PDA

View Full Version : Complete....what?



Everyman
2007-06-01, 01:15 PM
Note: This is your speculation thread warning. If you're not one for this kind of thing, I'd hit your Back button now.

Recently, a friend and I were reviewing the books we had in our combined D&D library. The key splatbooks have always been the Complete Series (especially Arcana, Adventurer, Warrior, and Divine). With the recent releases of new Complete books (essentially X 2.0), we began to review these books for their merits and consider whether or not we'd really like to purchase them. While doing so, we realized something: The next "warrior" Complete must be coming out this year.

What we're trying to figure out is...well...what the heck are WotC going to call that thing. Complete Champion, while an understandable title for the "Divine 2.0" book, would have really, really fit "Warrior 2.0" better. We have been through the thesaurus and can't find a single adjective that describes the feeling of being a "warrior" without using "warrior" or "champion"

Any ideas what WotC might name the next Complete?

PS. No "Complete Waste of Money" comments from the peanut gallary.

Damionte
2007-06-01, 01:21 PM
No idea. I also felt complete champion to be the only really good title for awarrior esq book, so no idea what to call it.

Any other warrior esq title is a bit too ... one sided.

You can't call it Complete
Gladiator
Crusader
warrior

...

hmmm

Combatant

how about Combatant?

Or Armsman

....
2007-06-01, 01:24 PM
Complete Badass

Were-Sandwich
2007-06-01, 01:26 PM
Complete Meatshield?

Green Bean
2007-06-01, 01:26 PM
Hmmm. Looking at my trusty thesaurus, the only one I could see is "Complete Militant". Or maybe "Complete Conqueror"?

Were-Sandwich
2007-06-01, 01:29 PM
Complete Warlord?

Matthew
2007-06-01, 01:29 PM
If there's one in the works, it should already appear on the list. I doubt there will be another complete as we know them, at this point... (at least not this year) seems like they're getting ready for a big Adventures/Setting push before they bring out the next edition. Of course, I'm always ready to eat my words.

Khoran
2007-06-01, 01:35 PM
I believe the name I heard tossed around is is Complete Conqueror.

Ceres
2007-06-01, 01:36 PM
Completely underpowered compared to casters?

Though I guess it wouldn't sell very well.

Dizlag
2007-06-01, 01:40 PM
I like Diamonte's "Complete Combatant", however the "Complete Hireling" would be good too. :smallbiggrin:

Other's to consider too ...

Man-At-Arms
Mercenary

or Guardian

Hmm, Complete Combatant sounds the best so far.

Were-Sandwich
2007-06-01, 01:41 PM
But is not every single person who engages in combat, bards, rogues, wizards, clerics, nameless commoners et al, a combatant? Its not specific enough.

Telonius
2007-06-01, 01:51 PM
Complete Soldier - eh, not really.
Complete Melee - Too specific.
Complete Armsman - sounds awkward.

Personally I'm holding out for "Complete Henchman." Henchman, Lackey, Goon, Minion, Stooge, and Mook base classes. PrCs would include Toadie, Master Schlepper, Cannon Fodder, and Arcane Guinea Pig.

Dizlag
2007-06-01, 01:59 PM
Telonius,

Don't forget these PrCs:

Arrow Caddy
Scroll Caddy
Party Grave Digger (with the Knowledge: Dig Hasty Grave and Knowledge: Dig Proper Grave skills)

Sorry, I got those from Hackmaster. :smalltongue:

Dizlag

Reinboom
2007-06-01, 02:05 PM
I like Diamonte's "Complete Combatant", however the "Complete Hireling" would be good too. :smallbiggrin:

Other's to consider too ...

Man-At-Arms
Mercenary

or Guardian

Hmm, Complete Combatant sounds the best so far.

I rather like the sounds of Complete Mercenary. It seams to fit the cycle of "Roles" the books give, er, except Adventurer which seams to just be the blanket one. It could cover a broad character concept, adventure hooks, equipment, the mercenary style of life, etc.
--
And even hiring mercenaries yerself, er, extra options for them at least.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-01, 02:09 PM
Complete Commoner. Why make bland NPCs when you can made Complete NPCs?

With new skill uses like "Profession: Farming" and "Sleight of Hand: Milking". Complete Commoner now includes base classes such as "Milk Rancher", "Blacksmith", and "Leatherworker". Now including prestige classes such as "Sheriff", "Mayor", and "Old-Man Questgiver".

bosssmiley
2007-06-01, 02:28 PM
Is a "Complete Warrior 2" book really necessary when the roaring warriorly awesomeness of "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords" already exists? :smallconfused:

Corolinth
2007-06-01, 02:33 PM
But is not every single person who engages in combat, bards, rogues, wizards, clerics, nameless commoners et al, a combatant? Its not specific enough.Is not every single PC class potentially an adventurer? Is not every good-aligned PC (and some neutrals) a champion?

Morty
2007-06-01, 02:34 PM
Is a "Complete Warrior 2" book really necessary when the roaring warriorly awesomeness of "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords" already exists? :smallconfused:

Well, you know, because some people still want to play actual warriors instead of martial artists? And they want stuff for old melee classes instead of new classes and material for them?
It's not like I can buy such book. But if I could, I'd rather buy Complete Warrior 2.0 instead of ToB.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-06-01, 02:37 PM
"Complete Be-a-caster-instead"

Its one and only page is a note saying "See title".

HomerHT
2007-06-01, 02:48 PM
Taking a page out of Complete Erfworld...

Complete Hack-slash-carve-stabbity-chopchop

Ditto
2007-06-01, 02:50 PM
Zero: The Complete Commoner (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Fax_Encyclopedicus#The_Complete_Commoner) :smallbiggrin: .
See also Fax Celestis' sig.

Fax_Celestis: Most likely to homebrew the entire 4.0 players handbook

Fax: If you need it, he's made it.

Maryring
2007-06-01, 02:50 PM
How about Complete Combat. :smalltongue:

Telonius
2007-06-01, 02:51 PM
Hmm, a feat for Complete Mercenary ... "Kill the Dudes and Take Their Stuff." Looting a body is now a free action.

Person_Man
2007-06-01, 02:59 PM
Before I sold them all on ebay a long time ago, I owned all of the 2nd ed books. They had specific source books for each base class. In 3.5 they have so many base classes that its really not practical. But they've otherwise run out of ideas. So my guess is that they're going to continue to churn out ever more class specific material, or they'll pretty much have to re-boot and come out with 4.0 some time next year.

I actually think that the 3.5 rules are ripe for a revision. Some basic mechanics are insanely confusing, most notably mounted combat, grapple, sneak attack, the stacking rules, Polymorph, natural attacks, and non-standard races (LA, templates, special powers, etc). Furthermore, they're recently hit a pretty good stride with the PHBII and Tome of Battle classes, which have pretty much become the standard for what solid, well balanced classes should look like. But there are still a bunch of horribly underpowered (Monk, Samurai, Healer) and overpowered (Druid, Archivist, Artificer) classes that need to be rebalanced. The same goes for feats and spells.

So my suggestion to everyone is to stop buying WotC books unless you hear from reviews that its a very good product. That way, 3.5 will become unprofitable, and 4.0 will be put out shortly thereafter.

ZeroNumerous
2007-06-01, 03:04 PM
Zero: The Complete Commoner (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Fax_Encyclopedicus#The_Complete_Commoner) :smallbiggrin: .
See also Fax Celestis' sig.

Unfortunately it's not a WoTC Complete book yet. Though I do advocate it as the next Complete book.

Damionte
2007-06-01, 03:06 PM
I like Diamonte's "Complete Combatant", however........

I'm not sure exactly why but, just about everyone mispronounces or mispells my name as Diamonte... instead of Damionte. DAMION-TAY. Think buckwheat. Oh-Tay... Damionte. :)

Wonder if anyone can make me a buckwheat order of the stick.

