Tome of Battle in a PF game?

[Ralcos]

As the name of this post asks, I'm wondering if one could use the Tome of Battle in Pathfinder (with the obvious skill and maneuver changes).

Is it possible to play the classes within a normal Pathfinder game?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Dreamscarred Press has you covered. Like Psionics, they also ported maneuvers in their Path of War book. I'd recommend checking it out, it's pretty fun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Dreamscarred Press has you covered. Like Psionics, they also ported maneuvers in their Path of War book. I'd recommend checking it out, it's pretty fun.
But also yes, once you deal with the skill and CMB/CMD houserules Pathfinder and 3.5 are 100% compatible.

[Ralcos]

But also yes, once you deal with the skill and CMB/CMD houserules Pathfinder and 3.5 are 100% compatible.

Any specific maneuvers I should look out for when doing this conversion? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Togath]

Dreamscarred Press has you covered. Like Psionics, they also ported maneuvers in their Path of War book. I'd recommend checking it out, it's pretty fun.

Fun, but has some balance issues.
If you're willing to go through and monitor/edit stuff, it might work though.

[charcoalninja]

I've found PoW to be pretty en par with baseline PF expectations and balance. Any specific offenders you've noticed?

[Florian]

I've found PoW to be pretty en par with baseline PF expectations and balance. Any specific offenders you've noticed?

"Offenders" are actually not a thing here. Baseline "PF mundanes" can be very efficient at what they do, a bit boring at that, though.
Bo9S/PoW mainly gives the illusion of choice, mixing in a few spell/item powers and that can be a thing here. They have higher ceiling when they´re used "full" and lower bottom when run "empty" and that can lead to frustrating results.

[Denomar]

To answer, yes you can. You just need to decide how you want to handle concentration checks and diamond mind discipline. If you use the standard pathfinder concentration rules then the maneuvers are significantly nerfed. Up to you to decide if that's appropriate or not.

[Anlashok]

"Offenders" are actually not a thing here. Baseline "PF mundanes" can be very efficient at what they do, a bit boring at that, though.
Bo9S/PoW mainly gives the illusion of choice, mixing in a few spell/item powers and that can be a thing here. They have higher ceiling when they´re used "full" and lower bottom when run "empty" and that can lead to frustrating results.
I have to disagree with most of this.

This is true (at least to a small extent) if you're only talking about ToB, not PoW. PoW disciplines do a pretty good job offering a variety of choices to the player. You're also wrong on the power gap for PoW. One of the potential issues with the book is that many of the initiators have a stronger chassis than their martial counterpart even without initiating.

Plus they never really "run empty" in the first place. Though that's true for both Bo9S (sans swordsage) and PoW (sans baseline stalker).

It sounds like you don't actually have experience with either.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Any specific maneuvers I should look out for when doing this conversion? I can't think of any off the top of my head.
The Diamond Mind Concentration-check based guys (I'd say Perception instead) and potentially the Setting Sun trip-based throws.

[Florian]

I have to disagree with most of this.

This is true (at least to a small extent) if you're only talking about ToB, not PoW. PoW disciplines do a pretty good job offering a variety of choices to the player. You're also wrong on the power gap for PoW. One of the potential issues with the book is that many of the initiators have a stronger chassis than their martial counterpart even without initiating.

Plus they never really "run empty" in the first place. Though that's true for both Bo9S (sans swordsage) and PoW (sans baseline stalker).

It sounds like you don't actually have experience with either.

We might have afoul here on issues based on language.
I was getting on combat length in rounds, especially when certain defenses are coming into play.
Initiator classes start "high" when they can get their Stances on Maneuvers up, but drop to "low" when that are spent and they have got to finish that encounter anyways, before they can refresh their maneuvers,

[legomaster00156]

We might have afoul here on issues based on language.
I was getting on combat length in rounds, especially when certain defenses are coming into play.
Initiator classes start "high" when they can get their Stances on Maneuvers up, but drop to "low" when that are spent and they have got to finish that encounter anyways, before they can refresh their maneuvers,
It's sure a good thing that Path of War initiators have in-combat maneuver recovery techniques.

