), with enough velocity for them to smack into a wall, hard (Dungeon Crasher). Kick enemy #2 hard enough to smack them into a wall, too. If the wall was close, kick them yet again (Snap Kick triggered by the Knockback bull rush attack). That's all based on one attack (could be a standard action; could also be part of a full attack in a target-rich environment).

The style: playing (shuffleboard, bowling, whatever) with your enemies. :smallcool:

So that's one thing, and you spent nearly everything available to you to get there. ToB has a multitude of styles. You can be a teleporting sneaky backstabber, an iron-willed resistance monkey, a secondary healer, a buffer, a firebreathing blaster, a judo master, or any number of things. And you only spend one of your class features to get there. You still have your feats, which you can use to pick up something else, and your equipment is much more variable than anything a fighter-style can do.

[OldTrees1]

So that's one thing, and you spent nearly everything available to you to get there. ToB has a multitude of styles. You can be a teleporting sneaky backstabber, an iron-willed resistance monkey, a secondary healer, a buffer, a firebreathing blaster, a judo master, or any number of things. And you only spend one of your class features to get there. You still have your feats, which you can use to pick up something else, and your equipment is much more variable than anything a fighter-style can do.

But if you only spend 1 class feature (rather than the 3 spent by the fighter), then you can only do that style for 1 action before you need to refresh. Furthermore some of those styles(like the very first example) are more than 1 maneuver/stance and thus require more than 1 class feature.

Both are versatile, ToB is much more versatile at the cost of expending. Different people will have different preferences.

[Flickerdart]

So
1 character, 1 weapon and the following options is not varied or not "just full attacking"?
Attack(damage)
Trip(halt movement)
Knockback(move)
Cower(disarm and debuff action economy)
Stagger(debuff action economy)
True this is at ECL 10(9 with buy off).

ToB gives more options and makes them easier to find but at the cost of expending. Different strokes for different folks, just let's not underestimate either side.
That's what, Improved Trip (+CE), Knockback (+IBR, PA), Imperious Command, and Staggering Strike, on a Goliath base? Congratulations, you spent 7 feats on being bad at a lot of different things (9 feats if you're qualifying for Staggering Strike with Assassin's Stance and not a Rogue dip).

You're still doing the same thing every turn, only now you get to say more stuff. It's still boring.

[Talionis]

But the biggest thing they got right in Tome of Battle and that should've been used across the board is the way initiator levels advance 1/2 for each non-initiator level you choose. I wish they had used this for other subsystems.

An example would be a level 20 character dips four levels into Incarnate and wears a Vitality Belt and he gets a Meldshaper level of 4. A level 20 character that takes the Soulmeld Feat has a Meldshaper level of 10.

I know that Tome of Battle needed some editing an more material so that some of the finer questions could have been ironed out, but this 1/2 advancement of initiator level by non-initiator classes was a very good way to handle it and helps to keep dips relevant and good enough to be at a decent power level no matter where taken.


I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

Great to point out that the whole spellcasting system is more anime than anything in the Tome of Battle.

[OldTrees1]

That's what, Improved Trip (+CE), Knockback (+IBR, PA), Imperious Command, and Staggering Strike, on a Goliath base? Congratulations, you spent 7 feats on being bad at a lot of different things (9 feats if you're qualifying for Staggering Strike with Assassin's Stance and not a Rogue dip).

You're still doing the same thing every turn, only now you get to say more stuff. It's still boring.
You are missing things but that is a good start.

Wow. You have skewed expectations if you call those "bad at a lot of things". Either you didn't crunch the numbers or you would consider ToB to be "bad at a lot^2 of things".

Consider 6th level Imperious Command (with Fearsome Armor as normal). You can spend 1 move action to set your enemy back 1 round (+move actions to reclaim held items).
A 6th level Warblade probably has White Raven Tactics. Every other turn they can spend 1 swift action to give an ally a full round of actions.
2 move actions => 2 rounds+ vs 2 swift actions and a standard action => 1 round.

Both get competent variety, ToB gets more variety at the cost of expending. All in all ToB is stronger but the stylistic difference is larger than the power/versatility difference.

[Fax Celestis]

Sure, but ToB can do things that a fighter cannot. The opposite is not quite as true.

[OldTrees1]

Sure, but ToB can do things that a fighter cannot. The opposite is not quite as true.

Oh hands down. No argument. It is a great addition. Honestly Blade Magic is a better platform for Martial characters if it diversified from its 1 stance and loads of expending maneuvers model. Have a variety of classes with different At Will/Encounter ratios and different Actives/Passives ratios... It is a great addition.

[Deadline]

The Tome of Battle is pretty fantastic. It's a book that takes an honest stab at fixing the crazy power difference between mundanes and spellcasters. It doesn't succeed, but it closes the gap a bit. The mechanics work reasonably well, albeit a couple of things are wonky. But I like it and use it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Huh? Unarmed swordsage is fine. You switch to Monk proficiencies, and get the Monk's Unarmed Strike ability. Done.

While I agree with the general feeling here, the specifics aren't right. They get unarmed damage progression and lose light armor. There's actually no Improved Unarmed Strike proficiency, which is kind of hilarious as without it he will provoke on every attack/maneuver.


Back to the topic of Tome of Battle, one other thing I personally dislike about it is that I don't like per-encounter mechanics. It feels too much like video games where there's a separate "exploring mode" and "combat mode" that work differently. I much prefer the notion that time is time, in or out of combat, and it's not always clear just when one encounter ends and the next starts. Think of the Battle of Helm's Deep, or the Battle of Azure City: Was that one encounter, or dozens? I think that in a properly-designed rule system, the answer to that question shouldn't matter. If you want something that behaves effectively like a per-encounter mechanic, then do something like the Binder, where abilities refresh after five rounds (or pick some other refresh period), regardless of what's happening in those five rounds.

Ugh, the video-game like aspect is everything that was wrong with version 4. That might explain my dislike of the system. The book does say that if you're not actually engaging in combat for about a minute (I think) it refreshes manuevers. So at least they considered that.


I see no reason not to describe those maneuvers differently based on who performs them.

Strength has nothing to do with what is happening. Strength modifier to damage is hitting so hard you bust through it. Bypassing damage reduction is using an attack that the reduction isn't useful against. Like if you have a dagger, DR 10/magic is basically always going to block the damage dealt, and the character would experience the following: "You stab at the dragon's chest, and your dagger skitters right off the metallic scales!" Versus using a magical dagger in the same scenario: "You stab at the dragon's chest, and your dagger punctures his scales as if they were mere leather!"

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keep it civil in here. That means no flaming, trolling, external baggage, or racially insensitive/provocative terminology.

[eggynack]

While I agree with the general feeling here, the specifics aren't right. They get unarmed damage progression and lose light armor. There's actually no Improved Unarmed Strike proficiency, which is kind of hilarious as without it he will provoke on every attack/maneuver.

The book doesn't say unarmed damage progression. It says unarmed strike progression. If improved unarmed strike is a part of the monk's unarmed strike progression, and it seems to be so given that it's listed under the monk's unarmed strike ability, then that's a thing that the unarmed swordsage gets.

[Rubik]

The sad thing is that unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency, and they can't use their AC bonus without armor.

Fortunately, several Light Armors have 0 ACP, so there's no real penalty for wearing them, assuming you're not an arcane spellcaster or monk (or trying to wear metal armor as a druid).

[eggynack]

The sad thing is that unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency, and they can't use their AC bonus without armor.
Yeah, that issue is way more full of stupid.

[Divide by Zero]

The sad thing is that unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency, and they can't use their AC bonus without armor.

Does anyone actually play that rule literally? I thought it was just one of those editing mistakes that everyone acknowledges, like the 6x skill points.

[Fax Celestis]

The swordsage is a mess of editing mistakes. Look at its BAB. Skills at first level, poor phrasing on a number of abilities, and some other mishmash in the unique maneuvers (Firesnake, anyone?).

[Zaydos]

Does anyone actually play that rule literally? I thought it was just one of those editing mistakes that everyone acknowledges, like the 6x skill points.

My question has always been "is it supposed to switch it to where they only get their AC bonus when not wearing armor?" Obviously they're supposed to out of armor but is it supposed to still work in it? If yes Unarmed Swordsage > Swordsage (you lose mithral breastplate, but keep mithral chainshirt and likely as not have Dex issues with breastplate), if no though Swordsage > Unarmed Swordsage by a larger margin (you gain the ability to make unarmed strikes more easily and take a massive AC hit).

[Psyren]

I always saw it played as "so long as you wear no heavier than light armor." Penalizing you for being even less encumbered makes no sense to me.

[Jigawatts]

I rather enjoy Tome of Battle, and its Pathfinder cousin (more so actually), but I wish that when WotC originally created it they hadn't used new classes, but rather optional revamped base classes. Basically where they had taken the fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, rogue, and monk and made this whole new chassis for how to play them. It would have literally "fixed" the fighter and the other warrior types, both in name and in spirit.

[Curmudgeon]

Penalizing you for being even less encumbered makes no sense to me.
It reflects the particular type of armor you've practiced with: you're only really proficient in that single grade of armor, what with all the martial meditation time cutting into your other combat training.

[Divide by Zero]

I rather enjoy Tome of Battle, and its Pathfinder cousin (more so actually), but I wish that when WotC originally created it they hadn't used new classes, but rather optional revamped base classes. Basically where they had taken the fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, rogue, and monk and made this whole new chassis for how to play them. It would have literally "fixed" the fighter and the other warrior types, both in name and in spirit.

You can fix that with a pen, some strips of paper, and some glue :smalltongue:

[ranagrande]

Overall, I like it. Although I do think it's the most overrated book in 3.5.

[Vhaidara]

It reflects the particular type of armor you've practiced with: you're only really proficient in that single grade of armor, what with all the martial meditation time cutting into your other combat training.

I think the point is that if you can do it in light you should be able to do it in none, not the other way around.

[DeadMech]

I'm currently playing Crusader for the first time and we've gone from levels 1-3 so far. It's more complicated than the golfbag totting fighter I'd played in a past campaign. I've managed to forget half my class features at some point or another. Being stuck in a dungeon since level 1 I'm a bit under equipped at the moment. Also I've rolled quite poorly for hp, not good for party tank but somehow we keep squeaking by. And frankly I'm loving it.

The steely resolve class feature is cumbersome. Mostly we ignore it and just apply the damage straight to my hp pool as it is dealt. Though if that damage were to take me below zero then we pay attention to it. I love this class feature when it does become relevant. Nothing is quite so emblematic of the archetype as taking a wound that very likely could kill you, and striking one last blow out of determination to save the day. Because sometimes when you save the world, you won't be the one around to enjoy it.

Furious counterstrike, for my first session I forgot to add the bonus. It's not an unwelcome class feature. I took power attack thinking I could use it to counteract the penalties. Though even when I started remembering the bonus I haven't made a single power attack yet. My hit probability was hovering around 50% for most of the campaign so far and it's usually more important to trigger the special effect of my maneuvers than it is to pile on a bit of extra damage. I've also been designated lantern holder for this dungeon so I've been stuck with one handing a longsword instead of two handing my greatclub. Maybe once I get back to town and can buy a masterwork greatsword and put it to use. Buy either an everburning light casting on something that can be worn and covered, or else buy some cheaper liquid sunshine and make it into a pendant.

After doing a bit of re-reading we've been making some mistakes. I've been rolling for new granted maneuvers only when I had less than the three I start out with thanks to extra granted maneuver. So basically only after I'd used one. I should have been rolling for them each turn. There have only been one or two instances when I'd use a turn in combat for something other than using a maneuver so it's not much of a problem.

I've also been accidentally cheating with charging minotaur. I'd been treating it like a regular charge attack and not a bull rush like I should have been. Basically I'd been dealing weapon damage, the extra 2d6 maneuver damage, and 2 sets of strength bonus. Luckily that's only been twice. We've had bad luck with initiative so I tend to end up too swamped to charge. Or else tough terrain has been in the way. Surprisingly no one else caught the mistake but I'll have to mention that to the dm the next time I get a chance. It's kinda fun to charge in without provoking AoOs and watching them turn to gibs instantly however while accidental cheating is one thing, intentional cheating is quite another.

Having to make choices about stances is fun. I started with iron guards glare. It's useful but can get you in trouble. I rolled 1+2 for hp on level 2 so telling the dm when I want it active or not can be important. I took martial spirit as my second stance because nothing else appealed. So now if I'm healthy I use IGG and if not I use MS to try to heal myself back up.

I don't get the hate for the crusader refresh mechanic. It happens automatically and I never have a turn where I don't have at least one maneuver that will be useful.

Crusader's strike is almost always appreciated when I roll for it. Hitting someone and healing is great. Let's me camp doorway choke points against the hordes we've had thrown at us so far, or else topping up someone else's HP if mine is fine.

Vanguard strike isn't one of my go to moves. Most the foes we've faced so far haven't required focus fire from the party but eventually we'll stop dealing with hordes of kobolds. Even then an attack on a healthy enemy that doesn't quite kill, lets someone else mop it up easier.

Douse the flame is situational but letting someone freely move around an enemy helps either get people out of trouble, or let's them move in to set up flanks.

Stone bones is nice. At this point it makes me almost untouchable. Which is great when either due to tight quarters or iron guards glare the enemy's best option is still uselessly plinking at me.

Charging minotaur... well I'll have to get back to you all on that once I start using it properly. It shouldn't be insta-gibbing enemies. But I took it because it has potential for dropping fools into traps and off cliffs, or at the very least punting enemies out of range of my friends.

I just picked up mountain hammer as well. Never a bad time for that. Extra damage as well as ignoring DR and hardness.

Though maybe once iterative attacks become a thing I'll have to start deciding if the cool effects of maneuvers are worth the trade off in a round vs the potential of a full round attack.

All in all the book isn't perfect. Everyone's already discusses the obvious editting issues. But it sure gives me allot more to think about in melee than what weapon from my golfbag should I use.

[Vhaidara]

The trick for crusader maneuver is to use cards. Put them in a deck, shuffle, and draw your amount at the start of battle. Each turn, draw a card. When you use on, discard pile. When you run out, shuffle the discard pile and use it as the main deck.

Steely Resolve is a nice ability if you can pick up DR, because you take the damage in 2 instances. So if you have DR 2 and take 10 damage, it is reduces to 8. 5 goes to Steely Resolve, 3 goes to HP. Next turn, you take the 5, but it is reduced by DR, meaning that you only take 3.

[Jigawatts]

You can fix that with a pen, some strips of paper, and some glue :smalltongue:

You mean 3 = 6?! All this time, who knew!!1!!!11!

[eggynack]

Overall, I like it. Although I do think it's the most overrated book in 3.5.
Perhaps, though it's possibly also the most underrated book in 3.5. The whole thing is a bit of a battleground, and that leads to some extreme opinions.

[Hyena]

My favourite book ever. If I'm playing 3.5, I'm most likely playing a ToB class.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the point is that if you can do it in light you should be able to do it in none, not the other way around.
I don't really buy that way of thinking. Army troops learn to fight in various weights of issue gear, up to "full battle rattle". They don't learn to fight naked. Force a trained soldier to fight that way, with no boots to protect their feet and everything hanging out, and they'll perform more poorly than in the heavier gear they're used to.

[DeadMech]

The trick for crusader maneuver is to use cards. Put them in a deck, shuffle, and draw your amount at the start of battle. Each turn, draw a card. When you use on, discard pile. When you run out, shuffle the discard pile and use it as the main deck.

Steely Resolve is a nice ability if you can pick up DR, because you take the damage in 2 instances. So if you have DR 2 and take 10 damage, it is reduces to 8. 5 goes to Steely Resolve, 3 goes to HP. Next turn, you take the 5, but it is reduced by DR, meaning that you only take 3.

Good tips. Right now the game is on roll20 so I've just been rolling 1d5, 1d4, 1d3 for the first set of granted maneuvers. Then read down the list of my readied maneuvers to pick them, skipping over ones that are already granted or used. Just add a tag to mark them as granted on my myth-weavers sheet, and then add a different tag to mark the used ones. Pretty easy to keep track of. But at a table cards are definitely the way to go.

Though the steely resolve interaction with DR is something I'll have to look into. Adamatine or invulnerable armor are out of my price range though.

[Greenish]

I don't really buy that way of thinking. Army troops learn to fight in various weights of issue gear, up to "full battle rattle". They don't learn to fight naked. Force a trained soldier to fight that way, with no boots to protect their feet and everything hanging out, and they'll perform more poorly than in the heavier gear they're used to.The lightest of light armour (in PF) weighs about one pound, has no ACP, no ASF, no max Dex)… are you trying to convince us that fighting in that is somehow so different from fighting while wearing normal clothes?

(Fighting either wearing armour or naked is a false dichotomy. D&D does have stats and rules for clothes.)

[Edit]: Why am I talking PF all the sudden? No one knows! Still, there's the gnome twistcloth, which is 5 pounds of no ACP, 5% ASF, no max Dex, so the point stands.

[eggynack]

(Fighting either wearing armour or naked is a false dichotomy. D&D does have stats and rules for clothes.)
But it's such an amusing false dichotomy, with everyone flopping about in high intensity combat situations. I think we should keep it.

[RenaldoS]

Though the steely resolve interaction with DR is something I'll have to look into. Adamatine or invulnerable armor are out of my price range though.

The trick with Steely Resolve is to take the Stone Power feat from the same book. Since the delayed damage pool is taken as damage at the end of your turn, it takes off temporary hit points first, which stone power easily provides.

[OldTrees1]

Though the steely resolve interaction with DR is something I'll have to look into. Adamatine or invulnerable armor are out of my price range though.

I have been told it doesn't work. DR does not prevent damage dealt by Steely Resolve because Steely Resolve is neither a weapon nor a natural attack. Hardness would work but is not intended for characters.


Damage Reduction
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

Stone Power does work though.

[Rubik]

A level in monk means you can use a weapon crystal to give yourself hardness, and any enhancement bonuses (such as by Magic Fang, [Greater] Magic Weapon, or a tooth of Leraje) grant you bonus hp, additional hardness, and untyped saving throw bonuses. Being a warforged means you can use an armor crystal for even more hardness.

[Esprit15]

I love it, and almost any melee class I play will get a sprinkling of it. I convinced the Scout in one game to take a level of Warblade at 5 to get Sudden Leap and something else that I forget right now. Swift action jump+Scout's Skirmish ability+full attack is a lovely way to rack up damage for a simple one level dip.

One of the best things about them is that they don't punish you too harshly for multi classing like casters do. Sure, you only gain half your initiator level, but your ToB classes stack for that and everything else is still 1/2.

My only gripe is Swordsage's recovery mechanic, but I guess it can't be too awesome a class.

[Troacctid]

Charging minotaur... well I'll have to get back to you all on that once I start using it properly. It shouldn't be insta-gibbing enemies. But I took it because it has potential for dropping fools into traps and off cliffs, or at the very least punting enemies out of range of my friends.

Remember that the forced movement from a bull rush provokes attacks of opportunity, so if you knock an enemy out of a square one of your allies threatens, they can make an attack against him. And if you manage to push him more than 5 feet away, they can take the attack of opportunity while he's not in the same square as you, so they won't have a 25% chance of targeting you instead.

[CGDG]

I personally like the sub-system and the classes. They've helped me build a few characters I found I liked the flavour of before but couldn't keep up with other clases in the party. The sub-system isn't difficult to understand and I find is fairly balanced.

That being said, I had to learn to like it. It took a lot of insistene from other players that I look into using it. A previously bad expereince with the system killed it for me and I swore to never use it, until I finally was convinced to give it a try.

There was a player in one group I had to wanted to play a Warblade. None of us, the DM included, had the book. We worked on an honour system with the player, where we hoped he would be fair and not abuse our lack on knowledge on the system. It didn't work.

By 9th level he was using 9th level maneuvers and stances, changing them at will and using an unlimited amount per encounter. For damage, he'd just stuff all of his dice, inlcuding his d20, into a cup and roll them all and add them up. When I finally had the chance to look at the book (in a local book store) I confronted him on his abuse, only knowing he was misinterpretting his initiator level and what stuff he could use but not what any of the maneuvers or stances did or how the classes worked, to no avail.

I associated his abuse with the system for a long time. I didn't have a full understanding of what the previous player had done wrong and I assumed, incorrectly, that the system was broken. Now that I've actually seen the system used properly I'm quite fond of it.

[lytokk]

I have been told it doesn't work. DR does not prevent damage dealt by Steely Resolve because Steely Resolve is neither a weapon nor a natural attack. Hardness would work but is not intended for characters.



Stone Power does work though.


My DM has been letting me play it as DR taking off the steely resolve damage. Its nice that he has to hit me for more than 4 points of damage thanks to adamantine body for me to even feel it, assuming I haven't already healed the damage thanks to Martial spirit and my two attacks per round if I don't do manuevers. I love my slam, and I'm happy I finally got the chance to play a warforged.

[atemu1234]

Thanks for all the input, guys. My friend and player who has always played a Dwarven Fighter has agreed to play a Dwarven Warblade, now, and learn the system.

[Segev]

I've also been designated lantern holder for this dungeon so I've been stuck with one handing a longsword instead of two handing my greatclub. Maybe once I get back to town and can buy a masterwork greatsword and put it to use. Buy either an everburning light casting on something that can be worn and covered, or else buy some cheaper liquid sunshine and make it into a pendant.

I'd actually get the party wizard to cast Tenser's Floating Disk or Unseen Servant and put the lantern down on the former or have the latter carry it. Free up your hands for fighting.

[geekintheground]

A level in monk means you can use a weapon crystal to give yourself hardness, and any enhancement bonuses (such as by Magic Fang, [Greater] Magic Weapon, or a tooth of Leraje) grant you bonus hp, additional hardness, and untyped saving throw bonuses. Being a warforged means you can use an armor crystal for even more hardness.

wouldnt the monk thing only apply to your hands?

[VoxRationis]

I'd actually get the party wizard to cast Tenser's Floating Disk or Unseen Servant and put the lantern down on the former or have the latter carry it. Free up your hands for fighting.

Or just light. Can your spellcasters not spare a cantrip to make your greatclub itself shed illumination?

[VoxRationis]

I don't get the hate for the crusader refresh mechanic. It happens automatically and I never have a turn where I don't have at least one maneuver that will be useful.


It's hard to feel like a honor-bound, zealous warrior when you have to play cards to use your class features. Works for the hucksters in Deadlands, not for a paladin-replacement.

[TechnOkami]

I enjoy ToB a lot. It lets me do the smacky smack effectively, and with a little creativity I can pretend to be any other Melee character, but better.

That said, I also think because the ToB classes trounce the main non-ToB Melee fighting classes so soundly that many people dislike it, but I would be loathe to want to play anything else other than a Frenzied Berserker Barbarian.

[mangosta71]

The biggest downside to the Tome of Battle is the same one that other books introducing new classes have - the lack of support from other splatbooks. Every splatbook has a few dozen more spells for wizards and clerics, because apparently they weren't already too strong to be used in the same game as fighters, paladins, rogues, rangers, monks...

Another shortcoming is that there's no ranged discipline, so there's still no way to make a competitive archer without dipping into magic/psionics.

Even with those, the ToB is probably the best, most balanced book in all of 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

Or just light. Can your spellcasters not spare a cantrip to make your greatclub itself shed illumination?

And 30% of magic weapons shed light, so maybe just enchant your club and roll well?

[Rubik]

And 30% of magic weapons shed light, so maybe just enchant your club and roll well?There's also a 500 gp enhancement to make it cast light, if it doesn't already.

[malonkey1]

A level in monk means you can use a weapon crystal to give yourself hardness, and any enhancement bonuses (such as by Magic Fang, [Greater] Magic Weapon, or a tooth of Leraje) grant you bonus hp, additional hardness, and untyped saving throw bonuses. Being a warforged means you can use an armor crystal for even more hardness.


A monk's unarmed strike can be performed with any feasible part of the body. Hands, forearms, elbows, shoulder-slams, body-checks, headbutts, jumping butt-stomps (see Mario), knees, shins, feet...

The monk's entire body is a weapon, and therefore any enhancements must apply to the entire body, unless the ability in question (such as the kensai's class abilities) specifies otherwise.

Now, this is a really cool idea for an NPC. I'm imagining something looking like a massively down-toned 300-Xerxes. Plenty of weapon crystal piercings, maybe some magic tattoos... I'll be back later. I have some statting to do.

[Fax Celestis]

Now, this is a really cool idea for an NPC. I'm imagining something looking like a massively down-toned 300-Xerxes. Plenty of weapon crystal piercings, maybe some magic tattoos... I'll be back later. I have some statting to do.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090203213213/eberron/images/2/21/Psiforged.jpg

[Rubik]

Now, this is a really cool idea for an NPC. I'm imagining something looking like a massively down-toned 300-Xerxes. Plenty of weapon crystal piercings, maybe some magic tattoos... I'll be back later. I have some statting to do.Here are more ideas for you:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15474863#post15474863

And don't forget Hardening magical effects.

[dascarletm]

Good tips. Right now the game is on roll20 so I've just been rolling 1d5, 1d4, 1d3 for the first set of granted maneuvers. Then read down the list of my readied maneuvers to pick them, skipping over ones that are already granted or used. Just add a tag to mark them as granted on my myth-weavers sheet, and then add a different tag to mark the used ones. Pretty easy to keep track of. But at a table cards are definitely the way to go.

Though the steely resolve interaction with DR is something I'll have to look into. Adamatine or invulnerable armor are out of my price range though.

You can make custom decks on Roll 20. That's what I did, I found a card generator online and made them look like magic cards. It was pretty cool.

[Sam K]

I'm a big fan. I think it's probably the best splatbook for 3.5 - it has problems, but those problems can be found in most splatbooks. The fluff is iffy, but most non-campaign specific stuff is because it's hard to write good fluff without a context. There are useless choices, but there are lots of useless feats and spells and equipment in other books too. 3.5 just suffered from bad editing and lots of useless or broken stuff ( iron heart surge is a fairly extreme example, but can't we just agree to iron heart surge away the brokeness?) It was poorly playtested, but "druid with weapon focus: scimitar" would like to remind you that it could be worse :)

ToB classes has a very high power floor, compared to many other classes; this is sometimes listed as a problem with the book, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that if a new player can read through the description of a class, get an idea of how it's suppose to be played, make some low-op choices and the class still plays like you imagined it, and can do useful stuff, THAT IS A GOOD THING! Being useful at low OP levels and still being able to improve at higher OP levels is a sign of good class design. There are few classes better designed than the warblade. The name shows what it's about. It's not the "peaceblade" or the "warhugger" or "horriblefailblade". It's mission is clear. The name shows what the class is about: it's a melee character who focuses on hurting people, and if you build one based entirely on picking feats, skills and weapons that you think sound cool, YOU WILL STILL GET A MELEE DAMAGE DEALER! Damn you, ToB for making a class that does what it's suppose to and is newbie friendly without depending exclusively on DM fiat to compensate for the fact that weapon focus: club seemed like a great idea at level 1. Damn you to hell!

I feel that much of the criticism against ToB's style is quite unfair. Yes, some moves are fairly over-the-top, but let us look at how D&D wizards compare to wizards from legend and stories. Compare Merlin or Gandalf to even a mid level D&D wizard; Gandalf casts less overt spells in the entire trilogy of the ring than your average 10th level wizards do in a day with 4 encounters, and some 2nd level spells (rope trick) break the laws of physics in ways that would make Merlin and Baba Yaga cry. Druids didn't turn into elemental dinosaurs, and as for other.. errr, famous divine casters, they get famous for a few castings of create food and water walk. Initiator powers is a high fantasy approach to melee combat, just like D&D wizards is a high fantasy approach to magic.

Finally, as for fixing fighters, if something is horribly broken, sometimes it's better to just replace it. "Just giving fighters a bunch of good feats" isn't a simple fix, even if we overlook the fact that WotC isn't able to consistently make good feats. Yes, you could probably shake up the action economy a bit (give fighters some feats that take standard actions or swift actions to use), maybe change how full attacks work (but ONLY for mundane classes, because otherwise all you did was make polymorphed wizards and holy might clerics even more OP), make sure that the really good feats come in long feat chains so that only a fighter has a reasonable chance of getting several of them (because you don't want to lock them to fighter levels, as that discourages multiclassing).

It would be about as much work as creating ToB and rogues and monks (and rangers and paladins without splatbook support) would still be pretty bad. Honestly, fixing fighters is just trying to make faster horses that don't need to eat or ****, instead of realizing that maybe, just maybe, the car actually has alot going for it.

[Rubik]

Long feat chains are NOT the way to go with the fighter. That's one of the problems we already have, which is the direct fault of the fighter class. We have a bunch of weak-arsed feats in hugely long chains that never amount to anything, and it leads to martial classes (including fighters) not getting level-appropriate feats, aside from a few very powerful (and usually prereq-less) examples.

Instead of long feat chains, try feats with 3+ related, scaling benefits (much like tactical feats), which are designed to be level appropriate and interlocking in various ways, with something akin to "Fighter 4 or 3+ specific feats" as the prereqs. Just taking fighter levels can sub out for the other prerequisites that would otherwise be required.

[Morty]

The problem with giving fighters good feats is that feats are a sharply limited resource, even if you're a fighter. Once you take a feat, that's it - the slot is filled, and you only get a handful of them until very high levels. Besides, everyone gets feats. Maneuvers give martial characters an actually flexible set of abilities that are actually unique to them. Making a bundle of high-powered fighter-only feats would be giving a car with a busted engine a change of oil. The fighter class is impossible to salvage.

[Fax Celestis]

Long feat chains are NOT the way to go with the fighter. That's one of the problems we already have, which is the direct fault of the fighter class. We have a bunch of weak-arsed feats in hugely long chains that never amount to anything, and it leads to martial classes (including fighters) not getting level-appropriate feats, aside from a few very powerful (and usually prereq-less) examples.

Instead of long feat chains, try feats with 3+ related, scaling benefits (much like tactical feats), which are designed to be level appropriate and interlocking in various ways, with something akin to "Fighter 4 or 3+ specific feats" as the prereqs. Just taking fighter levels can sub out for the other prerequisites that would otherwise be required.

Or don't make them chains, make them related feats that augment each other (in the vein of most Draconic feats: the more Draconic feats you have, the better they all are).

[Amphetryon]

The problem with giving fighters good feats is that feats are a sharply limited resource, even if you're a fighter. Once you take a feat, that's it - the slot is filled, and you only get a handful of them until very high levels. Besides, everyone gets feats. Maneuvers give martial characters an actually flexible set of abilities that are actually unique to them. Making a bundle of high-powered fighter-only feats would be giving a car with a busted engine a change of oil. The fighter class is impossible to salvage.

Add to this the fact that there are no truly 'fighter-exclusive' feats in 3.5 (Pious Templar, Warblade, etc.) and it becomes extremely difficult to provide fighters with relevant, unique feats that are available within the range of levels where most folks expect to play.

[Rubik]

Or don't make them chains, make them related feats that augment each other (in the vein of most Draconic feats: the more Draconic feats you have, the better they all are).Which is pretty much what I said.

[mangosta71]

You could play warblades instead of trying to fix fighters. Just sayin'.

[Talionis]

It may seem silly, but in many ways a dip into Tome of Battle is a good fix to making many of the mundane classes more interesting to play.

[Flickerdart]

You could play warblades instead of trying to fix fighters. Just sayin'.
But the warblade isn't called fighter. It doesn't have all that juicy flavour and roleplaying potential that someone who...fights...does. You know, all those fighter-only things that make the fighter a specialized, unique class that has no overlap with anything else in the system. If there was precedent for another class fighting without being called fighter, I'd buy your preposterous suggestion, but we both know that of all the classes, only fighters fight, which is why they're called fighters. Even if someone were to make such a class, it wouldn't be right at all to have two base classes focused on something as specific as fighting. Truly, such a class would detract from the fighter's unique and unprecedented ability to fight, which is a niche it currently dominates, and rightfully so.

[OldTrees1]

You could play warblades instead of trying to fix fighters. Just sayin'.

"You could have arroz con pollo instead of trying to make spaghetti." Sometimes you might not be in the mood for rice. Just sayin' that Warblade and Fighter have significant differences and different humans might prefer different things.

[eggynack]

Long feat chains are NOT the way to go with the fighter. That's one of the problems we already have, which is the direct fault of the fighter class. We have a bunch of weak-arsed feats in hugely long chains that never amount to anything, and it leads to martial classes (including fighters) not getting level-appropriate feats, aside from a few very powerful (and usually prereq-less) examples.

Instead of long feat chains, try feats with 3+ related, scaling benefits (much like tactical feats), which are designed to be level appropriate and interlocking in various ways, with something akin to "Fighter 4 or 3+ specific feats" as the prereqs. Just taking fighter levels can sub out for the other prerequisites that would otherwise be required.
The problem really isn't intrinsic to feat chains. The problem is feat chains filled with crappy feat taxes, or feats are otherwise less than ideal. If you created feat chains that started at improved trip and ramped up from there, or took some of those awesome tactical feats and chained them together, then it feels like that would be fine.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The problem really isn't intrinsic to feat chains. The problem is feat chains filled with crappy feat taxes, or feats are otherwise less than ideal. If you created feat chains that started at improved trip and ramped up from there, or took some of those awesome tactical feats and chained them together, then it feels like that would be fine.

Also the capstones to those feat chains generally suck and come online far too late to be useful.

As for just playing a Warblade, honestly, I don't really enjoy playing most Tome of Battle characters. I often dip for a level or two, or take Martial Study on a non-initiator, but archetypically the ToB classes just don't do it for me.

[eggynack]

Also the capstones to those feat chains generally suck and come online far too late to be useful.
That also. Fighter feats tend to be bad, is the general issue. Whether they're formed in chains, or with synergy bonuses, or with fighter level/fighter feat number as prerequisites seems kinda irrelevant. Or, not completely irrelevant, perhaps. Chains have a higher likelihood of resulting in a bad feat, because even if a later feat in a chain is excellent, you have to average that excellence in with all of the crap you took to get there. You can still have a good feat chain system. You just have to be more careful than you would be with one of the other systems.

[Morty]

Feats are also entirely a character building resource. Maneuvers allow you do do things right now, in battle, without spending half of your feats on that one move, eating penalties or making things up on the fly and getting them OK'd by the DM.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That also. Fighter feats tend to be bad, is the general issue. Whether they're formed in chains, or with synergy bonuses, or with fighter level/fighter feat number as prerequisites seems kinda irrelevant. Or, not completely irrelevant, perhaps. Chains have a higher likelihood of resulting in a bad feat, because even if a later feat in a chain is excellent, you have to average that excellence in with all of the crap you took to get there. You can still have a good feat chain system. You just have to be more careful than you would be with one of the other systems.

Sure. Look at Improved Whirlwind Attack. It's an Epic feat, requires 13 in a dump-ish stat and 23 in a probably tiertiary stat and four feats as a prereq. And it's crap, and I houserule Whirlwind Attack to do exactly the same thing (and suspect most DMs would if WA ever came up in play).

Slashing Flurry is an extra attack that works on standard action attacks. That's nice. It also has a sizeable attack penalty and requires 14 BAB and three garbage feats. Depending on how you read it it might also be extremely weapon-specific. You could probably make this available to Fighters at like level 5 without the attack debuff and woo that's nice who cares I'm gonna play a warblade or somethign.

[Fax Celestis]

Slashing Flurry is an extra attack that works on standard action attacks. That's nice. It also has a sizeable attack penalty and requires 14 BAB and three garbage feats. Depending on how you read it it might also be extremely weapon-specific. You could probably make this available to Fighters at like level 5 without the attack debuff and woo that's nice who cares I'm gonna play a warblade or somethign.

Surely not! Rapid Shot for melee is broken!

[eggynack]

Feats are also entirely a character building resource. Maneuvers allow you do do things right now, in battle, without spending half of your feats on that one move, eating penalties or making things up on the fly and getting them OK'd by the DM.
They're pretty much the same thing. I mean, seriously, martial study is right there, being a feat. They probably could have theoretically designed ToB from the ground up as a feat based system, granting the same general abilities. You could even do it like Rubik said, use warblade level to determine whether you can take a particular "feat", where the feats in question are things like iron heart surge. Point is, there's nothing stopping feats from letting you do cool things. Feats could let you do a cool thing right now in battle, do so without costing half your feats, and not require you to make stuff up. They just don't do that now cause they're poorly designed for the most part.

[Rubik]

The problem really isn't intrinsic to feat chains. The problem is feat chains filled with crappy feat taxes, or feats are otherwise less than ideal. If you created feat chains that started at improved trip and ramped up from there, or took some of those awesome tactical feats and chained them together, then it feels like that would be fine.Yes, stronger feats could make feat chains more viable.

However.

Other classes suffer because the only ones they're interested in are a long way up said chains, and they have to take feats they don't want (even if they're powerful and generally useful) to get there.

The fact that prereq feats are generally lousy greatly exacerbates the issue.

Honestly, I'd rather do away with prefab feat chains and instead allow for more flexible chains with more powerful feats. Instead of requiring 2-5 very specific feats as prereqs, why not have several potent feats that have several different interesting effects (similar to tactical feats) that work fine on their own and scale as levels advance, but which combine with other feats to add new dimensions to them, and which can be taken in any order so long as the build fulfills more...generic feat prereqs (for lack of a better term), such as "2 fighter feats known" or some other feat type.

It's like how certain feats already combine, such as the effects of Dungeoncrasher (as a feat), Combat Reflexes, and Knockback. They build directly on each other, even though each would be viable alone. Build numerous different feats designed to work with each other (tactical feats would broaden this, since each would have 3 effects that could be combined with other tactical feats), but which have different effects on their own. Make sure they accomplish stuff like what you'd expect to find on a more scalable maneuver system to increase both power and versatility as levels progress.

[Morty]

They're pretty much the same thing. I mean, seriously, martial study is right there, being a feat. They probably could have theoretically designed ToB from the ground up as a feat based system, granting the same general abilities. You could even do it like Rubik said, use warblade level to determine whether you can take a particular "feat", where the feats in question are things like iron heart surge. Point is, there's nothing stopping feats from letting you do cool things. Feats could let you do a cool thing right now in battle, do so without costing half your feats, and not require you to make stuff up. They just don't do that now cause they're poorly designed for the most part.

Yes, but at that point, you're hammering a square peg into a round hole to get around the fighter class's bad design and the assumption that non-magical abilities can't have separate sub-systems.

[Segev]

Instead of requiring 2-5 very specific feats as prereqs, why not have several potent feats that have several different interesting effects (similar to tactical feats) that work fine on their own and scale as levels advance, but which combine with other feats to add new dimensions to them, and which can be taken in any order so long as the build fulfills more...generic feat prereqs (for lack of a better term), such as "2 fighter feats known" or some other feat type.


Something like this?

Shield Evasion
You can brace your shield against damaging effects.
Prerequisite: None.
Benefit: As long as you're using a shield larger than a buckler, you have Evasion (like a 2nd level monk). If you have Lightning Reflexes, you may add your shield bonus to AC to your Reflex Saves.

Or this?

Improved Spell Resistance
You can resist even non-magical consequences of spell effects.
Prerequisite: Some form of SR, and one of Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Combat Reflexes
Benefit: If you have Great Fortitude, you may treat spells which offer a Fortitude Save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." If you have Iron Will, you may treat spells which offer a Will save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." If you have Lightning Reflexes, you may treat spells which offer a Reflex Save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." This specifically overrides any "Spell Resistance: No" in the spell's description. If you have all three feats, you may treat all spells, even those which do not offer saving throws, as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes."

[Shining Wrath]

A crude fix for fighter would be to fold entire chains into one or two feats, which I believe has been mooted hereabouts. If you look at 5e feats a lot of them combine what are now two or three feats, so WotC has given a sort-of-backhanded blessing to the idea.

The need for fixes to Fighter / Monk / Paladin is only relevant to this thread to the extent that Warblade / Swordsage / Crusader are regarded as 1 for 1 replacements to those broken PHB classes rather than interesting new classes in their own right.

[Vhaidara]

Shield Evasion
You can brace your shield against damaging effects.
Prerequisite: None.
Benefit: As long as you're using a shield larger than a buckler, you have Evasion (like a 2nd level monk). If you have Lightning Reflexes, you may add your shield bonus to AC to your Reflex Saves.

Not really that helpful. Most classes that use shields have poor Reflex saves and don't really value Dex.


Improved Spell Resistance
You can resist even non-magical consequences of spell effects.
Prerequisite: Some form of SR, and one of Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Combat Reflexes
Benefit: If you have Great Fortitude, you may treat spells which offer a Fortitude Save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." If you have Iron Will, you may treat spells which offer a Will save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." If you have Lightning Reflexes, you may treat spells which offer a Reflex Save as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes." This specifically overrides any "Spell Resistance: No" in the spell's description. If you have all three feats, you may treat all spells, even those which do not offer saving throws, as if they had "Spell Resistance: Yes."

And this feat, while really goo, requires 3 mediocre (at best) feats to make fully effective. Also, it doesn't raise your SR. And finally, SR is pretty hard to get outside of items or races (and most races are heavily over LAed), which is bad because it means losing an item invalidates 2-4 of your feats.

[eggynack]

Snip
Yeah, the not-chain approach is probably better. Stuff like luck feats or psionic feats just have a really good base design. Still, my point is mostly that feat chains aren't responsible for the failure of fighter feats.

Yes, but at that point, you're hammering a square peg into a round hole to get around the fighter class's bad design and the assumption that non-magical abilities can't have separate sub-systems.
Not really, on either count. I was just using maneuvers as a theoretical example to demonstrate feasibility. Feats can offer just as much flexibility as maneuvers and stances, if you want them to. On the latter point, I think ToB is nifty, if you recall, and separate sub-systems deepen the game. My argument is that this particular sub-system isn't one that necessarily leads to crap.

[jjcrpntr]

I really like ToB. Didn't get to play with it too much but I am planning on bringing in Path of War to my Pathfinder group as soon as I get the book and some time to read through it.

I like martial classes. Most of my players enjoy them as well so this type of stuff seems to be good for us. Besides ToB was the only way we could get one of our guys to stop making barbarians every single time we rolled characters.

[Talionis]

What if you could pick a lot of feats at the first level. They might not be great later in the game, but they were some help early.

Then you got new ones that were better every other level and every odd level you could trade and old feat for a better feat?

You could lump all the fighter feats into groups and allow one or more of those feats to be prerequisites so that you had choices as to which feats you wanted to pick as a prerequisite.

Oh wait they did fix Fighters silly mechanics with feats they called Maneuvers that were only available to martial adept classes ...

[backwaterj]

But the warblade isn't called fighter. It doesn't have all that juicy flavour and roleplaying potential that someone who...fights...does. You know, all those fighter-only things that make the fighter a specialized, unique class that has no overlap with anything else in the system. If there was precedent for another class fighting without being called fighter, I'd buy your preposterous suggestion, but we both know that of all the classes, only fighters fight, which is why they're called fighters. Even if someone were to make such a class, it wouldn't be right at all to have two base classes focused on something as specific as fighting. Truly, such a class would detract from the fighter's unique and unprecedented ability to fight, which is a niche it currently dominates, and rightfully so.

Once again, Flickerdart wins the internet. I'd sig this if it weren't so darn long! :smallbiggrin:

[Divide by Zero]

"You could have arroz con pollo instead of trying to make spaghetti." Sometimes you might not be in the mood for rice. Just sayin' that Warblade and Fighter have significant differences and different humans might prefer different things.

"You could have this thing that's basically tastier spaghetti. Only thing is it looks a little different and it's called rudisplork."

[Fax Celestis]

"You could have arroz con pollo instead of trying to make spaghetti." Sometimes you might not be in the mood for rice. Just sayin' that Warblade and Fighter have significant differences and different humans might prefer different things.

Except it's not spaghetti, it's minute ramen: sure, it's edible, but the flavor is bad, it's terrible for you, and if you eat it too much you'll die.

[OldTrees1]

"You could have this thing that's basically tastier spaghetti. Only thing is it looks a little different and it's called rudisplork."
You need to realize that some people can see differences between Fighter and Warblade beyond the mere Tier differences. Why are you glossing over what others see as a significant difference, in your criticism of their choice based on their preferences?

Sorry, but there will always be people that prefer the mechanical texture of Fighter fixes over the mechanical texture of Martial Adepts. Just as there will be people that prefer the recovery system over the at will abilities.


Except it's not spaghetti, it's minute ramen: sure, it's edible, but the flavor is bad, it's terrible for you, and if you do it too much it'll kill you.
That would be applicable if I were replying to a comment against people playing fighters, not replying to a comment against people trying to fix fighter. Fighter is like minute ramen. Trying to fix fighter is like trying to make spaghetti.(Although I admit spaghetti is slightly easier)

[Agrippa]

You can make custom decks on Roll 20. That's what I did, I found a card generator online and made them look like magic cards. It was pretty cool.

May I have some more details please? I'd also like to know how they looked.

[The Insaniac]

Personally, I've always seen the fighter as the soldier type. He is a professional and the feats that he gets at 1st and 2nd levels represent his training in basic. The warblade is an adventurer, he's the mercenary who wanders around the country killing monsters and rooting out bandit nests for the local lords. Or he's a commando. He's got special training and skills that seem superhuman to everyone around (seriously, look at what Spetsnaz or SEAL trainees go through and try to imagine someone passing it).

[malonkey1]

Personally, I've always seen the fighter as the soldier type. He is a professional and the feats that he gets at 1st and 2nd levels represent his training in basic. The warblade is an adventurer, he's the mercenary who wanders around the country killing monsters and rooting out bandit nests for the local lords. Or he's a commando. He's got special training and skills that seem superhuman to everyone around (seriously, look at what Spetsnaz or SEAL trainees go through and try to imagine someone passing it).

I'm sure most people take a pass on it when they're offered. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

Progressions aren't static. The improved unarmed strike feat is static, therefore the unarmed strike progression can only be referring to the damage component.

Improved unarmed strike is a static part of a dynamic progression. At first level of the unarmed strike progression, you get improved unarmed strike, the increase in damage, and all of the other stuff in that ability, at level four you get a damage bump, and then it's damage bumps from there on in. It's an uneven progression, but that doesn't make it not a progression. You would be correct if it were just IUS or nothing, but that's not the situation.

[ranagrande]

Someday when I'm feeling ambitious, I'll make a homebrew featbook to "fix" the fighter. It wouldn't really be that hard.

It would be a combination of revamping some current feats and adding some new ones, with four main components.

First, allow scaling feats. Weapon Focus: With your chosen weapon, you gain a bonus on attack rolls equal to one half your character level (round down, minimum +1.)

Second, combine feats where appropriate. Like the Two Weapon Fighting line... get rid of the Improved and Greater versions, and just make the attacks granted by BAB.

Third, make many more feats allowing for dramatically higher power. I have said before that I want to see Fighters who can wield two two-handed weapons in each hand or wear light armor under medium armor under heavy armor with all of the bonuses stacking.

And last but not least, a meta capstone "feat tax refund." "Having completely mastered X you've been able to diversify your training. You instantly gain three new feats of your choice."

[Terazul]

Every time someone suggests "why not make feats with scaling/level-appropriate abilities that only Fighters can take?", my question is why not just give it actual class features in the first place.

[ranagrande]

Because Fighters get feats. If you want defined class features, play a different class. Like maybe Warblade.

Also, I didn't say anything about making them exclusive to Fighters, although I know others in this thread have suggested that.

[Fax Celestis]

Because Fighters get feats. If you want defined class features, play a different class. Like maybe Warblade.

Also, I didn't say anything about making them exclusive to Fighters, although I know others in this thread have suggested that.

The problem with this is that means fighters literally have nothing they can do that no one else can. Why be a fighter, when you can be a rogue and do the same things, and do more stuff in addition?

[ranagrande]

The idea would be that while any class could take advantage of new options, the Fighter could take more of them.

And an optimized multiclass character could take more than the Fighter.

I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature.

[VoxRationis]

The problem with this is that means fighters literally have nothing they can do that no one else can. Why be a fighter, when you can be a rogue and do the same things, and do more stuff in addition?

Why does no one remember that you can have Fighter-exclusive feats or practically fighter-exclusive feats? Adding more feats of this kind benefits no one else but the fighter; you can hardly claim that they would raise the bar globally.

[Vhaidara]

Why does no one remember that you can have Fighter-exclusive feats or practically fighter-exclusive feats? Adding more feats of this kind benefits no one else but the fighter; you can hardly claim that they would raise the bar globally.

One, because in this case we are talking about rangrande's ideas.


Also, I didn't say anything about making them exclusive to Fighters, although I know others in this thread have suggested that.

And two, because there are classes (Warblade for one) that explicitly count as Fighters for the purpose of feats.

[Segev]

Not really that helpful. Most classes that use shields have poor Reflex saves and don't really value Dex.Agreed that it's not tremendously helpful on its own, but the key mechanic I wanted to showcase was what happens if you have Lightning Reflexes as well, which allows you to add your shield bonus to AC to your Reflex save. With a hefty enough shield, that can be a significant bonus to your lackluster Reflex save. Which could be worthwhile even WITHOUT the added Evasion ability.




And this feat, while really goo, requires 3 mediocre (at best) feats to make fully effective. Also, it doesn't raise your SR. And finally, SR is pretty hard to get outside of items or races (and most races are heavily over LAed), which is bad because it means losing an item invalidates 2-4 of your feats.

Agreed; it would be better with something to ensure you had SR. But the point is the mechanic of having the bad feats give extra capability based on this one. Imagine 3-4 more feats that also used benefits based on having one or more of the save-boosting feats. Then having those three feats makes these other feats stronger.