Fourth Tempter
2007-06-01, 03:15 PM
Well, you know, because some people still want to play actual warriors instead of martial artists? And they want stuff for old melee classes instead of new classes and material for them?
It's not like I can buy such book. But if I could, I'd rather buy Complete Warrior 2.0 instead of ToB.

Did you know that you can make completely un-martial-artist flavored warriors with the Tome of Battle? You can make things in the tradition of Celtic heroes, or of mighty Germanic knights.
NOW YOU KNOW!
Bill Nye--the Science Guy!

Talya
2007-06-01, 03:29 PM
Complete-ly useless next to the spellcasters.

ravenkith
2007-06-01, 03:40 PM
The one class that needs the most help:

The Complete Martial Artist

It'd have a lot of monk-specific stuff in it...

and throw in some good combat feats that fighters can take.

Add in some skill usages for acrobatics, tumbling and the like....

a couple of base classes, and a lot of prcs duplicating martial arts styles from around the world...

for instance an update of the samurai base class that doesn't suck donkey rocks...

add an asian theme to martial combat, similar to how OA did back in the day, but without the setting...

could add some asian-influenced magic items...

and resurrect iajutsu for 3.5....

Create paladins of the five asian elements (earth air fire water metal)

<shrug>. Just a thought.

Indon
2007-06-01, 03:47 PM
Did you know that you can make completely un-martial-artist flavored warriors with the Tome of Battle? You can make things in the tradition of Celtic heroes, or of mighty Germanic knights.
NOW YOU KNOW!
Bill Nye--the Science Guy!

Then how about "because not everyone likes to divorce mechanics from the actual goings-on in the game, derisively termed 'fluff' or 'flavor'".

JoeFredBob
2007-06-01, 04:08 PM
Then how about "because not everyone likes to divorce mechanics from the actual goings-on in the game, derisively termed 'fluff' or 'flavor'".

It doesn't need to be divorced. A lot of tome of battle does make more sense with supernatural and/or martial artsy looking characters, I'll agree. But what about stuff like the iron whatever discipline? I don't have the ToB with me, but if I recall correctly there's a lot of maneuvers in it that are basically "I can hit things really hard with my sword" and "I can take a lot of punishment", and don't really require a martial-artsy flavor.

Morty
2007-06-01, 04:18 PM
Did you know that you can make completely un-martial-artist flavored warriors with the Tome of Battle? You can make things in the tradition of Celtic heroes, or of mighty Germanic knights.
NOW YOU KNOW!
Bill Nye--the Science Guy!

I prefer to play standard meleers with bunch of new feats or PrCs than try to make spellcasters in disguise normal. Because even if I strip the flavor, the mechanics of martial manuevers doesn't really appeal to non-martial fighters. Besides, with ToB I won't make a ranger, barbarian or any archer character. ToB is largely overrated as "ultimate fighter paradise".
Yeah, I know it's widely agreed on this board that non-ToB meleers are useless after level 5. I just don't give a damn.

Thrivol
2007-06-01, 04:29 PM
Complete Commoner. Why make bland NPCs when you can made Complete NPCs?

With new skill uses like "Profession: Farming" and "Sleight of Hand: Milking". Complete Commoner now includes base classes such as "Milk Rancher", "Blacksmith", and "Leatherworker". Now including prestige classes such as "Sheriff", "Mayor", and "Old-Man Questgiver". I would buy that book. I always thought a commoner only campaign would be pretty awesome.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-01, 04:46 PM
They should release Complete Incarnum or Complete Stuff with Dragon in the name.

Or Complete Humanoids.

Or Complete Sell Out.

Wait, TSR did that from stage 1.

DreamOfTheRood
2007-06-01, 05:22 PM
Complete Destroyer

Dhavaer
2007-06-01, 06:07 PM
I would buy that book. I always thought a commoner only campaign would be pretty awesome.

It is! Particularly if it's a dungeon crawl and they're all 15 point buy. And the enemies are Cheese Goblins and Orcs Without Pants.

selfcritical
2007-06-01, 06:08 PM
Then how about "because not everyone likes to divorce mechanics from the actual goings-on in the game, derisively termed 'fluff' or 'flavor'".

All warriors are martial artists. Martial= of war(y'know, mars, god of war). It's not like Asia is the only culture to teach their fighting styles in a curriculum.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-01, 06:13 PM
If you liberally trim the maneuver lists and feats, and rinse repeatedly, you just might be able to get all the martial artsy flavor out. That'll leave things pretty sparse, though, if you haven't got homebrewed maneuvers.

EDIT: Not all fighting people are martial artists. All fighting people are martial, but that isn't exactly the same thing. Also, you're invoking semantics...ToB very much carries an Eastern Martial Arts + Anime flavor.

Indon
2007-06-01, 06:14 PM
All warriors are martial artists. Martial= of war(y'know, mars, god of war). It's not like Asia is the only culture to teach their fighting styles in a curriculum.

But asia is the only culture(s) in which you learn stuff like "Iron heart fist!" which of course is also what you say when you execute the move.

If I want to play a 'Tome of Battle' mechanical character, I could just play Exalted instead. Similar mechanics (being maneuver-based combat), vastly better 'fluff'. If I want to be a Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Ranger, or Barbarian, then I play D&D.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-06-01, 08:29 PM
The one class that needs the most help:

The Complete Martial Artist

It'd have a lot of monk-specific stuff in it...

and throw in some good combat feats that fighters can take.

Add in some skill usages for acrobatics, tumbling and the like....

a couple of base classes, and a lot of prcs duplicating martial arts styles from around the world...

for instance an update of the samurai base class that doesn't suck donkey rocks...

add an asian theme to martial combat, similar to how OA did back in the day, but without the setting...

could add some asian-influenced magic items...

and resurrect iajutsu for 3.5....

Create paladins of the five asian elements (earth air fire water metal)

<shrug>. Just a thought.

Now THAT is a good idea. The Complete Pugilist.

Seatbelt
2007-06-01, 10:25 PM
Does anyone else not plan on buying 4.0 books until they have extracted every single modicum of use from their 3.5 books? IE: The binding is gone, and the words are faded to illegibility. I have such a library of books that buying new ones now would be insane.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-01, 10:48 PM
Then how about "because not everyone likes to divorce mechanics from the actual goings-on in the game, derisively termed 'fluff' or 'flavor'".

Devoted Soul maneuvers are basically fancy versions of smite.

Iron Heart is about being a [email protected]@

And Stone Dragon is about hitting things REALLY REALLY hard.

Like, the only ones that are inherently martial Artsy are Setting Sun and Diamond mind, and only kinda with Diamond mind. Sheesh!

Fourth Tempter
2007-06-01, 11:30 PM
Then how about "because not everyone likes to divorce mechanics from the actual goings-on in the game, derisively termed 'fluff' or 'flavor'".

What?
Many of the disciplines do not have any "kung fu" fluff. Devoted Spirit is no more "martial arts" than a Paladin; Diamond Mind is about focus and precision; Iorn Heart is about overwhelming might, Tiger Claw is about brutal savagery, Stone Dragon is about... uh, hitting things hard, I suppose, White Raven is about tactics.

Swordsages, with Desert Wind, Setting Sun, and Shadow Hand, are fairly "wuxia". But there is no martial arts flavor mandatory with the other disciplines. A Crusader's default flavor is not that of a martial artist; nor is a Warblade's.

Theodoxus
2007-06-02, 12:14 AM
hard for pdf's to fade /shrug.

Complete Monkeypooflinger would be great - I'd buy that book.

Complete Martian Artist - nothing like red rock landscapes and ancient 'waterways' oil on canvas or clay sculptures. yum!

Complete Archer, because there just isn't enough good archer foo out there. They keep making ick for archers. ToB styled archer would be nifty.

Complete Spelunker. Dungeoneering has nothing on cave diving.

meh - I'm tired.