[Turion]

I've found PoW to be pretty en par with baseline PF expectations and balance. Any specific offenders you've noticed?

Biggest issues I've seen/heard about:
Primal Fury, Broken Blade, and some of Black Seraph are a bit high on damage output
Steel Serpent is a bit gimp
Cursed Razor and Shattered Mirror can throw out some pretty scary debuffs
Harbinger maneuver DC's are sky-high due to int-SAD
Baseline Stalker maneuver recovery is pretty meh
Randomized maneuver recovery for Mystic
Discipline bloat

Most of this has been brought up in the discussion threads; BBlade, PFury, BSeraph, and SSerpent are slated for errata after Pow:Ex is out. The release version of Harbinger is significantly less int-SAD, lowering the DCs by requiring investment in other stats. CRazor and SMirror are functioning as intended; they're supposed to be debuff disciplines. Not much is happening to Stalker iirc, although several archetypes change its recovery mechanism. Mystic is also functioning as intended; its recovery is basically Crusader+, and the devs are all happy with it. Lastly, I'm pretty sure both ErrantX and Gareth have indicated that they don't intend to publish more disciplines after Pow:Ex and the Pharaoh are out (assuming Pharaoh's still a thing at this point).

tl;dr yeah, some issues, but most of them are being worked on.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The only thing you absolutely have to do is overhaul Diamond Mind (possible just by switching the discipline skill to something else).
The Setting Sun maneuvers should be fine, since they basically state "you get a trip attempts with a +X bonus and no AoO".

In general the PoW initiators get a bit more in the way of nice (and active) class features, and PoW disciplines tend to be stronger overall, but not that much and there are still a few gems in ToB.


It's sure a good thing that Path of War initiators have in-combat maneuver recovery techniques.

So do the Crusader and Warblade. The only outlier is the Swordsage with his often-lamented recovery mechanic that pretty much requires Adaptive Style and still takes a full-round action to recover maneuvers.

That's not that big a problem at mid-high levels though since he can ready a whole lot of maneuvers. He'll probably fall a bit behind in longer fights compared to other initiators, but i wouldn't call it unplayable.
Or you could just graft the recovery mechanic from one of the other initiators on the class and call it done.

[Tuvarkz]

@Turion: As a matter of fact, Shattered Mirror (and Riven Hourglass) will be nerfed by the time of PoW:E gets the full release. And you can always get Victorious Recovery if you want to particularly spam a maneuver with Mystic.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The biggest issue with using ToB classes in PF is the poor swordsage. Who, like all martial classes built to skirmish and not be tough enough to actually hang in melee, is expected to skirmish in and out of combat using his maneuvers. But PF made tumbling suicide, and swordsage was already the weakest ToB class, so it will really suffer, just as much as a 3.5 Scout would.

As for Diamond Mind's new skill, Sense Motive seems like the most obvious choice but it is already in use. Not that this stopped Balance from being a repeat key skill... I guess Perception works; everyone's going to max it anyway, why not? Some use Martial Lore, but that kinda sucks for Swordsage, Int was never high priority for him and it honestly was only the 4th most important stat for Warblades, too. What about Heal? Would that be weird since the discipline w/ actual healing isn't based on Heal but one w/ none now is? I think it could work... From controlling your own biological processes through sheer determination for the save-replacers, to noticing weaknesses in enemies' anatomy and position for the insightful strikes and various nightmare blades.

[Cyrocloud]

Lastly, I'm pretty sure both ErrantX and Gareth have indicated that they don't intend to publish more disciplines after Pow:Ex and the Pharaoh are out (assuming Pharaoh's still a thing at this point).

tl;dr yeah, some issues, but most of them are being worked on.


There is a new discipline, Chimera Soul, that is being worked on. It's still real early on (pre-beta) but you can floating around, and it's for their Lords of Night analogue book for werewolves/lycanthropes. The purpose of the disciple is to become more like an animal (ie gaining natural attacks, 8th level stance is just Form of the Dragon II atm) and has a discipline skill of knowledge nature.

But your right the general consensus seems to be to cut back on disciplines. Not that there are really many niche's left for them, maybe 1 more akashic and psionic(Probably telekentic) discipline, an underwater one, a siege weapon one, ones as law/chaos analogues to Black Seraph, a construct/puppetry based one, and maybe a one that focuses solely on Two-handed heavy weapons if there isn't one already.

[Grod_The_Giant]

We might have afoul here on issues based on language.
I was getting on combat length in rounds, especially when certain defenses are coming into play.
Initiator classes start "high" when they can get their Stances on Maneuvers up, but drop to "low" when that are spent and they have got to finish that encounter anyways, before they can refresh their maneuvers,
You mean the stances that are always on? The maneuvers that can be regained with a normal attack routine (Warblade) or without any action at all (Crusader)? The Swordsage takes a full-round action (with Adaptive Recovery), true, but he gets enough readied maneuvers to use one or two maneuvers a round for the duration of a normal fight. Seriously, a Crusader has probably the best endurance of any class in the game, and the Warblade isn't far behind.

[Florian]

You mean the stances that are always on? The maneuvers that can be regained with a normal attack routine (Warblade) or without any action at all (Crusader)? The Swordsage takes a full-round action (with Adaptive Recovery), true, but he gets enough readied maneuvers to use one or two maneuvers a round for the duration of a normal fight. Seriously, a Crusader has probably the best endurance of any class in the game, and the Warblade isn't far behind.

Did I dispute that? I just said that there are limits and those have to be looked at, nothing more.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Any specific maneuvers I should look out for when doing this conversion? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Any strike that uses a combat maneuver is going to be worse, since CMD makes the "grapple problem" everybody's problem. Arguably worse, since even 3.5E grapple mods didn't also toss in a litany of ubiquitous AC bonuses.
In particular, Setting Sun throws will function much worse in PF, because aside from CMD, tripping itself was pretty heavily nerfed in PF. You now need an extra feat and BAB +6 to get that bonus attack. There are more things just plain immune to tripping. Instead of a capped +4 bonus for having more than 2 legs, it's now an uncapped bonus per leg. The Rules of the Game about stalling flyers with trip has not been reproduced, so unless the DM uses 3E material, flyers are all universally immune now, too.
This is a shame since Setting Sun was already one of the weakest disciplines, and so many of its strikes rely on throws (and a lot of the others like Strike of the Broken Shield, Clever Positioning, Hydra Slaying Strike, etc... are either very underwhelming for their level or way too situational to bother to learn).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Did I dispute that? I just said that there are limits and those have to be looked at, nothing more.
You... kind of did? Unless I missed something, your point was "these classes get weaker at the end of the encounter when they're out of maneuvers," which is a condition which really just doesn't exist.

[charcoalninja]

Ah yes, I'd heard about BB and PF being high on the damage end, but considering the damage that gets thrown around PF baseline anyway it doesn't stand out as being too overthe top, plus as you've said, they will be errating it.

Personally I recommend grabbing PoW and PoW expanded. Overall I fond it has a really solid spread of classes and disciplines with a lot of variety.

Edit: DSP is actually what brought me over once and for all to Pathfinder. They make some really really nice stuff.

[Florian]

You... kind of did? Unless I missed something, your point was "these classes get weaker at the end of the encounter when they're out of maneuvers," which is a condition which really just doesn't exist.

I´ve experience in playing and gm´ing both, Bo9S and PF martial classes up to and including Weapon Masters Handbook. What I do is voicing my opinion, solely based on my experience, how this things handle and hold up to the expected norm as I have understood and handle it, nothing more or less.

Now what I say is that the regular PF martial classes simply have a very high power floor, can hold that level and expand on it, while the Bo9S classes can surpass it and one time and then fall below it, when their power it spent. Simple as that.

[Extra Anchovies]

Crusaders don't ever run out of maneuvers, and Warblades can recover all of their maneuvers in the same round as they make a full attack. "When their power is spent" is not something that happens to either of those classes.

DSP did a much better job with recovery mechanics, because they actually affect the flow of combat - they aren't afterthoughts like the Warblade's, and they aren't "miss a turn" like the Swordsage's.

[gadren]

One thing to note, if you plan on using ToB AND PoW, the ToB classes will be slightly outshined by the PoW classes.

In the current draft for the combined 3.5 + PF campaign I'm making, I made the following changes to the ToB classes to make them comparable choices to the PoW classes:

Crusader:
Replace the Crusader's Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied, and Stances known progression with that of a Warlord, except the Crusader always has 1 more of each than a Warlord does.
Double the Crusader's number of Granted Maneuvers. (The number in parentheses next to Maneuvers Readied.)

Swordsage:
Increase the listed number of maneuvers readied by 2.
Swordsages learn their first stance at 1st level, their second stance at 2nd level, and another stance every three levels thereafter.
At level 9, and every four levels thereafter, Swordsages may retrain one stance they know for any other stance they meet the requirements for.

Warblade:
Replace the Warblade's Maneuvers Known, Maneuvers Readied, and Stances known progression with that of a Warder, except the Warblade always has 1 more of each than a Warder does.

ALL Martial Adepts:
All classes from the Book of Nine Swords may add 3 disciplines from the Path of War to their class's available disciplines. All classes from the Path of War may add 3 disciplines from the Book of Nine Swords to their class's available disciplines.

[Kitsuneymg]

tl;dr ToB is a better book than PoW.

Personal Preference. Update ToB a little (skills for disciplines, move Warblade bonus feats to even levels). It has better mechanics (no need to keep track of who you sneak attacked how many rounds ago, no extra pool of bull**** in addition to spellsmaneuvers, no gambits to make combat take longer as you look up exactly what they do again, fewer embarrassing copy-editing errors in the book, and fewer ambiguous abilities/maneuvers). Each class in ToB has a distinct feel and fluff that's consistent with their abilities and disciplines. They *feel* like fighter, paladin, and monk. The PoW classes feel like a collection of abilities slapped together and seem disjoint to me.

I *do* suggest you add the discipline feats (6 feats to basically gain 2/3rds 'casting' in one discipline.) and the dex-to-damage feat. Those are pretty legitimate, though I require weapon focus with a weapon to gain the dex-to-damage one.


I find that PoW tend to be overpowered at high level, but I use Spheres of Power for all magic classes, which basically caps casting at tier 3.

If you're interested in a more detailed pathfinder conversion of ToB, I can dig out my old docs and post them.

[Luch Ri]

My hate of ToB knows no limits. Just as I am the first to speak up for Weapons of Legacy, which is amazing and needs very little in the way of house rules to fix it, I am the first to speak out against ToB. Why? Because it is both lazy, and grating.

The problem that spawend the book was simple. Most people foud fighters to be under-powered. They were often seen as meat shields, especially by people who fixate on 'roles'. now many ways to fix this had been put forward, and frankly I think most of them worked really well even if they were not followed up on enough. A more premissive set of 'fighter feats', tactical feats, a wide array of wonderful prestige classes. In the end I feel the Pathfinder fix was better than the others but there was plenty of potential. But ToB? ToB decided to 'fix' fighters the only way it knew how. Make new classes, with a new spell casting mechanic.

that is it.

Because let's be honest that is what they did. Sure not all of the abilities are overtly magical, but it is still the creation of a new set of resource-management classes that feel about the same as psionics or incarnum or the basic spell slots used by other casters.

It was an admission that Fighters inherently play differently but a refusal to accept that such differences were part of the draw. And in the end, it spawend 4th edition.

Am I wrong?

I have no problem with resource-management classes. I think they can be fun. But part of the draw of the fighter was that you had to be stable, had to think more outside of the box. Your role playing comes into play more than a guy who can just prep his magic deck at the start of the day and pull out the card he needs. It's a different challenge, and ToB erased that so people could be happy with their balance issues and see everything nice and neat and fixed. It was bad. Really bad, at least in spirit.

But in practice... yeah no it's just another caster variant. I'd say just run it with the conversion you'd give any other base class and use the conversion guide and you should be fine. It was already pretty broken in 3.5, at least to a point, so I can't imagine much has changed. The issues like Tumble that have been addressed here might require some home brew solutions if they become a problem... but beyond that I see no reason to worry.

[Milo v3]

My hate of ToB knows no limits. Just as I am the first to speak up for Weapons of Legacy, which is amazing and needs very little in the way of house rules to fix it, I am the first to speak out against ToB. Why? Because it is both lazy, and grating.

SNIP
This is not the thread for that topic.

[Luch Ri]

This is not the thread for that topic.

I just felt it was important to note my stance so my clear bias is there, and because, well it is a caster system. As such it, and incarnum, and frankly most caster systems I have come across in main WotC 3.5 should be just fine for Pathfinder with a few tweaks mainly to accommodate the basic rule shifts. I admit I do tend to get a bit ranty, but the key point is that it should be just fine, or at least as fine as it was in 3.5. Just like Warlocks, just like Dragon Shamen or that other warlocky dragony one I can't recall, or basically just about anything from 3.5.

Honestly if it works, it tends to work regardless. The two are not that far removed in most cases.

[upho]

Dreamscarred Press has you covered. Like Psionics, they also ported maneuvers in their Path of War book. I'd recommend checking it out, it's pretty fun.And if you (the OP) for some reason missed it, PoW is available for free (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war). Enjoy! :smalltongue:

[charcoalninja]

My hate of ToB knows no limits. Just as I am the first to speak up for Weapons of Legacy, which is amazing and needs very little in the way of house rules to fix it, I am the first to speak out against ToB. Why? Because it is both lazy, and grating.

The problem that spawend the book was simple. Most people foud fighters to be under-powered. They were often seen as meat shields, especially by people who fixate on 'roles'. now many ways to fix this had been put forward, and frankly I think most of them worked really well even if they were not followed up on enough. A more premissive set of 'fighter feats', tactical feats, a wide array of wonderful prestige classes. In the end I feel the Pathfinder fix was better than the others but there was plenty of potential. But ToB? ToB decided to 'fix' fighters the only way it knew how. Make new classes, with a new spell casting mechanic.

that is it.

Because let's be honest that is what they did. Sure not all of the abilities are overtly magical, but it is still the creation of a new set of resource-management classes that feel about the same as psionics or incarnum or the basic spell slots used by other casters.

It was an admission that Fighters inherently play differently but a refusal to accept that such differences were part of the draw. And in the end, it spawend 4th edition.

Am I wrong?

I have no problem with resource-management classes. I think they can be fun. But part of the draw of the fighter was that you had to be stable, had to think more outside of the box. Your role playing comes into play more than a guy who can just prep his magic deck at the start of the day and pull out the card he needs. It's a different challenge, and ToB erased that so people could be happy with their balance issues and see everything nice and neat and fixed. It was bad. Really bad, at least in spirit.

But in practice... yeah no it's just another caster variant. I'd say just run it with the conversion you'd give any other base class and use the conversion guide and you should be fine. It was already pretty broken in 3.5, at least to a point, so I can't imagine much has changed. The issues like Tumble that have been addressed here might require some home brew solutions if they become a problem... but beyond that I see no reason to worry.

ToB and PoW give resource management and in game tactical and strategic depth through dependable mechanics to fighting classes and archetypes.

Before these books, such options did not exist for mundane / martial classes. If the above paragraph is all that defines a caster to you than that's a personal problem.

I for one find default fighty classes in PF boring as hell and very much enjoy having discrete abilities that synergize and are situationally useful. I prefer to think about combat in terms of best using my resources. THIS is why people bother with PoW.

Obviously you're fine with shutting out an entire play style to people that want to be the non magical dude that punches people, but for the rest of us, there's PoW!

[Luch Ri]

ToB and PoW give resource management and in game tactical and strategic depth through dependable mechanics to fighting classes and archetypes.

Before these books, such options did not exist for mundane / martial classes. If the above paragraph is all that defines a caster to you than that's a personal problem.

I for one find default fighty classes in PF boring as hell and very much enjoy having discrete abilities that synergize and are situationally useful. I prefer to think about combat in terms of best using my resources. THIS is why people bother with PoW.

Obviously you're fine with shutting out an entire play style to people that want to be the non magical dude that punches people, but for the rest of us, there's PoW!

If people want to play it, so long as it isn't at my table, that is fine. But every other spell caster class, or almost all of them, are resource management. I find it more fun to be a 'fighty' class because it forces me, or my players doing it, to figure out how to do more with a limited tool kit that isn't just 'push X button to win'. It requires a more dynamic interaction with the environment and the situation.

But my larger point is that it is a spell casting class, or to be more precise a set of win buttons, without any ties to mechanics radically altered by pathfinder. Converting up some things like fighter-adjacent classes can be a bit harder because some people might feel cheated. The Knight, for example. or Hexblade, Heck I know some people who think Scout gets 'cheated'.

Caster classes are more dynamic because they just set up a deck of win buttons so it's easier to convert over, if a bit more labor intensive.

If you enjoy ToB, that's fine. But my bigger point is that they aren't really a fighter or fighter related class at all, so conversion should have no issue.

[Tuvarkz]

If people want to play it, so long as it isn't at my table, that is fine. But every other spell caster class, or almost all of them, are resource management. I find it more fun to be a 'fighty' class because it forces me, or my players doing it, to figure out how to do more with a limited tool kit that isn't just 'push X button to win'. It requires a more dynamic interaction with the environment and the situation.

But my larger point is that it is a spell casting class, or to be more precise a set of win buttons, without any ties to mechanics radically altered by pathfinder. Converting up some things like fighter-adjacent classes can be a bit harder because some people might feel cheated. The Knight, for example. or Hexblade, Heck I know some people who think Scout gets 'cheated'.

Caster classes are more dynamic because they just set up a deck of win buttons so it's easier to convert over, if a bit more labor intensive.

If you enjoy ToB, that's fine. But my bigger point is that they aren't really a fighter or fighter related class at all, so conversion should have no issue.

The thing is, Fighter was a badly designed class, at least in comparison to its fellows. Extremely limited in function, and even the feats basically forced the Fighter to specialize in its combat role. Pathfinder's unarchetyped Fighter was similarly terrible (A few archetypes making it workable) until Weapon Master's Handbook came out, and then it still was an underpowered class. And I don't see how it is a spellcasting system. Maneuvers don't provoke, nor you run out of them when you can recover them mid-combat with ease.
A limited set of tools? As a Fighter, your set of tools is just "Attack attack attack attack" because you don't have enough skill points (That is, unless you dump it all into UMD, but then that's something any other class can do, and still have more skill points for other aspects), and if you focused into melee, a flying enemy will screw you up. The Fighter has, when compared to the Wizard's full set of specialized tools, merely a hammer. The 6/9 casters and initiators to have a nice toolbox, but not near what the fullcasters have. They have to work with they have to solve multiple troubles.
And mechanics slapped together is another bad argument. You can see all of the Warlord's abilities aligning together into "The inspiring leader that commands in combat." Warleader, Gambits, Presences, Aid Another and Flanking becoming significantly stronger, while Battle Prowess, the bonus feats, and Dual Stance show his mastery of fighting techniques.
The Warder is the defender, and similarly his mechanics represent that. An Aegis that defends others and makes the enemies want to focus him first, an Armiger's Mark that encourages enemies to do so at risk of being punished otherwise. A Defensive Focus that sets up an unpassable zone for the enemy. Extended Counter which allows the warder to keep stopping attacks.
The Stalker is very much a rogue with ki and maneuvers. Deadly Strikes is very similar in function to Sneak Attack, and can be upgraded into also activating against flat-footed or flanked enemies. Stalker Arts are somewhat similar to Rogue Talents, and both Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are there, and Dual Strike as a brutal attack to finish off enemies.
Neither of them are meant to fit the "Fighter, Paladin, Monk" trio, as the Fighter is too broad of a term, Warders specifically have the Ordained Defender archetype to get the holy warrior theme, and Stalkers incorporate some of the ki aspects of the monk into them.

[Anlashok]

I'm scratching my head at what kind of weird doublethink you need to reach the conclusion that having only one option is fundamentally more dynamic than trying to manage several.

Or that not having much to do beyond that one button makes the class better for role playing.


I mean, yeah. Love fighters. Dislike TOB because it's "spellcastery". Sure, but some of that is just ridiculous and pretty damn nonsensical.

[charcoalninja]

Not to mention that if it's your table you're the DM and so this sort of stuff isn't about you. Seriously, if you're DMing if you like normy fighters or ToB doesn't matter in the least since you're not the one that's going to actually USE the gorram thing. NPC your Fighters all you want, but I don't understand why you feel the need to take away other people's fun just because the classes aren't your cup of tea.

[Luch Ri]

The thing is, Fighter was a badly designed class, at least in comparison to its fellows. Extremely limited in function, and even the feats basically forced the Fighter to specialize in its combat role. Pathfinder's unarchetyped Fighter was similarly terrible (A few archetypes making it workable) until Weapon Master's Handbook came out, and then it still was an underpowered class. And I don't see how it is a spellcasting system. Maneuvers don't provoke, nor you run out of them when you can recover them mid-combat with ease.
A limited set of tools? As a Fighter, your set of tools is just "Attack attack attack attack" because you don't have enough skill points (That is, unless you dump it all into UMD, but then that's something any other class can do, and still have more skill points for other aspects), and if you focused into melee, a flying enemy will screw you up. The Fighter has, when compared to the Wizard's full set of specialized tools, merely a hammer. The 6/9 casters and initiators to have a nice toolbox, but not near what the fullcasters have. They have to work with they have to solve multiple troubles.
And mechanics slapped together is another bad argument. You can see all of the Warlord's abilities aligning together into "The inspiring leader that commands in combat." Warleader, Gambits, Presences, Aid Another and Flanking becoming significantly stronger, while Battle Prowess, the bonus feats, and Dual Stance show his mastery of fighting techniques.
The Warder is the defender, and similarly his mechanics represent that. An Aegis that defends others and makes the enemies want to focus him first, an Armiger's Mark that encourages enemies to do so at risk of being punished otherwise. A Defensive Focus that sets up an unpassable zone for the enemy. Extended Counter which allows the warder to keep stopping attacks.
The Stalker is very much a rogue with ki and maneuvers. Deadly Strikes is very similar in function to Sneak Attack, and can be upgraded into also activating against flat-footed or flanked enemies. Stalker Arts are somewhat similar to Rogue Talents, and both Evasion and Uncanny Dodge are there, and Dual Strike as a brutal attack to finish off enemies.
Neither of them are meant to fit the "Fighter, Paladin, Monk" trio, as the Fighter is too broad of a term, Warders specifically have the Ordained Defender archetype to get the holy warrior theme, and Stalkers incorporate some of the ki aspects of the monk into them.


Honestly I still don't get how people think all a fighter does is 'attack'. It feels like people are dead set on playing them like video game characters instead of realizing that they are people, just hitty people.

It really does feel like people focus too much on 'what the rules can do to give me power' and not enough on 'how to use the rules to represent a person in this situation'. Yes that may seem odd to say for a fighter, but it really isn't. