Tome of Battle - players say its broken

[Albions_Angel]

Hi all

So, from reading the forum a lot over the last couple of years, you would swear blind that ToB is more or less a requirement. It fixes martial classes. It does to martial classes what 5e does - makes them very good at being a martial class.

Well, now I am running, and while the book has usually been banned (I was led to believe because our usual DM didnt have a copy, like most of our banned books), I have allowed it. Its a few sessions into the campaign, and I felt, after looking over it, that it would be a lot of fun. The characters are playing in a war after all. Whats a war without expert soldiers, both PCs and NPCs?

Well I send off the email, all happy with myself that I have given my players something new to play with, when the best (at least in my view) player sends a rather worrying reply. This guy is great at D&D. Seems to know all the books off by heart. Even when he tries not to min/max, his chars are never underpowered. He has literally thousands of chars lined up in files, waiting for the right setting. And never once does he skimp on roll playing.

His response was short and to the point. A game he played a few years ago included ToB. One person picked a swordsage. He was easily the most powerful person in the campaign and more or less broke the game in seconds. No one had any fun. Even the guy that made it. The book was banned from then on, never to be opened again.

Look, im not going to say this is a powerful campaign I am running. I am new to DMing, I like story, and my PCs arnt exactly tier 1 material (our druid is more or less playing his animal companion and intends to do so, the barbarian is fairly decent, but is also a barbarian... we have a tripping monk, a halfling rogue that screwed up their feats, a cleric who doesnt heal or buff (dead controlling cleric, just not really yet), and a beguiler heading towards ultimate magus.

Is throwing ToB in a huge mistake?

[Kelb_Panthera]

ToB is a well balanced set of options. The problem a lot of people run into that leads to "OMG TEH BROKEZORZ!" is that it's power floor is a bit higher than for other martial classes. A poorly built warblade will perform reasonably well while an equally poorly built barbarian can end up dead weight.

Given the party makeup you've listed, ToB will be.... iffy. I'd suggest dipping a toe in before going whole hog; disallow the martial initiator classes while allowing the rest of the book's options. Hand out crown of the white raven type items like freakin' candy.

[ComaVision]

ToB isn't overpowered. I haven't had a Swordsage in my games but I've seen a lot of Crusaders and Warblades.

However, your game is definitely very low-powered if you have a tripping monk and he's contributing his fair share. It might not be appropriate for your group. If someone made a swordsage by randomly selecting every feat and maneuver, it would be better than your monk.

[Draconium]

The ToB classes are fairly powerful, at a solid Tier 3. But a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, or Sorcerer (or any other Tier 1 or 2 class) can still easily outpace them, if they're built at least half-decently.

[AmberVael]

Yeah, I'll agree with what the others saying in regards to your group.

My thought is, if you want to introduce it, perhaps just run a one shot. Do some simpe wuxia style plot, have everyone play a Tome of Battle character, and let them see how they like it then. In that situation everyone will be more or less on the same footing, and everyone will get a chance to feel it out first hand rather than reacting to someone else's character in comparison to theirs. And if people still don't care for it? Well, it was only a one shot and you won't have to bring it up again.

[MyrPsychologist]

There is nothing inherently broken about ToB. It is actually much more balanced than other classes and can really help flush out a lot of character concepts in a way that is much more functional and satisfying.

But I believe that to properly answer your question more information is needed.

Is the question about allowing the existing characters access to ToB material? If so, none of these characters would be "overpowered" by the inclusion of this material.

Is the question about allowing a new player to create a character with the ToB material? If so, this might not be overpowered but might be well above the capacity of the monk and might make this individual feel a bit overshadowed.

[EisenKreutzer]

ToB isn't overpowered when compared right classes to put it in perspective. The Initiator classes perform well, and do things most players aren't used to from a guy with a sword, but they are far from broken.

I am currently playing a Warblade in a campaign that is nearing the end. While I have high burst damage, I only have reasonable sustained damage (I have gone for a crit-fisher build using Bloodclaw Master) and need a few turns to wind up before I perform at peak efficiency. The other players are a Sorceror/Incantatrix (who has chosen to be merciful to the GM and go blaster rather than God Wizard) and a Cleric. The Cleric spends most of his resources keeping my character alive, while the Sorceror's damage potential is significantly higher than mine.

The thing is, our GM is so used to martials underperforming that every time I get a strike in that does 10d6 damage he starts to complain about how powerful my character is, until I remind him that there is a Sorceror sitting across from me who can pull off higher numbers much more regularly than my character.
He agrees each time, but he still has that knee-jerk "but you're supposed to be the swords guy" reaction.
Many people do.

[LudicSavant]

It seems rather ironic to me that one of the reasons some people seem to go "zomg OP" to Tome of Battle may actually be because it is better balanced. It doesn't have a high power ceiling. It just also doesn't have the lowest power floor, either. It's not riddled with trap options that will render a newbie useless. So, players who are below that skill floor may notice their power increase when they take a ToB class.

For more skilled groups, Barbarians and Monks struggle to have any relevance at all, and ToB characters will generally not be the strongest character in the game.


Even when he tries not to min/max, his chars are never underpowered.

I question this premise. Do his characters pass the Same Game Test? (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_%28DnD_Guideline%29) Because the example characters you're giving us don't sound like they pass the Same Game Test.

It may be that he just is the biggest fish in a pretty small pond.

[Mehangel]

I also agree with everyone else, the book is not broken. But in your particular case, with having two lower tier classes in the party, the classes inside the book will quickly out-perform others in the party. I would recommend, allowing the feats in the book (thus those that want maneuvers can spend feats to acquire them), and giving out martial scripts to the martial characters (give the monk some from the setting sun, and the rogue from shadow hand).

Otherwise, just hold off until both the monk and the rogue can make new characters. Whether this is later in the campaign, or a one-shot.

[Masakan]

ToB isn't overpowered when compared right classes to put it in perspective. The Initiator classes perform well, and do things most players aren't used to from a guy with a sword, but they are far from broken.

I am currently playing a Warblade in a campaign that is nearing the end. While I have high burst damage, I only have reasonable sustained damage (I have gone for a crit-fisher build using Bloodclaw Master) and need a few turns to wind up before I perform at peak efficiency. The other players are a Sorceror/Incantatrix (who has chosen to be merciful to the GM and go blaster rather than God Wizard) and a Cleric. The Cleric spends most of his resources keeping my character alive, while the Sorceror's damage potential is significantly higher than mine.

The thing is, our GM is so used to martials underperforming that every time I get a strike in that does 10d6 damage he starts to complain about how powerful my character is, until I remind him that there is a Sorceror sitting across from me who can pull off higher numbers much more regularly than my character.
He agrees each time, but he still has that knee-jerk "but you're supposed to be the swords guy" reaction.
Many people do.

This pretty much explains it all. The only feasible reason anyone could call ToB classes OP is if spellcasters are non existant in a campaign. Otherwise it's the only way a pure mundane can even hope to keep up.

[carrdrivesyou]

From my experience with the ToB, it does two things to melee classes.

1. Melee classes get a rather expanded toolbox, increasing their viability across all levels of play. Most builds I have seen only dip a few levels of an initiator class, and pair it with other prestige classes to make a character that can demolish most monsters in a few swings.

This makes melee characters nearly in line with most non-cheesed casters when that character hits level 20.

2.Melee classes get a rather expanded toolbox, increasing their viability across all levels of play. Most builds I have seen only dip a few levels of an initiator class, and pair it with other prestige classes to make a character that can demolish most monsters in a few swings.

This puts melee characters on par with casters at nearly every level, making them seemingly overpowered.
Too much optimization (I'm looking at youd d2 crusader), and suddenly you can punch the planet and it'll explode.

All in all, the ToB is a double edged sword (mind the pun). While it does make melee classes decent at higher levels with little to no optimization, it will invariably make your wizard and cleric a bit unhappy because, despite their FULL spellcasting abilities, the swordswinger can still keep up. Compared to the average fighter, barbarian, or even a duskblade, the ToB classes outshine them all by a significant margin.

In every game I have been in that someone has played an initiator class, the game always died due to that character being too powerful, outshined everyone else by becoming the "main attraction," or simply broke the game.


Just my thoughts here,
-Carr

[ComaVision]

In every game I have been in that someone has played an initiator class, the game always died due to that character being too powerful, outshined everyone else by becoming the "main attraction," or simply broke the game.


For contrast, I can only think of two initiators in my games that didn't die because they're still melee and thus more in the line of fire than their more fortunate counterparts.

[Albions_Angel]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.

What I am getting so far is:


People think that adding a new PC that is a pure initiator to my party would be a bad idea
People think that allowing my existing PCs to access the material is a good idea


Is that about right?

[Masakan]

From my experience with the ToB, it does two things to melee classes.

1. Melee classes get a rather expanded toolbox, increasing their viability across all levels of play. Most builds I have seen only dip a few levels of an initiator class, and pair it with other prestige classes to make a character that can demolish most monsters in a few swings.

This makes melee characters nearly in line with most non-cheesed casters when that character hits level 20.

2.Melee classes get a rather expanded toolbox, increasing their viability across all levels of play. Most builds I have seen only dip a few levels of an initiator class, and pair it with other prestige classes to make a character that can demolish most monsters in a few swings.

This puts melee characters on par with casters at nearly every level, making them seemingly overpowered.
Too much optimization (I'm looking at youd d2 crusader), and suddenly you can punch the planet and it'll explode.

All in all, the ToB is a double edged sword (mind the pun). While it does make melee classes decent at higher levels with little to no optimization, it will invariably make your wizard and cleric a bit unhappy because, despite their FULL spellcasting abilities, the swordswinger can still keep up. Compared to the average fighter, barbarian, or even a duskblade, the ToB classes outshine them all by a significant margin.

In every game I have been in that someone has played an initiator class, the game always died due to that character being too powerful, outshined everyone else by becoming the "main attraction," or simply broke the game.


Just my thoughts here,
-Carr

I love how casters get upset because the puny mundanes are actually getting on their level somewhat.

[MyrPsychologist]

For contrast, I can only think of two initiators in my games that didn't die because they're still melee and thus more in the line of fire than their more fortunate counterparts.

I wanted to echo this statement. And also add that the maneuvers are pretty helpful and do a great job at advancing martials as a concept but still pale in comparison to simple things like the conjuration school of magic.

magic is stronger. a lot stronger. and what's more, magic has much more options at its disposal. But ToB gives other people more fun tools and capacity to actually perform the roles they are supposed to play instead of just falling behind casters at an astounding rate.

[LudicSavant]

For contrast, I can only think of two initiators in my games that didn't die because they're still melee and thus more in the line of fire than their more fortunate counterparts.

I like that you point out the contrast. There is definitely a contrast between groups. I've been playing 3e since it came out with dozens of different groups, with varying degrees of player and DM skill in all of them.

The tipping point in my experience? Whether the DM knows how to deal with some dude just throwing out a melee attack for a large amount of damage. Not exactly an advanced or unusually threatening tactic in the scheme of 3.5e, but a number of DMs I've encountered just don't seem to know what to do when they see moderately high damage outputs, even if they come from melee attacks. They have a monster just sort of walk up to someone and take a full attack. To such a DM, even a simple pouncing Barbarian may appear to be overpowered, even though it's a trivial thing to counter for more experienced DMs. I've seriously seen DMs cry foul at seeing a level 4 character whose only trick is doing melee damage like a Tiger... a standard CR 4 monster.

The instant DMs realize "hey wait a second... monsters can use tactics!" it's a whole new ball game. And a better ball game, too. Seriously. Those games were way more fun.

To the OP: Here's an example of how cool games with ToB characters and monsters using tactics can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN-LZAkKcac

[JusticeZero]

Another option I use a lot is to make it MANDATORY. Ban the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, and Monk completely from character generation without exception. "If everyone is super, no one is." After a bit of play with everyone using the system, the mystery wears off and expectations are much more realistic.

[Draconium]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.

What I am getting so far is:


People think that adding a new PC that is a pure initiator to my party would be a bad idea
People think that allowing my existing PCs to access the material is a good idea


Is that about right?

Sounds right to me. Rather than just saying "here are new classes, learn 'em, live 'em, love 'em," ease them into it. Let them test the waters at their own pace, and have the lot of them decide whether or not they'd like to wade into deeper waters.

[ComaVision]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.

What I am getting so far is:


People think that adding a new PC that is a pure initiator to my party would be a bad idea
People think that allowing my existing PCs to access the material is a good idea


Is that about right?

You could offer a chance for the players to rebuild their characters, utilizing ToB if they wish. Rogue can fix his feats, monk could make an unarmed swordsage, barbarian can dip some WarBlade levels. I don't think you'll have a problem if you have a uniform switch, the real problem is if you have some melees playing ToB and then the monk trying to compete.

[Solaris]

The ToB classes are fairly powerful versatile, at a solid Tier 3. But a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, or Sorcerer (or any other Tier 1 or 2 class) can still easily outpace them, if they're built at least half-decently.

Fixed.
Only at T1 and T2 does it really measure power.


For contrast, I can only think of two initiators in my games that didn't die because they're still melee and thus more in the line of fire than their more fortunate counterparts.

This has been more my experience. My players are presently running a barbarian 2/warblade 4/frostrager 1, a warmage 2-3/ranger 4-5 (it's level 7, I forget which went where), and a druid 7. The warbarian needs a lot of help to stay alive, and the warmage and druid both regularly outpace her on damage output. Sure, she maims whatever she can catch... if she hasn't failed a Will save recently... but she can still only do it to one thing per round.
Meanwhile, the warmage and druid are both maiming and killing multiple things per round with their spells. The warblade isn't "overpowered" by any stretch of the imagination. It's just keeping up. She's really less there to kill things and more to slow them down while the warmage massacres them and the druid does his druid thing.



I like that you point out the contrast. There is definitely a contrast between groups. I've been playing 3e since it came out with dozens of different groups, with varying degrees of player and DM skill in all of them.

The tipping point in my experience? Whether the DM knows how to deal with some dude just throwing out a melee attack for a large amount of damage. Not exactly an advanced or unusually threatening tactic in the scheme of 3.5e, but a number of DMs I've encountered just don't seem to know what to do when they see moderately high damage outputs, even if they come from melee attacks. They have a monster just sort of walk up to someone and take a full attack. To such a DM, even a simple pouncing Barbarian may appear to be overpowered, even though it's a trivial thing to counter for more experienced DMs.

The instant DMs realize "hey wait a second... monsters can use tactics!" it's a whole new ball game. And a better ball game, too. Seriously. Those games were way more fun.

To the OP: Why not take a look at this? This shows how cool games with ToB characters and monsters using tactics can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN-LZAkKcac

I think you're right about that. Not only do I have my monsters use tactics (I used to do it professionally; I realized I had to throttle back on my all-civilian group because otherwise they were gonna wind up splatted by the first encounter by a simple flanking ambush), I've rebuilt a lot of them to have some maneuvers and stances as well as generally making less bad design decisions (Alertness? Really?).

I've found that a decent solution for characters who have massive melee damage output is to provide multiple opponents. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing 10 hp or 30 hp a hit when they have only 8 hp, and the massive damage monsters aren't going to be able to annihilate the whole group in one go... especially because they're all spread out to avoid taking area damage effects from the party casters.

[Masakan]

Fixed.
Only at T1 and T2 does it really measure power.



This has been more my experience. My players are presently running a barbarian 2/warblade 4/frostrager 1, a warmage 2-3/ranger 4-5 (it's level 7, I forget which went where), and a druid 7. The warbarian needs a lot of help to stay alive, and the warmage and druid both regularly outpace her on damage output. Sure, she maims whatever she can catch... if she hasn't failed a Will save recently... but she can still only do it to one thing per round.
Meanwhile, the warmage and druid are both maiming and killing multiple things per round with their spells. The warblade isn't "overpowered" by any stretch of the imagination. It's just keeping up. She's really less there to kill things and more to slow them down while the warmage massacres them and the druid does his druid thing.

You mean like being a proper tank? "Gasp" Holy **** stop the presses!

[Draconium]

You mean like being a proper tank? "Gasp" Holy **** stop the presses!

Without the sarcasm, I'm pretty sure that's more or less what Solaris was saying...

[LudicSavant]

the druid does his druid thing.

http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/7/73/Charles_Burggraf_-_Beorn_in_Battle.jpg

[Masakan]

Without the sarcasm, I'm pretty sure that's more or less what Solaris was saying...
Maybe, but if you really stop and think about it, While a mundane COULD tank they usually can't even do that well. HELL I even know a few DM's who just raced pass our so called "Tank" and one shot one of our squishies.
There is a reason why people consider crusaders the king of tanking, they have options that pretty much force you to go after them. You have to or your getting punished horridly if he built right. Warblades are decent tanks as well but that's more not dying at all....speaking of which did that frost rager get iron heart surge? Cause she should not be having that much trouble vs will saves.

[Solaris]

You mean like being a proper tank? "Gasp" Holy **** stop the presses!

Yes.


Without the sarcasm, I'm pretty sure that's more or less what Solaris was saying...

Yes.


http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/7/73/Charles_Burggraf_-_Beorn_in_Battle.jpg

And oh my yes.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.

What I am getting so far is:


People think that adding a new PC that is a pure initiator to my party would be a bad idea
People think that allowing my existing PCs to access the material is a good idea


Is that about right?

Sounds about right to me.


I love how casters get upset because the puny mundanes are actually getting on their level somewhat.

Please don't start this argument again. We get it, you hate high powered casters.


Another option I use a lot is to make it MANDATORY. Ban the Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, and Monk completely from character generation without exception. "If everyone is super, no one is." After a bit of play with everyone using the system, the mystery wears off and expectations are much more realistic.

That's more than a bit extreme. Initiators and standard martials can stand together in the same game just fine. Limiting options is rarely a good idea.

In particular, the paladin has a stupendously higher optimization ceiling than the crusader and the ranger isn't super far behind. Fighter and monk will always be great for a two level dip. Spirit lion barbarian, 'nuff said. Only the rogue has the potential to really lag behind in combat but he also excels far beyond -any- martial character in non-combat capability.

[Masakan]

Please don't start this argument again. We get it, you hate high powered casters.


I just find the hypocrisy astounding. Is that so wrong?

[MyrPsychologist]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.


OP, sounds like you already have a solid idea of how to introduce your party to this new material and how to integrate it into things.

And really, don't shy away from trying anything out. A lot of what is "overpowered" will really depend on its implementation and adoption by the players.

[Solaris]

Maybe, but if you really stop and think about it, While a mundane COULD tank they usually can't even do that well. HELL I even know a few DM's who just raced pass our so called "Tank" and one shot one of our squishies.
There is a reason why people consider crusaders the king of tanking, they have options that pretty much force you to go after them. You have to or your getting punished horridly if he built right. Warblades are decent tanks as well but that's more not dying at all....speaking of which did that frost rager get iron heart surge? Cause she should not be having that much trouble vs will saves.

That would've required her remembering she had Iron Heart Surge after she got hit with the hold person. She's the sort of player who's the reason I think of sorcerers as wizards with training wheels - give her too many options, and she's either going to get confused or forget she has them.

She tanks fairly well with positioning in the dungeon environment, and even outside of it does a pretty good job at getting stuck on a glob of monsters that would otherwise run up to the squishies and squish them. She doesn't really do battlefield control, but the fact that she can one-shot a lot of the opponents means they're going to be careful about provoking her.


That's more than a bit extreme. Initiators and standard martials can stand together in the same game just fine. Limiting options is rarely a good idea.

In particular, the paladin has a stupendously higher optimization ceiling than the crusader and the ranger isn't super far behind. Fighter and monk will always be great for a two level dip. Spirit lion barbarian, 'nuff said. Only the rogue has the potential to really lag behind in combat but he also excels far beyond -any- martial character in non-combat capability.

I've had fun adding in initiator capacity to the PHB martial classes (except barbarian). It works really nicely with the bonus feat variants for paladin and ranger from Complete Champion.

[Pex]

The thing is, our GM is so used to martials underperforming that every time I get a strike in that does 10d6 damage he starts to complain about how powerful my character is, until I remind him that there is a Sorceror sitting across from me who can pull off higher numbers much more regularly than my character.
He agrees each time, but he still has that knee-jerk "but you're supposed to be the swords guy" reaction.
Many people do.

This.

Tome of Battle allows warriors to do amazing things while having moved more than a 5 ft step in around, even if the amazing thing is only many d6 of damage. Some people can't accept the concept it's the warrior doing it. Spellcasters do it all the time, so it's no big deal when another spell or spellcaster class comes along. (Psionics being the exception :smallsigh:) The fact that a warrior does it, and it's flashier than the fighter or barbarian doing a Power Attack, breaks their comfort level of familiarity.

There are some people who dislike the mechanics of the maneuver system and cannot get over it that a warrior cannot repeat an attack he just did the next round because a maneuver is expended. Others don't like it looks like spellcasting. However, it's the warrior being flashy that's the real issue. It's fighters can't get nice things syndrome.

[Douglas]

They wouldnt be making new chars. No new players are joining. This would be for dips and prestige classes, feats and the like.

What I am getting so far is:


People think that adding a new PC that is a pure initiator to my party would be a bad idea
People think that allowing my existing PCs to access the material is a good idea


Is that about right?
Based on the description you gave of your party, you should be very careful about introducing anything at all from ToB. Frankly, it is very very easy with almost anything not from ToB to build an extremely weak character without really meaning to. It appears that all of your players have done exactly that.

Building something unintentionally weak with ToB is a lot harder. Whether they mean to or not, a PC like those you described that starts using ToB content will quickly become much stronger in direct proportion to the amount of ToB content used. Unless all of your players use ToB to about the same extent, you will quickly get a large power disparity within the party. Even if they do, the difference compared to before will be readily apparent to everyone. Neither outcome will do anything to convince your players that ToB is not overpowered and broken.

If you want to use ToB, and convince your players that this is a good thing, I think you will first have to teach them just how low-powered (note: not "bad") their current builds are, show them how much more powerful even core classes can be, and convince them that playing with a higher general power level will be worthwhile and fun. Until and unless you get your players on board with that, you should probably leave ToB out.

[EisenKreutzer]

Based on the description you gave of your party, you should be very careful about introducing anything at all from ToB. Frankly, it is very very easy with almost anything not from ToB to build an extremely weak character without really meaning to. It appears that all of your players have done exactly that.

Building something unintentionally weak with ToB is a lot harder. Whether they mean to or not, a PC like those you described that starts using ToB content will quickly become much stronger in direct proportion to the amount of ToB content used. Unless all of your players use ToB to about the same extent, you will quickly get a large power disparity within the party. Even if they do, the difference compared to before will be readily apparent to everyone. Neither outcome will do anything to convince your players that ToB is not overpowered and broken.

If you want to use ToB, and convince your players that this is a good thing, I think you will first have to teach them just how low-powered (note: not "bad") their current builds are, show them how much more powerful even core classes can be, and convince them that playing with a higher general power level will be worthwhile and fun. Until and unless you get your players on board with that, you should probably leave ToB out.

This is a good argument against using the ToB classes.

However, using everything else i ToB can still be cool! ToB is very, very dip-friendly. Hell, just taking a maneuver or two with Feats works just fine, since your Initiator level is half your non-Initiator class level.

[squiggit]

Please don't start this argument again. We get it, you hate high powered casters.

He has a point though, it's kind of hilarious to see "can keep up with casters... who play down their best tricks" being used as a con.

[Masakan]

That would've required her remembering she had Iron Heart Surge after she got hit with the hold person. She's the sort of player who's the reason I think of sorcerers as wizards with training wheels - give her too many options, and she's either going to get confused or forget she has them.


You view sorcerers as wizards with training wheels, I view them as more straight forward. Think of it this way, You give 2 guys meh.. a gun. Let's say a magnum, One of them spends a good few months tinkering with it, figuring out the ins and out of of how they work and all that. The other has a base but adequate understanding of said weapon....but end of the day both do the same thing. Sure Sorcerer can't do as much because he either doesn't have time to worry about all the ins and outs of it or just has better things to do. But end of the day you give both of them the thing and the same thing will happen.
You Point the gun.
You Pull the trigger.
They fall down.

Basically it comes down to this, do you wanna go about figuring out every single detail, or do you wanna figure out what you need to make it work and keep it moving?

That's how I see it.

[Jormengand]

There are some people who dislike the mechanics of the maneuver system and cannot get over it that a warrior cannot repeat an attack he just did the next round because a maneuver is expended. Others don't like it looks like spellcasting. However, it's the warrior being flashy that's the real issue. It's fighters can't get nice things syndrome.

Right, except for the fact that both of those arguments are used by people who like fighters to get nice things, rather than having arbitrary limitations on how often they can do nice things because the wizard did. But nice strawman. I appreciate the effort that went into that sweeping generalisation.

[MyrPsychologist]

Basically it comes down to this, do you wanna go about figuring out every single detail, or do you wanna figure out what you need to make it work and keep it moving?

That's how I see it.

This thread is not about the relative power of sorcerers and wizards.

[Douglas]

This is a good argument against using the ToB classes.

However, using everything else i ToB can still be cool! ToB is very, very dip-friendly. Hell, just taking a maneuver or two with Feats works just fine, since your Initiator level is half your non-Initiator class level.
That dip-friendliness is precisely why even allowing the existing PCs access to it will be disruptive. There are very few feats in the entire game as powerful for a martial non-initiator as Martial Study or Martial Stance, without getting into the kind of synergistic combinations that PCs like those described here probably have no idea even exist.

[EisenKreutzer]

That dip-friendliness is precisely why even allowing the existing PCs access to it will be disruptive. There are very few feats in the entire game as powerful for a martial non-initiator as Martial Study or Martial Stance, without getting into the kind of synergistic combinations that PCs like those described here probably have no idea even exist.

I'm not sure I agree that it would be disruptive. I think it could offer these characters, who don't really seem to be that mechanically powerful, an opportunity to shine. It could also go a long way towards smoothing out their negative assumptions about ToB.

I get what you are saying, but I find myself disagreeing with your conclusion.

[Masakan]

This thread is not about the relative power of sorcerers and wizards.

I'm just making a point to solaris, alright? I don't wanna side track this so please just ignore it.

[MyrPsychologist]

That dip-friendliness is precisely why even allowing the existing PCs access to it will be disruptive. There are very few feats in the entire game as powerful for a martial non-initiator as Martial Study or Martial Stance, without getting into the kind of synergistic combinations that PCs like those described here probably have no idea even exist.

Wouldn't this be a reason TO encourage the inclusion of ToB material? It fosters creativity in approaches that was not possible before and can encourage players to be more contemplative. Isn't this ultimately a good thing?

In addition, it would also open up new challenges that they can handle because now they got a big bump up in power.

[Douglas]

I'm not sure I agree that it would be disruptive. I think it could offer these characters, who don't really seem to be that mechanically powerful, an opportunity to shine. It could also go a long way towards smoothing out their negative assumptions about ToB.

I get what you are saying, but I find myself disagreeing with your conclusion.
In essence, you're saying it would allow these non-powerful characters to become powerful. I'm saying that's exactly the problem.

[EisenKreutzer]

In essence, you're saying it would allow these non-powerful characters to become powerful. I'm saying that's exactly the problem.

I don't quite see it as a problem. Could you elaborate on that?

[Draconium]

In essence, you're saying it would allow these non-powerful characters to become powerful. I'm saying that's exactly the problem.

Lemme see if I understand - you're saying that if you give too much power to non-spellcasters when they're not used to it or expecting it will cause them to see Tome of Battle as an overpowered option, right?

[Douglas]

I don't quite see it as a problem. Could you elaborate on that?
The objection the party (or at least one of its members) has raised to ToB is that it is overpowered. Further, that a ToB character proved so much more powerful than the rest of the party that it ruined a past game.

Introducing ToB and having it result in an increase in character power would just be proving that point exactly correct.

[EisenKreutzer]

Lemme see if I understand - you're saying that if you give too much power to non-spellcasters when they're not used to it or expecting it will cause them to see Tome of Battle as an overpowered option, right?

If this is the argument Douglas is making, it's starting to make more sense for me.

I still don't quite see it as a big problem. If you explain to them that taking these options will give martials access to power levels approaching casters, and underline that this is the intent of the systems and that tsking advantage of them will bump up the power level of martials significantly in a positive way, then it becomes a strength rather than a problem.

[Masakan]

The objection the party (or at least one of its members) has raised to ToB is that it is overpowered. Further, that a ToB character proved so much more powerful than the rest of the party that it ruined a past game.

Introducing ToB and having it result in an increase in character power would just be proving that point exactly correct.

Wait wait time out....your saying that they WANT to be weak?

[Douglas]

If this is the argument Douglas is making, it's starting to make more sense for me.

I still don't quite see it as a big problem. If you explain to them that taking these options will give martials access to power levels approaching casters, and underline that this is the intent of the systems and that tsking advantage of them will bump up the power level of martials significantly in a positive way, then it becomes a strength rather than a problem.
I might be extrapolating too far, but I don't think these guys are even aware that "casters beat martials" is a concept that exists in the first place. They have their low power characters, they've always had their low power characters, and as far as they know this is the level of power that all characters are supposed to have. They're used to it, they think it's right, and starting an explanation with "this will make you more powerful, like casters are" would just confuse them and more firmly entrench the idea that ToB is overpowered.

[EisenKreutzer]

I might be extrapolating too far, but I don't think these guys are even aware that "casters beat martials" is a concept that exists in the first place. They have their low power characters, they've always had their low power characters, and as far as they know this is the level of power that all characters are supposed to have. They're used to it, they think it's right, and starting an explanation with "this will make you more powerful, like casters are" would just confuse them and more firmly entrench the idea that ToB is overpowered.

I'm starting to see the validity of your position more clearly.

I still think it is more than possible to spin the increase in power in a positive light, though.

[Greenish]

Wait wait time out....your saying that they WANT to be weak?It's a perfectly valid way to play the game, if people on the table agree on it. "Strong" doesn't mean the same as "good", after all.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The floor of casters is around the same power level as barbarians, so only slightly better than low-power fighters. The floor of ToB is around the level of a wizard who uses Orb spells, Fly, Invisibility, and Blur/Disjunction, no metamagic tricks or save-or-dies but still with some system mastery there.

[Albions_Angel]

Woah there. Ok, I need to clear up some things.

Guy who made the complain, the usually OP-without-trying guy. His Druid is a perfectly good caster, he just isnt playing her that way this time, and is instead optimising his animal companion for roll play reasons.

3 other highly experienced players. One picked a cleric, and again, could be a perfectly OP heal-bot/buffer, but isnt playing it that way. Instead going more of a cleric/necromancer/blaster build. One is going Ultimate Magus, but I have no idea what he plans. He is usually a pretty good God-Wizard. One decided to play the party front line when he saw the entire party. He is the barbarian, with frenzy, and go knows what plans.

That leaves 2. One felt like trying a build he saw on another forum. Some sort of area control monk, that at level 2 is a tripping monk. He plans to come out of it at some point, but, again, I dont know where to.

The final is a little underpowered, i admit. He doesnt have a great track record. But he is the party skill monkey anyway.

They are all aware that casters are better than martial. Our last game (where we created PCs blind) had 6 casters and no martial AT ALL (by accident, but hey, point was we all wanted to play the heat in that one).

They all know what they are doing gameplay-wise. I gave them pretty strict starting instructions, and it was a heavily story based creation mechanic.

With that in mind, do continue.

[Douglas]

Wait wait time out....your saying that they WANT to be weak?
More that they don't realize they ARE weak. They likely haven't read meaningful online discussion of optimization, haven't tried to analyze the game in depth on their own, haven't had gaming experience with many different players, and never questioned the basic assumption that all options are reasonably close to equivalent power. Accordingly, they picked options that sounded cool without regard for power, ended up with the weak characters such an approach typically produces, and consider that the baseline.

Compared to that baseline, ToB is overpowered, broken, and in general disruptive. If you want to introduce ToB and have it received positively, you need to first shift that baseline.

Edit: It appears some of my assumptions were off. My recommendation may need some rethinking.

[Greenish]

is instead optimising his animal companion for roll play reasons.Careful with your spelling there. "Roll play" is often used to mean the opposite of "role play", where you just roll dice and fiddle with numbers without caring about what they represent in-game.

[carrdrivesyou]

It's a perfectly valid way to play the game, if people on the table agree on it. "Strong" doesn't mean the same as "good", after all.

I couldn't agree more here. I have enjoyed the occasional game wherein the players are AT BEST an average tier 3 power-wise, and still had loads of fun.

IMHO too many people who come to D&D(of any version) think too much along the lines of MMOs, and think that being able to kill a great wyrm single handed is good. I look at these players and tell them that they have missed the entire point of the game.

[Albions_Angel]

Sorry. Blame dyslexia and the lack of a wiggly red line.

[Douglas]

Woah there. Ok, I need to clear up some things.

Guy who made the complain, the usually OP-without-trying guy. His Druid is a perfectly good caster, he just isnt playing her that way this time, and is instead optimising his animal companion for roll play reasons.

3 other highly experienced players. One picked a cleric, and again, could be a perfectly OP heal-bot/buffer, but isnt playing it that way. Instead going more of a cleric/necromancer/blaster build. One is going Ultimate Magus, but I have no idea what he plans. He is usually a pretty good God-Wizard. One decided to play the party front line when he saw the entire party. He is the barbarian, with frenzy, and go knows what plans.

That leaves 2. One felt like trying a build he saw on another forum. Some sort of area control monk, that at level 2 is a tripping monk. He plans to come out of it at some point, but, again, I dont know where to.

The final is a little underpowered, i admit. He doesnt have a great track record. But he is the party skill monkey anyway.

They are all aware that casters are better than martial. Our last game (where we created PCs blind) had 6 casters and no martial AT ALL (by accident, but hey, point was we all wanted to play the heat in that one).

They all know what they are doing gameplay-wise. I gave them pretty strict starting instructions, and it was a heavily story based creation mechanic.

With that in mind, do continue.
In that case, it might help to explain that ToB is an intentional attempt to partially close the gap between martial and caster. For every "overpowered" thing a ToB guy does, ask if an equal level caster could do something of similar power.

They appear to be deliberately going for lower power than usual in this game, so maybe advise them to be careful about overdoing it on ToB this once, but open it up more in a future game where they're back to, well, not playing an animal companion.

[nedz]

Douglas's point, if I understand it correctly, is about party balance.


His response was short and to the point. A game he played a few years ago included ToB. One person picked a swordsage. He was easily the most powerful person in the campaign and more or less broke the game in seconds. No one had any fun. Even the guy that made it. The book was banned from then on, never to be opened again.

This point relates to an entirely different group who might have all been playing Halfling Monks for all we know. Clearly ToB was unbalancing in that game, but the current group might be different ?

I had similar trouble with, of all things, Warlocks. Now T4 I know, but the usual misconceptions were apparent. My solution was to introduce them as villains; and when people saw that they were anything but broken the concept of the class was accepted.

Maybe do the same thing with ToB ? Have some weird cult use this stuff, and eventually the players will form a more enlightened view.

[Douglas]

I had similar trouble with, of all things, Warlocks. Now T4 I know, but the usual misconceptions were apparent. My solution was to introduce them as villains; and when people saw that they were anything but broken the concept of the class was accepted.

Maybe do the same thing with ToB ? Have some weird cult use this stuff, and eventually the players will form a more enlightened view.
Good idea, nothing gets across the idea that it's not that powerful after all like seeing it beaten by the party themselves. Just be careful to not overly optimize your ToB bad guys, as that optimization would then be part of their impression of ToB.

[INoKnowNames]

I'm mad that I didn't see this earlier. I have an infraction on my record that has this thread permanently linked to me, and I rather appreciate having it, so that whenever I do see a "TOB is Broken" thread, or anything remotely similar, I can just check my settings and link the thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?292914-Defense-of-the-Tome-of-Battle!&p=15635413#post15635413) It's like having a Homing Missile that only goes to one specific type of target: Just fire and Forget.

I think the only thing not covered in my initial post is "X character is using TOB and is the strongest person in the party", and that usually comes down to a few common factors: Low optimization floor, other players not optimizing as much or playing as well, and/or simple luck. And if that isn't covered somewhere down the line, then someone else has probably already mentioned it in this very thread.

[Sacrieur]

Wizard, it's your turn, what do you do?

"To start I'd like to fly up 200 feet. Next I'll cast fireball on those ice elementals down there, and then I think I'll use my quickened invisibility."


Ranger what do you do?

"Oh I uhh, shoot an arrow or two from my bow..."

---

I pushed it pretty heavily onto my players. But I play PF so we use PoW. And instead of going, "Nah it would make the non-initiators look bad." I went, "Let's make the non-initiators less bad" and the initiator balance rule was born.

It isn't compatible with 3.5, which people still play for some inexplicable reason, though.

Although I guess I could make a ToB version...

[Thurbane]

I'll give you my personal experience:

For many years I was opposed to ToB. It was actually one of the first splats I bought, and I ended up trading it back to my FLGS for Cityscape.

I didn't like it for a couple of reasons:
1.) I was opposed to "all day" special/pseudo magical abilities, including "per encounter mechanics".
2.) I didn't like "magic that wasn't magic" - I wanted a boost for martial characters that wasn't mystical in nature. I figured that I might as well be playing a Duskblade or Gish compared to what ToB was offering.
3.) I didn't want the headache of my group having to learn a new subsystem (same reason we don't use Incarnum).
4.) I didn't like the "flavour" of the book. It came across as far too wuxia/anime/Call-it-what-you-will for the flavour I wanted in my games.

So anyway, I re-bought the book a while later, and one day decided to have another good read through. I was still skeptical, but I thought the best way to get a measure of what it offered was to open it up as a character resource in my latest campaign (just on hold at the moment after over a year of play). One of the players decided to run a Warblade (from 1st through 8th).

I was pleasantly surprised - the mechanics of maneuvers weren't that hard for us to get our heads around. I felt the class played well, especially in our mid-low op group (rest of the party is a Warlock, Duskblade, Bard and Rogue/Swashbuckler).

However, a couple of the other players expressed concern that the Warblade was "overpowered" out of the box (strangely enough, the same players [the Duskblade and Daring Outlaw] had similar concerns about the Warlock).

My observations? Any class that has a decent minimum optimization level out of the box is going to cause concerns for low op players (sadly, Beguilers are outright banned in my group [except when I DM] for this exact reason). Also, some classes shine well at low to mid levels, and from my experience, Warblade is definitely one of these. Finally, some players have an innate distrust of "all day" special abilities. My Dragon Shaman that I ran once met with exactly the same kind of distrust with his "all day" breath weapon.

The last frontier for me is Incarnum - I really want to add it to my games at some point. Psionics, though? Never. :smallamused:

TL;DR? I used to really dislike ToB, but now I've come around. One or two of my players still think it's OP.

[INoKnowNames]

Thurbane, didn't you post that already? I swear I saw your post before mine, and now that post is gone. Did you delete it and repost it, or am I just on crack?

[Sacrieur]

TL;DR? I used to really dislike ToB, but now I've come around. One or two of my players still think it's OP.

There's a solution to that, and that's sending enough hi-op casters after them until they get it through their noggins that no, seriously, it's not that they're overpowered, you're just weak.



Thurbane, didn't you post that already? I swear I saw your post before mine, and now that post is gone. Did you delete it and repost it, or am I just on crack?

Pretty sure he did. Whether or not it was to be at the top of the page is up for you to decide.

[Thurbane]

Thurbane, didn't you post that already? I swear I saw your post before mine, and now that post is gone. Did you delete it and repost it, or am I just on crack?

Quite possible - I had a new tab open to edit some typos. I thought I'd double posted, so I deleted one, maybe the earlier one? I'm a little OCD with correcting my typos, and sometimes post it as a new post so that it doesn't say "edited" down the bottom.


There's a solution to that, and that's sending enough hi-op casters after them until they get it through their noggins that no, seriously, it's not that they're overpowered, you're just weak.

I don't roll that was as a DM. I'm happy to have a mid-low power group, and not have to come up with challenges for Tier 1 characters that can sidestep or one-shot most level appropriate challenges.

Besides, I send plenty of optimized enemies at them. In fact, I routinely get complaints that most of the fights are "too hard" - even though the vast majority are CR appropriate.

[Sacrieur]

I don't roll that was as a DM. I'm happy to have a mid-low power group, and not have to come up with challenges for Tier 1 characters that can sidestep or one-shot most level appropriate challenges.

Besides, I send plenty of optimized enemies at them. In fact, I routinely get complaints that most of the fights are "too hard" - even though the vast majority are CR appropriate.

My players trash CR appropriate encounters. If CR is too hard for them it's because they're really bad at optimizing. Like, you have to take a barbarian and give him a rapier bad.

[INoKnowNames]

Quite possible - I had a new tab open to edit some typos. I thought I'd double posted, so I deleted one, maybe the earlier one? I'm a little OCD with correcting my typos, and sometimes post it as a new post so that it doesn't say "edited" down the bottom.

So long as I'm not on crack, that's fine with me, even if I find it a bit silly.


Like, you have to take a barbarian and give him a rapier bad.

See, you say that, but I bet someone has come up with a Dex based Crit-fishing Ferocity Barbarian who uses a Rapier with all the Crit Stuff. Probably can't dump Str entirely, but maybe just enough to get Power Attack.

I'd say it'd be worse to try a Heavy Armor Monk, since that actually disables most of it's class features. But I won't pretend I haven't been wrong. On either of these calls, actually.

[Thurbane]

My players trash CR appropriate encounters. If CR is too hard for them it's because they're really bad at optimizing. Like, you have to take a barbarian and give him a rapier bad.

My group aren't quite that bad.

The Warblade is fairly solid, as stated. The Warlock is probably the best optimizer in the group alongside me, but due to real world commitments often can't make the game, so his character is usually run by another player (his Warlock is fairly decently built). The Bard's player has pretty much left the game altogether, so the Warblade's player usually runs it. He has tried to salvage the Bard, but due to the original player making it in a rush, it was horribly built at lower levels (Con and Dex as semi-dump stats, Power Attack as a level 1 feat - yeah :smallconfused:). At least he has Dragonfire Inspiration coming online next level. The Duskblade is my fiancée and is still pretty new to tabletop RPGs, so I try to help her where possible. She likes to build for flavor more than power/utility, so my hands are a bit tied. The Rogue/Swashbuckler was pretty underwhelming at lower levels, but his damage potential has really come along since he got the Daring Outlaw feat, and Gloves of the Balanced Hand (he also has the Penetrating Strike ACF).

All in all, I'm happier DMing for a low-op group than I would be for a full-op group. I find it gives me more freedom as a DM not to have to engage in an arms race to make the game a challenge.

[LudicSavant]

According to the core books, a non-underpowered character should win fights with monsters of CR equal to their level about 50% of the time, alone.
A non-underpowered party should trash fights with monsters of equal CR with near-zero risk of actually losing (just expending some of their resources).

See the Same Game Test (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_%28DnD_Guideline%29).

People shouldn't talk about things being overpowered while not actually meeting the standards the books suggest make you qualify as an average-power character.

[Greenish]

I'd say it'd be worse to try a Heavy Armor Monk, since that actually disables most of it's class features.You could go Argent Fist with Serenity Paladin, wear heavy armour while keeping (and to some extend progressing) Monk class features, and running everything with Wis. Pick some Divine/Devotion feats, abuse the DC boosts on Stunning Fist you get, etc.

Still not very good, but you could probably make it work.

[Rubik]

Warforged make great monks, despite the Wis penalty. Their composite plating doesn't interfere with monk abilities, can be enhanced just like armor, and if you want to forgo that, they're the absolute best race for becoming dragonborn, because they only really lose their composite plating and slam attack.

[Pex]

Right, except for the fact that both of those arguments are used by people who like fighters to get nice things, rather than having arbitrary limitations on how often they can do nice things because the wizard did. But nice strawman. I appreciate the effort that went into that sweeping generalisation.

Looks like I struck a nerve.

[INoKnowNames]

You could go Argent Fist with Serenity Paladin, wear heavy armour while keeping (and to some extend progressing) Monk class features, and running everything with Wis. Pick some Divine/Devotion feats, abuse the DC boosts on Stunning Fist you get, etc.

Still not very good, but you could probably make it work.


Warforged make great monks, despite the Wis penalty. Their composite plating doesn't interfere with monk abilities, can be enhanced just like armor, and if you want to forgo that, they're the absolute best race for becoming dragonborn, because they only really lose their composite plating and slam attack.

Okay, Greenish I admit beat me fair and square, but no cookies for you, Rubik! I said a Heavy Armor Monk, not a Monk who -is- Heavy! Composite Plating doesn't count if it's basically your skin! :smallyuk:

[Solaris]

You view sorcerers as wizards with training wheels, I view them as more straight forward. Think of it this way, You give 2 guys meh.. a gun. Let's say a magnum, One of them spends a good few months tinkering with it, figuring out the ins and out of of how they work and all that. The other has a base but adequate understanding of said weapon....but end of the day both do the same thing. Sure Sorcerer can't do as much because he either doesn't have time to worry about all the ins and outs of it or just has better things to do. But end of the day you give both of them the thing and the same thing will happen.
You Point the gun.
You Pull the trigger.
They fall down.

Basically it comes down to this, do you wanna go about figuring out every single detail, or do you wanna figure out what you need to make it work and keep it moving?

That's how I see it.

Pretty much. I say "Wizard with training wheels" on account of them being easier to use and less reliant on preparation, planning, and ready use of game knowledge on the fly. The smaller spell list of a sorcerer is less intimidating than a wizard's nigh-infinite options, much like training wheels being on a bike makes a kid less afraid to ride it. It's always seemed to me that, because sorcerers have more spells per day, the floor on them is lower - pick up a good non-trap spell or two (lookin' at you, burning hands), and you can at least contribute fairly easily.


Looks like I struck a nerve.

I'd rather we just left that one alone. It's not going to go anywhere good.


Okay, Greenish I admit beat me fair and square, but no cookies for you, Rubik! I said a Heavy Armor Monk, not a Monk who -is- Heavy! Composite Plating doesn't count if it's basically your skin! :smallyuk:

Not to mention Adamantine Body (the heavy armor one, natch) blocks off monk abilities, while composite plating doesn't count as armor at all.

[Jormengand]

Looks like I struck a nerve.

Looks like you were wrong on the internet, and you know I can't stand for that. (http://xkcd.com/386/)

[Albions_Angel]

I dont know how much say the author of a thread has on these forums, but my question has been answered and I dont like the direction the thread is taking. I didnt ask for a brawl over martial classes and casters.

I dont know if I can ask this, but can a Mod or Admin please lock this thread. Its getting poisonous and my fort save is fairly low.

[noob]

Look the book you have: does it looks torn?
Is it half burnt?
Is there is missing pages?
If yes then it is broken.
Else if the book is in a good state it is not.

[Rubik]

I dont know how much say the author of a thread has on these forums, but my question has been answered and I dont like the direction the thread is taking. I didnt ask for a brawl over martial classes and casters.

I dont know if I can ask this, but can a Mod or Admin please lock this thread. Its getting poisonous and my fort save is fairly low.It is related to the gist of the thread, though. Some people think that casters should be able to get away with anything, while non-casters shouldn't, and therefor think that any class that isn't casting spells shouldn't do anything beyond "roll a d20 and damage dice to whack stuff, and make skill checks." And thus, they believe ToB is broken, because it breaks that mold.

[Sacrieur]

It is related to the gist of the thread, though. Some people think that casters should be able to get away with anything, while non-casters shouldn't, and therefor think that any class that isn't casting spells shouldn't do anything beyond "roll a d20 and damage dice to whack stuff, and make skill checks." And thus, they believe ToB is broken, because it breaks that mold.

That's a pretty ridiculous position to have.

Initiators make combat far more interesting and layered than "I hit it with a pointy stick. AND THEN I DO IT AGAIN!"

But hey, if you're the type of person who prefers checkers over chess because it's got all those complicated pieces that do weird thing that are all different, then initiators aren't for you.

[Masakan]

That's a pretty ridiculous position to have.

Initiators make combat far more interesting and layered than "I hit it with a pointy stick. AND THEN I DO IT AGAIN!"

But hey, if you're the type of person who prefers checkers over chess because it's got all those complicated pieces that do weird thing that are all different, then initiators aren't for you.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

[Jormengand]

It is related to the gist of the thread, though. Some people think that casters should be able to get away with anything, while non-casters shouldn't, and therefor think that any class that isn't casting spells shouldn't do anything beyond "roll a d20 and damage dice to whack stuff, and make skill checks." And thus, they believe ToB is broken, because it breaks that mold.

Right, except for the part where that isn't even tangentially related to the argument that's being made.

[Rubik]

Right, except for the part where that isn't even tangentially related to the argument that's being made.But now it's taken the thread in a new direction!

WHO IS YOUR GOD NOW!?

[Jormengand]

But now it's taken the thread in a new direction!

WHO IS YOUR GOD NOW!?

Ah, I see! You don't care about misrepresenting the opposition's arguments, so long as you get to threadjack!

Well never mind then.

[Rubik]

Ah, I see! You don't care about misrepresenting the opposition's arguments, so long as you get to threadjack!

Well never mind then.Wow. You caught on quick.

[Solaris]

Holy crap, you two, why? To what point and purpose are you doing this? What end does it serve? What are you accomplishing by pointlessly sniping at each other?

[Rubik]

Holy crap, you two, why? To what point and purpose are you doing this? What end does it serve? What are you accomplishing by pointlessly sniping at each other?I'm not sniping. I'm employing mild sarcasm.

Jormengand is my friend. My Preciousss...

[Solaris]

I'm not sniping. I'm employing mild sarcasm.

Jormengand is my friend. My Preciousss...

That does provide some important context which is not immediately visible to outsiders.

[nedz]

Holy crap, you two, why? To what point and purpose are you doing this? What end does it serve? What are you accomplishing by pointlessly sniping at each other?

I think it's because they enjoy an argument. It is quite common for threads to spin off in this way — I've learned to just ignore such posts, well usually.

Now about this Sorcerer business ... :smallamused:

[Pex]

It is related to the gist of the thread, though. Some people think that casters should be able to get away with anything, while non-casters shouldn't, and therefor think that any class that isn't casting spells shouldn't do anything beyond "roll a d20 and damage dice to whack stuff, and make skill checks." And thus, they believe ToB is broken, because it breaks that mold.


That's a pretty ridiculous position to have.

Initiators make combat far more interesting and layered than "I hit it with a pointy stick. AND THEN I DO IT AGAIN!"

But hey, if you're the type of person who prefers checkers over chess because it's got all those complicated pieces that do weird thing that are all different, then initiators aren't for you.

Ridiculous, yes, but people do have them. A player in my Pathfinder group is just like that. He resented an NPC ranger we fought was able to fire a crossbow six times in a round based on class abilities and feats. It defies the laws of physics. However, he has no problem with a wizard casting fireball from bat poo because it's magic and magic has its own rules. He refuses to hear any arguments about balance or "fighters can't get nice things" or whatever. Non-spellcasters must adhere to real world abilities or else it's broken, illogical, and/or Paizo is just being silly.

[Rubik]

Ah, I see! You don't care about misrepresenting the opposition's arguments, so long as you get to threadjack!

Well never mind then.But being serious for a moment, I wasn't just referring to the few arguments that had popped up; I was referring to the topic of the thread at large. That is, why people think ToB is broken.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

They are in gaming Eden, and have not yet eaten the fruit from the tree of optimization knowledge. This is fine, as long as they're players and not DMs.

If you really want to be the snake here and have their fates be to work the soil of complex character builds, just show the Druid player what he can do right in core. Like, for instance, creating tornadoes at level 9 with two castings of Control Winds, or doing the whole "bear with a bear companion who summons bears" thing and out-doing the Warblade for damage output by quite a bit once you factor in all the attacks.

Now, you could go find eggy's druid handbook, roll up an Anthrobat with Aberration Wild Shape in Nilshai form with Enhance Wildshape up and a bunch of obscure all-day buffs making you rock. You could show them Greenbound or Rashemi Elemental Summons. You could do a lot of crazy stuff. But that's just going to get them afraid of "teh broken splatbookz," which is really only a proper sentiment when you focus on FR material. This is why I like the tornado method. "You see, kids? There's a whole wide world of insanity out there in 3.5, and it has nothing to do with splatbooks, or a Warblade's ability to add some d6s to his damage. The power to bearnado right through this campaign was with you all along."

[Jormengand]

Jormengand is my friend. My Preciousss...

:smallredface:

Please don't get thrown into a volcano while wearing (:smalleek:) me. That would be bad.

[Tvtyrant]

No, ToB is not broken. None of the classes in it have the power of some spells, and not just 9ths. If a class was simply "polymorph 10 times a day, full BaB, D10 HD" it would be stronger than any of the three of them, and more versatile.

It is better than any of the core mundane classes though, and many players play those in my experience. So they get overshadowed because they are playing weak classes badly, and demand that no better options be presented to them. If your group has a lot of those I suggest just dropping ToB and keeping the opponents a few CRs under them.

Mobs of mooks are particularly easy to kill and level the play between casters and none casters in combat, because it is so easy to kill or break groups of them that the differences between characters do not stand out.

[NichG]

Is throwing ToB in a huge mistake?

The thing to remember with advice from this forum is that no one knows your own game better than you do. The advice you get here will be based on the experiences of players who have run and played many different styles and powerlevels of games with many different types of players. Most of the regulars do have a lot of D&D experience and as a result their games' average optimization level has steadily increased over the last however many years.

So when it comes to advice about how something works or which of two options will be more powerful or whatever or how to deal with a particular type of social issue, it's pretty reliable.

But when it comes to 'what fits the players and power level at my table?', you have to adapt what you hear to your particular circumstances.