Night all

SurlySeraph
2007-06-02, 12:18 AM
Complete Guy What Makes Other Guys Fall Down By Hitting Them With Stuff. Or Complete Punchy-Man. Or just Complete Soldier.

RTGoodman
2007-06-02, 01:06 AM
Don't remember where I heard it (maybe as rumor on the WotC boards), but I was thinking that there was talk of "Complete Warrior v2.0" being called "Complete Martial" or something like that.

Jack Mann
2007-06-02, 01:37 AM
But asia is the only culture(s) in which you learn stuff like "Iron heart fist!" which of course is also what you say when you execute the move.

No, you don't. That's just the name of the maneuver. You don't have to say it.

And no, Asia is not the only culture with that kind of martial art aesthetic. In some legends, for example, gae bulg wasn't merely the name of Cuchulainn's spear, but the specific thrust he used that couldn't be countered (and if you look at those same myths, Cuchulainn and other heroes did feats that would make figures of wuxia jealous).

Look at boxing. Roundhouse, uppercut, haymaker. Hell, look at wrestling. Full nelson, sleeper hold, piledriver, hammerlock, clotheline. Granted, professional wrestling has exaggerated these to a large degree, but the basic terminology exists in normal wrestling as well.

The fact that these moves have interesting names does not make them Asian. Why, the game already have similar moves. Power attack. Robilar's gambit. Shock trooper. Fade into violence. Rapid blitz. Monkey grip. The names are a bit less exotic, but not really any different.

Malek
2007-06-02, 02:49 AM
Is a "Complete Warrior 2" book really necessary when the roaring warriorly awesomeness of "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords" already exists? :smallconfused:
Have you considered the fact that CW2 can bring more ToB material in addition to other stuff?

Quietus
2007-06-02, 03:44 AM
How about Complete Paradox?

Then we don't have to wonder why, when they've called it "Complete", they keep making more of the blasted things.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-02, 05:13 AM
If the Warlock can make magic like fighters why can't Martial Adepts make fighting like magic.

What is it about the format of martial manoeuvres that makes them spells? Nothing more than convention. The best thing for me about Tomb of Battle is the stances and counters rather than the strikes.

It would be nice to see Wizards support stuff like Incarnum though from Complete Psionic it would appear that Wizards has no idea what to do with Psionics.

Morty
2007-06-02, 05:37 AM
What is it about the format of martial manoeuvres that makes them spells? Nothing more than convention. The best thing for me about Tomb of Battle is the stances and counters rather than the strikes.


Well, it's kinda boring if everyone works on the same '9 levels of something' system. Besides, martial manuevers give fighting too "epic" feel. It suits high-level games, but not low-to-mid levels.

Skyserpent
2007-06-02, 09:37 AM
I notice that this whole thread has a lot of WotC bashing...

I kinda liked Complete Soldier.

Ah well... 4.0? really? I think we need to wait another few years for that one... I mean, I think the d20 system is fine, just a bit of fine tuning with classes and abilities... PHB 3.75 maybe... but that sounds wierd...

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-06-02, 10:02 AM
I notice that this whole thread has a lot of WotC bashing...

I kinda liked Complete Soldier.

Ah well... 4.0? really? I think we need to wait another few years for that one... I mean, I think the d20 system is fine, just a bit of fine tuning with classes and abilities... PHB 3.75 maybe... but that sounds wierd...

The prospect of 4.0 both excites and terrifies me...it would all depend on who made it. That being said, I'm guessing te balance issues would only partly be addressed ( as they were in the jump from 2nd to 3rd)

As for the name, I like "Complete Swordsman" but its way to specific. Complete Martial isn't bad at all.

Godhand
2007-06-02, 06:21 PM
Complete Valiant
Complete Armsmaster

Those are a couple, anyone want to crack open a thesaurus and go nuts?

Runa
2007-06-02, 06:22 PM
hard for pdf's to fade /shrug.

Complete Archer, because there just isn't enough good archer foo out there. They keep making ick for archers. ToB styled archer would be nifty.


YES. I would so want that. I'm playing an archery-centric rogue in my current game and while the build works fine (I'm still having fun and I'm not completely useless in battle, which is big YAY for me, since I can handle not being "the tank" but I don't want to be useless in a fight either), after a point it seems like you pretty much have to take a prestige class (and be an elf or half-elf) to do much with archery in D&D (granted, the Arcane Archer prestige class is nifty as heck, but not only do you have to be also able to cast first-level arcane spells to get it, you can't be anything but elf or half-elf. Luckily, I am an elf in the game I hope to take that class in but still, where's the love for humans or orcs or goblins when it comes to D&D archery? Sheesh!).

It's very strange, come to think of it, to see archery so mostly (granted not completely) ignored in a game set in a variation of medieval times... when the longbow was one of the top weapons in battle, and hunters didn't use guns (read: if they had the skills and the arrows, they used bows. Or at least, that was always my impression, I'll grant you though that being that I was educated in American public schools, they pretty much skipped over most of European history between Classical Rome and Discovering and Settling America and I don't know as everybody was hunting with bows...). In fact, there pretty much aren't guns at all in D&D unless you go d20 Modern or d20 Future with it. So, considering the bow was often the more lethal weapon in battle considering it could kill you from across the battlefeild... yeah. You'd think they'd pay more attention to it.

I mean, I realize it's called "swords and sorcery", not "bows and swords and sorcery", but I always figured that was because "swords and sorcery" was alliterative and, like, catchy. Not because there wasn't any archery in it.

(...am I the only person who's ever wanted to do a "swords and sorcery" story, but set in modern times? Or do you suppose "swords and sorcery" is really just another way of saying High Fantasy, and even if you had a story dominated by both swords and sorcery, if you set it in modern times no one would consider it "swords and sorcery"?)

-Runa

Damionte
2007-06-02, 07:30 PM
Complete Soldier wasn't too bad.

The ones in the thread I like so far.

Complete Armsman
Complete Soldier

Tengu
2007-06-02, 07:38 PM
It will be named "complete cheese", because WotC thinks that all the classes are perfectly balanced ("fighter deals 2d6+3 damage at first level, wizard only 1d4+1!"), and that stuff from CW, PHB2 and ToB actually made melee classes overpowered.
[/deadly dose of irony]

JaronK
2007-06-02, 07:53 PM
But asia is the only culture(s) in which you learn stuff like "Iron heart fist!" which of course is also what you say when you execute the move.

Totally and completely false. The difference between Asia and Europe is simply that Europe moved to gunpowder and forgot its martial arts. There have been booklets found of Renaissance rapier martial arts schools, full of crazy manuevers that are far fancier than anything Kendo does. Armes (Sp?) De Mano is a two stick fighting school from the Philipeans, Capoera is a martial art designed around being able to fight with your hands shackled and is from Brazil, Krav Magra was developed in Israel, German Knife Fighting is a style that's obviously not from China, etc.

Do you really think European swordmasters just ran around screaming and yelling all the time? They practiced, they learned, and they developed nasty techniques.

Anyway, I think Tome of Battle was quite possibly the best book ever put out by WotC, and no, it doesn't force you to just play Asian style martial arts. A Stone Dragon/Iron Fist Warblade is basically everything a Fighter should have been, but wasn't, and has moves like "stab the guy really hard" or "stab the guy right through his damage reduction" or occasionally "stab everyone next to you." A Crusader with White Raven Tactics is a field commander, while a Crusader with Devoted Spirit is basically what a Paladin should have been. Tome of Battle was when WotC finally realized that existing melees were unfixably bad, and replaced them.

That said, I'd bet the next melee book will be "Complete Myrandom."

JaronK

Matthew
2007-06-02, 08:13 PM
It's presentation is fairly Manga/Anime/Kung Fu/Superhero/Xena/Hercules like, though. Or at least, that's my impression from the Art and naming conventions. The mechanics considerably less so, but there you go.

Ramza00
2007-06-02, 08:22 PM
It's presentation is fairly Manga/Anime/Kung Fu/Superhero/Xena/Hercules like, though. Or at least, that's my impression from the Art and naming conventions. The mechanics considerably less so, but there you go.

It is, but flavor is meant to be change. (note though most real "fighters" would be less than lvl 10 after that you are starting to hit the demigod/superhero range with characters such as Hercules and xena for melee)

Matthew
2007-06-02, 08:25 PM
Yes indeed. I quite agree. The choice of default flavour is interesting, though.

Lord Tataraus
2007-06-02, 08:41 PM
It's presentation is fairly Manga/Anime/Kung Fu/Superhero/Xena/Hercules like, though. Or at least, that's my impression from the Art and naming conventions. The mechanics considerably less so, but there you go.

You know, it is very interesting. I never got that impression except with the shadow hand and setting sun maneuvers, but that's what they are supposed to be.

Anyway, I can't wait to see what PrCs they put in the Complete Warrior 2.0, I hope they do some archer stuff and more generic maneuver PrCs.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-06-02, 09:13 PM
I think it'll be rather interesting to see just what the Martial Complete will hold...as for name...

Complete Bravery
Complete Fighter
Complete Melee



......But I despise the fact that people believe a 4.0 will come out. I'll boycott it personally. Especially after spending so much money on 3.5. Unless there is some bizarre method of making it backwards compatible, I won't buy it. And I'll smack any of my friends who do buy it with the very book they bought.

Also for those who don't like ToB for claiming it to be too eastern or anime in feel...why does that make it bad so fast?

Matthew
2007-06-02, 09:33 PM
As far as I am aware, it doesn't make it bad, it just changes the aesthetic for some people, which makes it undesirable for them (if they're unwilling to make the effort to incorporate it).

Personally, there are tons of things I find aesthetically displeasing in D&D, so I just remove or alter them, no harm done. However, if that is the case for the majority of the supplement, then I probably won't buy it. Tome of Battle, for instance, doesn't fix any practical issues I have with D&D (mainly because I don't play many high level games), so, having had a look through it, I never felt inclined to buy it.

D&D 4.x will happen. There's no avoiding it, really. People who continue to play 3.x after that release will probably be in the minority. The Open Gaming License might make a difference, but probably not. How many people are still playing 3.0? It's just the way it is.

Skyserpent
2007-06-02, 11:06 PM
I know people still playing AD&D and First Edition...

Of course you're right about the minority part, but 3.5 is the first one to get this kind of rooting in the world, what with the internet and all that. I mean, if they retcon NOW it's going to be insane, we have internets now...

Say... how long was 3.0 out before they updated it?

LoopyZebra
2007-06-02, 11:55 PM
I know people still playing AD&D and First Edition...

Yes, but they're significantly different. I'm sure 4.0 will be significantly different, but I feel it will most likely it will be a balancing act, not a complete overhaul of the system as there was between 2.0 and 3.0. There will probably be entirely new mechanics for this balancing, but I have a feeling that it will mostly remain the same. 4.0 will be a mechanical derivative of 3.x, but 3.x was in many ways a successor of ADnD of everything but the mechanics.

And, maybe it's just me, but ADnD always seemed to have a different flavor. It was like the system itself was trying to kill you.

And as for Tome of Battle, I never bought it personally because at outside appearances it seemed to have a very East Asian flavor that I just didn't like. That, and a lack of money. A large percentage of people of people (including myself) play a class based on fluff, not mechanics, so an improvement in mechanics but an alteration from the fluff I like isn't going to make me play that class.

Now, to address the OP:

Complete Mage, Complete Scoundrel, and Complete Champion were both nouns, referencing a title one would give to a paragon character of the book. Therefore, Complete Warrior 2 will most likely be a title, not something abstract such as "Complete Strength." They all also attempted to evoke that the material therein (both fluff and crunch) could be applied to all classes, not just specific groups.

That said, Complete Soldier seems too specific, but the most likely one so far. Bringing a "Soldier" flavor to all characters seems odd, but it's the best title yet.

Beleriphon
2007-06-03, 01:42 AM
That said, Complete Soldier seems too specific, but the most likely one so far. Bringing a "Soldier" flavor to all characters seems odd, but it's the best title yet.

I personally think Complete Mercenary is a good choice as well. While that evokes a fairly specific image any character could be a mercenary, and its certainly more likely to evoke a mental image of a weapon wielding group of warriors than a lone mage.

Skyserpent
2007-06-03, 02:17 AM
Eh... Mercenary can apply to anyone who does violent things for hire, a mage can be a merc. Mercenary is even more vague than soldier. I mean, A mage can be a soldier too, but Soldier is definitively combatant whereas mercenary is Hero for Hire...

The_Snark
2007-06-03, 02:26 AM
Eh... Mercenary can apply to anyone who does violent things for hire, a mage can be a merc. Mercenary is even more vague than soldier. I mean, A mage can be a soldier too, but Soldier is definitively combatant whereas mercenary is Hero for Hire...

True, but Complete Scoundrel wasn't limited to rogues and swashbucklers. It had stuff to help wizards, fighters, and even paladins to be more scoundrelly. Scoundrel tends to conjure up an image of a con man-sort, but it's not limited to that. Similarly, when I hear the word mercenary I envision a heavily armed guy, not a mage-for-hire. I rather like the name Complete Mercenary.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 02:34 AM
I'm sure I remember Wizards talking about Complete Conqueror.

Captain van der Decken
2007-06-03, 02:46 AM
whereas mercenary is Hero for Hire...

Most mercs are less than heroic. :smalltongue:


Complete Conqueror sounds about right.

Demented
2007-06-03, 02:49 AM
I absolutely loved "Complete Badass". Give that man a medal.

The sheer irony of it being for melee classes....

Morty
2007-06-03, 05:10 AM
Anyway, I think Tome of Battle was quite possibly the best book ever put out by WotC, and no, it doesn't force you to just play Asian style martial arts.

But it does force you to play quasi-mystical swordman using complicated techniques. And some people(me) don't like this.


A Stone Dragon/Iron Fist Warblade is basically everything a Fighter should have been, but wasn't, and has moves like "stab the guy really hard" or "stab the guy right through his damage reduction" or occasionally "stab everyone next to you." A Crusader with White Raven Tactics is a field commander, while a Crusader with Devoted Spirit is basically what a Paladin should have been.

Great. Now, what about barbarian and ranger? Or any archer character?


Tome of Battle was when WotC finally realized that existing melees were unfixably bad, and replaced them.


Seriously, this whole "Non-ToB meleers suck" thing is developing into religion here.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 05:15 AM
But it does force you to play quasi-mystical swordman using complicated techniques. And some people(me) don't like this.

Maybe Stone Dragon would be your thing? You hit things, really really hard. You're also really, really tough. No complicated techniques here, you want Iron Heart and Diamond Mind for that.

Morty
2007-06-03, 05:17 AM
Maybe Stone Dragon would be your thing? You hit things, really really hard. You're also really, really tough. No complicated techniques here, you want Iron Heart and Diamond Mind for that.

Well, maybe. But my main point was, you're using specific techniques you have to 'recharge' later, which causes problems if I want to just play common swordsman.

Captain van der Decken
2007-06-03, 05:21 AM
Great. Now, what about barbarian and ranger?


Barbarians have Tiger Claw and Iron Heart or Stone dragon, I guess. Not sure about ranger.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-03, 05:23 AM
Great. Now, what about barbarian and ranger? Or any archer character?

Wait for Tome of the Wild or some such.


Seriously, this whole "Non-ToB meleers suck" thing is developing into religion here.
It's not a religion if its true and provable.

Morty
2007-06-03, 05:26 AM
Barbarians have Tiger Claw and Iron Heart or Stone dragon, I guess. Not sure about ranger.

Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw don't really catch the feel of the barbarian, at least not fully. I have no idea about rangers, too.


Wait for Tome of the Wild or some such.

I'm waiting, and I'm afraid.


It's not a religion if its true and provable.

Really? From my experience, meleers may suck only on high levels, and not everyone play on such. On low-to-mid levels, they work fine, even if not as OMGawesome as wizards and clerics.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 05:27 AM
Well, maybe. But my main point was, you're using specific techniques you have to 'recharge' later, which causes problems if I want to just play common swordsman.

Warrior. Or maybe a different system.
D&D doesn't lend itself to 'common swordsman' above about 6th level at most; the fantasy isn't just high, it's atmospheric.

Edit: Ban windwall and use the Spell Compendium and Rangers are fine as they are.

Morty
2007-06-03, 05:33 AM
Warrior. Or maybe a different system.
D&D doesn't lend itself to 'common swordsman' above about 6th level at most; the fantasy isn't just high, it's atmospheric.


But ToB characters use psudo-mystical techniques from 1st level. And it's not about what character does, but how. Fighter doing awesome fighting feats on high level is fine, but not as presented in ToB.
Don't get me wrong, ToB looks great even though I'll never use it. But it's really not how every melee character should look like.

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 05:42 AM
I'm so glad noone took the name I was thinking of..

Complete Waste of Time :smallamused:
or Complete Liability

On the subject of ToB worship, it isn't so much that Tome of Battle is all that and a bag of chips, and nor is it "Fighters suck!", so much as it is Wizard, Cleric, and Druid rock some socks. Admittedly, WotC seems to have employed people like my cousin who insist that "Fighters are more powerful than spell casters", and they honestly believe that to be true. That's why Half-Orcs have a net penalty of -2 to their stats, and yet, are considered balanced. Because WotC prizes melee too heavily, and while at low levels it's fine, the big 3 are sitting there waiting patiently, since their power grows exponentially. Tome of Battle pushes melee characters (Not fighters, barbarians, or paladins, but melee characters) up closer to the big 3. It's not a completely balanced act, but it's a much smaller gap than between a fighter and a wizard.

Now, seriously on point of the topic. I like Complete Defender... but I was always big on the whole, "True power is the power to protect those important to you" message from Wild Arms.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 05:43 AM
But ToB characters use psudo-mystical techniques from 1st level.

It's entirely possible for a low level Warblade to do nothing more 'pseudo-mystical' than a Fighter of equal level.


And it's not about what character does, but how. Fighter doing awesome fighting feats on high level is fine, but not as presented in ToB.

Why is it okay for a Fighter but not for a Warblade?

Morty
2007-06-03, 05:47 AM
It's entirely possible for a low level Warblade to do nothing more 'pseudo-mystical' than a Fighter of equal level.

Again, it's now what they do, but how they do it. I don't like the idea of every warrior using ceratin, rechargable techniques. Call me traditionalist if you wish, but I don't like it.


Why is it okay for a Fighter but not for a Warblade?

Well, because Fighter is Fighter, and Warblade is Warblade? Fighter is skilled warrior, and Warblade is, as I understand it, someone dedicated to battle, in a bit mystical way.

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 05:50 AM
Don't take this negatively, M0rt.. but do you like Low Magic games? You seem like the type who wants to play a very mundane fighter.

Orzel
2007-06-03, 05:51 AM
Complete Shooter

'cause melee is for chumps.

Archery and axe tossing is where it's at.

Captain van der Decken
2007-06-03, 05:53 AM
Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw don't really catch the feel of the barbarian, at least not fully. I have no idea about rangers, too..


Say what? Tiger Claw is all about animalistic rage.

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 05:55 AM
Say what? Tiger Claw is all about animalistic rage.

A friend of mine wants to take Tiger claw, focus on the jumping attacks, and make a dragoon with it... which doesn't seem too Ragey to me, but a good deal of Tiger claw can be "Grr!! Warblade smash!"

Orzel
2007-06-03, 05:58 AM
A friend of mine wants to take Tiger claw, focus on the jumping attacks, and make a dragoon with it... which doesn't seem too Ragey to me, but a good deal of Tiger claw can be "Grr!! Warblade smash!"

Everyone friend wants to make a dragoon with Tiger Claw.

And it's "Rawr!! Warblade smash! Rawr!!"

Morty
2007-06-03, 06:02 AM
Don't take this negatively, M0rt.. but do you like Low Magic games? You seem like the type who wants to play a very mundane fighter.

I do. It's not really supported by D&D, but I'm doing what I can when currently playing D&D. Though honestly, I usually play wizard anyway.


Say what? Tiger Claw is all about animalistic rage.

Yeah, but barbarian isn't all about rage. It's about being mobile, light-armored comatant focusing on brute force. Something that Warblade using Tiger Claw doesn't catch in 100%.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 06:16 AM
Well, because Fighter is Fighter, and Warblade is Warblade? Fighter is skilled warrior, and Warblade is, as I understand it, someone dedicated to battle, in a bit mystical way.

Warblades really like to fight, and they're good at it. That's the entirety of the class's flavour.


Yeah, but barbarian isn't all about rage. It's about being mobile, light-armored comatant focusing on brute force. Something that Warblade using Tiger Claw doesn't catch in 100%.

Mobile: Lots of movement based abilities. Check.
Light armoured: No heavy armour proficiency, and medium lowers speed, which is bad for the jumping abilities. Check.

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 06:19 AM
Warblades really like to fight, and they're good at it. That's the entirety of the class's flavour.



Mobile: Lots of movement based abilities. Check.
Light armoured: No heavy armour proficiency, and medium lowers speed, which is bad for the jumping abilities. Check.

Although... you can't reproduce illiteracy with a warblade, can you? not that illiteracy is useful, or necessary for barbarians.

Morty
2007-06-03, 06:21 AM
Warblades really like to fight, and they're good at it. That's the entirety of the class's flavour.

But the flavor of manuevers is that they're rechargable, specific moves depending on some ki energy, and that part of the flavor is tied to mechanic. That I don't like.


Mobile: Lots of movement based abilities. Check.
Light armoured: No heavy armour proficiency, and medium lowers speed, which is bad for the jumping abilities. Check.

Alright then, maybe warblade can mimic barbarian if he wants to. But still, barbarian should be different class from fighter.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 06:25 AM
Although... you can't reproduce illiteracy with a warblade, can you? not that illiteracy is useful, or necessary for barbarians.

Unearthed Arcana has an Illiterate trait.


But the flavor of manuevers is that they're rechargable, specific moves depending on some ki energy, and that part of the flavor is tied to mechanic. That I don't like.

The mechanics of maneuvers are that they're rechargable, specific moves. That's seperate from flavour. Ki isn't mentioned in the Warblade description at all.


Alright then, maybe warblade can mimic barbarian if he wants to. But still, barbarian should be different class from fighter.

Why?

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 06:27 AM
But the flavor of manuevers is that they're rechargable, specific moves depending on some ki energy, and that part of the flavor is tied to mechanic. That I don't like.

So.. rechargable is your beef? I think "I use X maneuver. I use Y maneuver. I use Z maneuver." is better than "I spam power attack until combat is over." But that's just me. Besides, aren't there other abilities that work only once/encounter? (I coulda swore you can only feint once per encounter)

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 06:33 AM
(I coulda swore you can only feint once per encounter)

No, you can feint as many times as you have actions for. There are a bunch of feats like that, though. The only one that springs to mind at the moment is Flick of the Wrist, but I know there's others.

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 06:35 AM
Y'know what Dhavaer? I think that's what I was thinking of, I knew it was something rouge-ish that lets you use sneak attack. BTW, I really like your avatar... not that that has anything to do with anything.

Spiryt
2007-06-03, 06:35 AM
Alright then, maybe warblade can mimic barbarian if he wants to. But still, barbarian should be different class from fighter.

Why?

Beacuse Sorcerer is (slighty) different from Wizard and they both are different from Warlock ?
Seriously, D&D is high magic, but this fact doesn't mean that only magic users should have interesting, varied classes.:smallannoyed:

Starsinger
2007-06-03, 06:39 AM
Beacuse Sorcerer is different from Wizard and they both are different from Warlock?
Seriously, D&D is high magic, but this fact doesn't mean that only magic users should have interesting, varied classes.:smallannoyed:

But I don't think that's what Dhavaer was intending. I think (s)he was saying that you can make a barbarian with Warblade, just as easily as you could make a fighter. Sort of like how, until recently, Enchanter wasn't in any way a separate class from Wizard. It was a subset. Likewise, if you want to play a Pyromancer, yes, you can roll up a base class for it, or you could grab a wizard or druid and take fire spells. Or you can ask the DM if you can have a modified spell list. Both of which are less work than making a base class with 20 levels.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 06:50 AM
Beacuse Sorcerer is different from Wizard and they both are different from Warlock?
Seriously, D&D is high magic, but this fact doesn't mean that only magic users should have interesting, varied classes.:smallannoyed:

Sorcerer and Wizard are primarily different in mechanics; Cha-based spontaneous casting vs. Int-based prepared. Barbarian and Fighter, on the other hand, are different primarily in flavour; savage, instinctual warrior vs. trained combatant.

Classes being mechanical, a class can more effectively encompass multiple flavour concepts than multiple mechanics.


BTW, I really like your avatar... not that that has anything to do with anything.

Thanks. I really like my avatar too. :smallwink:

Spiryt
2007-06-03, 06:59 AM
Sorcerer and Wizard are primarily different in mechanics; Cha-based spontaneous casting vs. Int-based prepared. Barbarian and Fighter, on the other hand, are different primarily in flavour; savage, instinctual warrior vs. trained combatant.


Wizards and Sorcerers are different in flavour as well: fragile, intelligent guy who achieved arcane skills by long, difficult studies vs somebody who is manipulating primal forces with his willpower. Still they make almost the same things.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 07:04 AM
Wizards and Sorcerers are different in flavour as well: fragile, intelligent guy who achieved arcane skills by long, difficult studies vs somebody who is manipulating primal forces with his willpower. Still they make almost the same things.

That's not flavour, though, that's mechanics expressed as flavour.
Fragile: 1d4 hit die
Intelligent: Int-based casting.
Arcane skills: Caster
Long, difficult studies: high starting age, casts from a book or similar.

If you drop 'willpower' in favour of 'expertise' in your Sorcerer descriptor (and possibly even if you don't) you could use it just as well to describe a wizard.

Morty
2007-06-03, 07:08 AM
The mechanics of maneuvers are that they're rechargable, specific moves. That's seperate from flavour. Ki isn't mentioned in the Warblade description at all.

Ki or not, I don't like rechargable manuevers. They just don't fit my view of how warriors are supposed to work, and they're too similiar to spells.


Why?

Because one of them is skilled warrior and tactician, and the other relies on his brutal force, mobility and savagery. That's not just flavor.


So.. rechargable is your beef? I think "I use X maneuver. I use Y maneuver. I use Z maneuver." is better than "I spam power attack until combat is over." But that's just me. Besides, aren't there other abilities that work only once/encounter? (I coulda swore you can only feint once per encounter)

Well, core meleers can get quite boring, yes. But there are better ways to solve this than ToB manuevers.
Sorcerer vs. wizard is entirely another thing. Those classes are almost identical mechanically, while different flavor-wise.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 07:12 AM
Ki or not, I don't like rechargable manuevers. They just don't fit my view of how warriors are supposed to work, and they're too similiar to spells.

Fair enough.


Because one of them is skilled warrior and tactician, and the other relies on his brutal force, mobility and savagery. That's not just flavor.

I'd like you to show me an example of how a Fighter is mechanically a better tactician than a Barbarian, in a way a Warblade can't replicate.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-03, 07:14 AM
It's presentation is fairly Manga/Anime/Kung Fu/Superhero/Xena/Hercules like, though. Or at least, that's my impression from the Art and naming conventions. The mechanics considerably less so, but there you go.

Xena and Hercules are European and very few Anime are Samurai dramas. They're always there and the stuff that doesn't have Samurai is influanced by them, but most anime have nothing to do with the cliche you're thinking of.

If you're in a setting full of wizards then what's wrong with being a superhero when everyone else is? A normal fighter with 23 strength is no less like Heracles than a warblade is.

In fact Tome of Battle is better if you want to just be a swordsman. In normal DnD you either have to be a strength based power attacker or go down some really complicated route. With Tomb of Battle any character can deal damage. Full attack actions are a really stale way of doing combat anyway.

The once per battle rechargable abilities still don't make sense however but the whole point is to add reliability.

What I want to see is more stuff for Incarnum, Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic as well as Psionics in general books. Not that I particularly like Incarnum or Tome of Magic.


Because one of them is skilled warrior and tactician, and the other relies on his brutal force, mobility and savagery. That's not just flavor.

The Barbarian is more of a tactition than the fighter since he has more skill points and mobility. The fighter has feats to give him options but all his fighter only feats are about spamming the same deal with his favoured weapon.

Spiryt
2007-06-03, 07:14 AM
If you drop 'willpower' in favour of 'expertise' in your Sorcerer descriptor (and possibly even if you don't) you could use it just as well to describe a wizard.

OK, so why two classes exist, if they as you say can be even desribed the same way?

Anyway, this disscusion is pointless.
The problem is that base melee classes are, in fact worst in thing they should be best at (fighting!). And players must buy ToB and play some other classes to be zt least quite effective melees.

Captain van der Decken
2007-06-03, 07:16 AM
I'd like you to show me an example of how a Fighter is mechanically a better tactician than a Barbarian, in a way a Warblade can't replicate.

Because of all the bonus feats they put into things like improved trip and improved disarm?

Spiryt
2007-06-03, 07:19 AM
Because of all the bonus feats they put into things like improved trip and improved disarm?

And ability, to use after all, any shield, armor or martial weapon?

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 07:21 AM
OK, so why two classes exist, if they as you say can be even desribed the same way?

They have different mechanics. That's what classes are, mechanics.


Because of all the bonus feats they put into things like improved trip and improved disarm?

That's skill at combat, not tactics.

Morty
2007-06-03, 07:24 AM
I'd like you to show me an example of how a Fighter is mechanically a better tactician than a Barbarian, in a way a Warblade can't replicate.

Well, fighter have got tons of bonus feats, so he's perfect for trip/combat reflexes combos.
Also, by 'tactician' I mean, that fighet pays attention to whole battle, plans his moves, and so on. Barbarian just attack his enemy and tries to smash him as hard as possible. Granted, it's hard to describe mechanically, but the difference between battlefield-controling fighter and raging, charging barbarian fits quite good.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 07:33 AM
Also, by 'tactician' I mean, that fighet pays attention to whole battle, plans his moves, and so on. Barbarian just attack his enemy and tries to smash him as hard as possible. Granted, it's hard to describe mechanically, but the difference between battlefield-controling fighter and raging, charging barbarian fits quite good.

That's roleplaying, not mechanics.
So why does barbarian have to be a different class from fighter?

Morty
2007-06-03, 07:49 AM
That's roleplaying, not mechanics.
So why does barbarian have to be a different class from fighter?

Because their concept of fight is different. Fighter relies on tactic, and barbarian on brute force, speed or toughness. It's not exactly how it works in practice, but it's how I think it should be. So if I was to replace core meleers with other classes, I'd make fighter and barbarian different classes.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-06-03, 08:02 AM
Because their concept of fight is different. Fighter relies on tactic, and barbarian on brute force, speed or toughness. It's not exactly how it works in practice, but it's how I think it should be. So if I was to replace core meleers with other classes, I'd make fighter and barbarian different classes.

Except the Barbarian has to rely on tactics like Shock Trooper in order to deal sufficient damage. There's nothing about the fighter class that relies on anything. The fighter class is a blank slate to do what you want. You can be a Half-orc fighter with int 7 and it won't matter because you have the feats to take tons of brute force feats.

The Warblade does tactics better than the fighter because he has a more options and is more pidgeon holed into being smart.

Morty
2007-06-03, 08:08 AM
Except the Barbarian has to rely on tactics like Shock Trooper in order to deal sufficient damage. There's nothing about the fighter class that relies on anything. The fighter class is a blank slate to do what you want. You can be a Half-orc fighter with int 7 and it won't matter because you have the feats to take tons of brute force feats.

The Warblade does tactics better than the fighter because he has a more options and is more pidgeon holed into being smart.

I haven't said that fighter actually works well as tactician. But he should. He should be versatile and flexible, as opposed to barbarian's sheer force. He isn't, but he's supposed to be.

Matthew
2007-06-03, 09:04 AM
Xena and Hercules are European
So what? Ever watched those shows. They learn their 'fighting styles' from all over the place. Xena and Iolous in particular claim to have learned techniques from the east, but that's hardly the point. I didn't invoke them as examples of eastern fighting styles, I invoked them alongside Anime and Manga and the Superhero genre as analogous to the style of Tome of Battle. I'm not saying these things are bad, I'm just saying Tome of Battle resembles them.


and very few Anime are Samurai dramas.

It's not the period, it's the style. Exaggerated violence and other such hallmarks, a common style that is not restricted to Anime or Manga. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying Tome of Battle's presentation resembles it.


They're always there and the stuff that doesn't have Samurai is influanced by them, but most anime have nothing to do with the cliche you're thinking of.

Again, so what? The cliche I am thinking of is what I am talking about. Of course not all Anime is the same nor all Manga. I enjoy Manga and I enjoy Anime. The art of Tome of Battle is a mixed bag, but there's no denying there is a stronger Anime influence than in previous releases. Again, I am not talking about mechanics, but sylistic presentation.


If you're in a setting full of wizards then what's wrong with being a superhero when everyone else is? A normal fighter with 23 strength is no less like Heracles than a warblade is.

I did not say there was anything wrong with it. I said there are people who do not find the presentation to their aesthetic tastes.


In fact Tome of Battle is better if you want to just be a swordsman. In normal DnD you either have to be a strength based power attacker or go down some really complicated route. With Tomb of Battle any character can deal damage. Full attack actions are a really stale way of doing combat anyway.

You can do whatever you like in D&D. Tome of Battle is more powerful for Non Spell Casters at high levels, but so what? I am not talking about mechanics.


The once per battle rechargable abilities still don't make sense however but the whole point is to add reliability.

Well, it makes as much sense as about anything else in D&D.

To be clear. I have no problem with Tome of Battle, but it doesn't do anything for me. Just like the Knight Base Class doesn't appeal to me mechanically or fluffwise, neither does Tome of Battle. It's really no big deal.

FirstAdam
2007-06-03, 09:36 AM
Although... you can't reproduce illiteracy with a warblade, can you? not that illiteracy is useful, or necessary for barbarians.

But it can be Oh so much fun...Also an excuse to get out of keeping notes. I got to keep notes as a bunch of stick figures.

Dhavaer
2007-06-03, 04:30 PM
Because their concept of fight is different. Fighter relies on tactic, and barbarian on brute force, speed or toughness. It's not exactly how it works in practice, but it's how I think it should be. So if I was to replace core meleers with other classes, I'd make fighter and barbarian different classes.

A class can provide for multiple concepts. A Warblade with Iron Heart and White Raven Tactics would appear to represent your concept of a fighter very well. A Warblade with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw would appear to represent your concept of a barbarian very well. In light of this, why is it necessary to have the two be seperate classes?

Wehrkind
2007-06-03, 05:38 PM
I fully agree with "He Whose Name I Always Misspell."

Now, if they were to create piles of feats for combat manuevers that had no fluff attached to mix up the fighter's (and other melee combatants') styles, that would be cool too. Honestly though, real fighters don't just do "swing swing swing" over and over. They compile a stack of "tricks" and combinations as they go, essentially creating their own style. This style will be more strict if they studied under specific masters, and less so if they pick up as they go. D&D does a piss poor job of representing this, at great loss of interest.

Skyserpent
2007-06-03, 07:59 PM
Because their concept of fight is different. Fighter relies on tactic, and barbarian on brute force, speed or toughness. It's not exactly how it works in practice, but it's how I think it should be. So if I was to replace core meleers with other classes, I'd make fighter and barbarian different classes.


A Conjuror relies on summoning creatures to fight for him. A Diviner relies on seeing the future, an Evoker relies on Shooting things with explodey things, an Enchanter relies on other people, an Illusionist relies on fooling those people, a Necromancer relies on raising things from the dead, an Abjuror relies on making barriers, and a Transmuter relies on turning things into other things.

Clearly this means we need EIGHT MORE CLASSES to represent each of these characters because their concept of MAGIC is different!

Yechezkiel
2007-06-03, 08:02 PM
How far away is the rumored 4.0?:smallamused:

Skyserpent
2007-06-03, 08:04 PM
How far away is the rumored 4.0?:smallamused:

exactly as far away as the amount of money we're still spending on 3.5

EvilElitest
2007-06-03, 08:08 PM
Before I sold them all on ebay a long time ago, I owned all of the 2nd ed books. They had specific source books for each base class. In 3.5 they have so many base classes that its really not practical. But they've otherwise run out of ideas. So my guess is that they're going to continue to churn out ever more class specific material, or they'll pretty much have to re-boot and come out with 4.0 some time next year.

I actually think that the 3.5 rules are ripe for a revision. Some basic mechanics are insanely confusing, most notably mounted combat, grapple, sneak attack, the stacking rules, Polymorph, natural attacks, and non-standard races (LA, templates, special powers, etc). Furthermore, they're recently hit a pretty good stride with the PHBII and Tome of Battle classes, which have pretty much become the standard for what solid, well balanced classes should look like. But there are still a bunch of horribly underpowered (Monk, Samurai, Healer) and overpowered (Druid, Archivist, Artificer) classes that need to be rebalanced. The same goes for feats and spells.

So my suggestion to everyone is to stop buying WotC books unless you hear from reviews that its a very good product. That way, 3.5 will become unprofitable, and 4.0 will be put out shortly thereafter.

Then you would have to sell all your 3.5 stuff
from,
EE

EvilElitest
2007-06-03, 08:55 PM
That's roleplaying, not mechanics.
So why does barbarian have to be a different class from fighter?

Because in a game where you have classes with names and different fluff (Instead of four generic classes like tank, spell dude, sneaky man, healer kit, and blast man who are very generic and easlity customized) you have to except the concept of differing trianing and classes. If you want to have a guy who is trained in the ways of various weapons, i'd choose a figher (his being underpowered or not is a seperate issue), i want a guy who can use rage and is far more beseraker type i choose barbarion, i want a unarmed figher i choose monk, if i want a skimisher i choose scout, a swordsmen who has instead come into harmany with his himself via mental disipline in a Ruroini Kenshin type sytle i choose warblade, i want the semi magic sworsmen i choose sword sage, i want the skill monky i choose rouge, defeater of evil i choose paladin, the forest guy who can have favored enemies i choose ranger, and the archer i choose....absolutly nothing
from,
EE

Edit: Damn, double post


A Conjuror relies on summoning creatures to fight for him. A Diviner relies on seeing the future, an Evoker relies on Shooting things with explodey things, an Enchanter relies on other people, an Illusionist relies on fooling those people, a Necromancer relies on raising things from the dead, an Abjuror relies on making barriers, and a Transmuter relies on turning things into other things.

Clearly this means we need EIGHT MORE CLASSES to represent each of these characters because their concept of MAGIC is different!
They are almost eight different classes as it is, i would want them to be their own classes my self and have wizard be more of an inbetween. However, as it is, the point remains that a fighter is the most of the guy who knows who to use weapons via pratical understanding while the ToB people use semi magical spritrual understanding to work their combat

Morty
2007-06-04, 07:42 AM
A class can provide for multiple concepts. A Warblade with Iron Heart and White Raven Tactics would appear to represent your concept of a fighter very well. A Warblade with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw would appear to represent your concept of a barbarian very well. In light of this, why is it necessary to have the two be seperate classes?

If you are willing to replace core meleers with ToBers, then yes, Warblade can mimic fighter and barbarian. But I prefer core meleers, where fighter relies on feats -or some class features from numerous fixes- and barbarian uses rage. Yeah, I'm traditionalist.


A Conjuror relies on summoning creatures to fight for him. A Diviner relies on seeing the future, an Evoker relies on Shooting things with explodey things, an Enchanter relies on other people, an Illusionist relies on fooling those people, a Necromancer relies on raising things from the dead, an Abjuror relies on making barriers, and a Transmuter relies on turning things into other things.

Clearly this means we need EIGHT MORE CLASSES to represent each of these characters because their concept of MAGIC is different!

Nnnope. They use the same magic, they just favor different spells. Not to mention no specialist wizard uses only spells from his favored school.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-06-04, 07:53 AM
...With Tomb of Battle any character can deal damage...

Anyone found disobeying the rules will be burried in the Tomb of Battle! Where eternal combat and restless paranoia reign!!!!
(sorry, couldn't resist)...


Back on the original topic, how about: Complete good until 5th level? Or, on a more serious note: Complete Combatant, Complete Scrapper, Complete Battler?

Skyserpent
2007-06-05, 12:53 PM
If you are willing to replace core meleers with ToBers, then yes, Warblade can mimic fighter and barbarian. But I prefer core meleers, where fighter relies on feats -or some class features from numerous fixes- and barbarian uses rage. Yeah, I'm traditionalist.

Nnnope. They use the same magic, they just favor different spells. Not to mention no specialist wizard uses only spells from his favored school.

You are fully aware that we're okay with YOU using your different classes. We just don't feel that the Warblade can't fill either role with near equal faculty with no loss of flavor.

I can see what you're getting at, but why can't we all just agree on something? Oh right, it's a forum...

Anyhoo, the Specialist Wizard Rant was entirely aimed at the comment that the Warblade should be two different classes based solely on fighting style. But just as Specialist Wizards share spells, Fighters and Barbarians share abilities. They both use Simple to Martial Weapons, they both can use feats like Power Attack... you get the idea. They use the same Steel, they just favor different tactics. I can't see why a Warblade can't be a medium for various combat character concepts just as a Wizard is a medium for various Magic character concepts

Morty
2007-06-05, 01:40 PM
You are fully aware that we're okay with YOU using your different classes. We just don't feel that the Warblade can't fill either role with near equal faculty with no loss of flavor.

I can see what you're getting at, but why can't we all just agree on something? Oh right, it's a forum...

Sure thing. Warblade can replace both fighter and barbarian, it's just that I prefer not to.


Anyhoo, the Specialist Wizard Rant was entirely aimed at the comment that the Warblade should be two different classes based solely on fighting style. But just as Specialist Wizards share spells, Fighters and Barbarians share abilities. They both use Simple to Martial Weapons, they both can use feats like Power Attack... you get the idea. They use the same Steel, they just favor different tactics. I can't see why a Warblade can't be a medium for various combat character concepts just as a Wizard is a medium for various Magic character concepts

Well, if you use Warblade, then yes, you don't have to use two different classes, after all you can make up savage background. In any other case, it depends on class design. But specialist wizard still isn't very good example. Specialist evoker isn't really that much different from specialist illusionis, they just use more ceratin spells than others.

EvilElitest
2007-06-05, 02:37 PM
Logically Warblade and Figher should be two seperate classes, a fighter is somebody who uses weapons in the good old fashion way, while a war blade is somebody who usess a mix of meditation and inner spirt to come to terms with his powers
from,
EE

I_Got_This_Name
2007-06-05, 10:00 PM
Logically Warblade and Figher should be two seperate classes, a fighter is somebody who uses weapons in the good old fashion way, while a war blade is somebody who usess a mix of meditation and inner spirt to come to terms with his powers
from,
EE

Warblades don't mention running on spiritual/meditative in any spot I remember in their class description, or in most of their maneuvers.

They get the Diamond Mind (disciplined combat based on outthinking your enemy), Iron Heart (weapon mastery/being a badass), Stone Dragon (hitting things hard), Tiger Claw (fighting recklessly by jumping with two weapons), and White Raven (coordinating with teammates) disciplines.

The Swordsage, on the other hand, shares Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw with the Warblade, and tacks on Desert Wind (lots and lots of fire; supernatural abilities, for the most part), Setting Sun (turning your enemy's strength against them), and Shadow Hand (ninja tricks; lots of supernatural stuff in here, too). The first and last of those are based on spiritual power. The more mundane disciplines are not.

Nothing available to the Warblade outside of the Martial Study feat (available to fighters too) is supernatural, or based on spiritual discipline. They're just very, very, very good at fighting. The "meditating" flavor is given for the Swordsage; the Warblade's maneuvers come from sheer weapon skill.

Also, they can recover their maneuvers by spending a swift action and not using any for a round (but they have to make a melee attack; they can use a standard action to attack nothing, if there aren't any targets). This refreshes them all. They burn through their entire allotment, and, if the fight is still on, they spend a round making normal attacks and are back in action throwing maneuvers.

Granted, they can't simply repeat the same maneuver over and over, but that's boring anyway; the mechanics force you to fight tactically because you have to conserve resources and not just use your best attack all the time. You have to arrange things so that you can recover your resources (at the mid levels, a good strike should do about as much damage as a full attack with a standard action; you lose very little, since you miss out on boosts and can't do this after using a counter, then, from recovering your maneuvers when you can set up a full attack), which adds another layer to the tactics here.

An aggressive fighter or barbarian can do the Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper rush all day (even every round, if the enemies are separated right; otherwise, he just falls back into the "stand in front and pound" routine), and a control fighter can just move out to the middle of the battleground with his spiked chain and trip anything that gets close, but he does the same thing round after round. A warblade, at the very least, using his strikes has to mix things up as to which one.

Also, at the high end, the fighter or barbarian is going to end up playing a merry game of Chase-the-monster instead of attacking at all (see Balor with greater teleport at will) or at the very least making full attacks. The Warblade, though, can match his full attack damage output (sans boosts) with a standard strike, so he can chase the monster in lieu of making full attacks and still do full damage.

Morty
2007-06-06, 06:46 AM
An aggressive fighter or barbarian can do the Power Attack/Leap Attack/Shock Trooper rush all day (even every round, if the enemies are separated right; otherwise, he just falls back into the "stand in front and pound" routine), and a control fighter can just move out to the middle of the battleground with his spiked chain and trip anything that gets close, but he does the same thing round after round. A warblade, at the very least, using his strikes has to mix things up as to which one.

Also, at the high end, the fighter or barbarian is going to end up playing a merry game of Chase-the-monster instead of attacking at all (see Balor with greater teleport at will) or at the very least making full attacks. The Warblade, though, can match his full attack damage output (sans boosts) with a standard strike, so he can chase the monster in lieu of making full attacks and still do full damage.

I was under the impression we're dicsussing logical and roleplaying aspects of replacing fighters and barbarians with warblades, not their power level or tactical options. Warblades on higher levels are more powerful, but I doubt anyone would think otherwise.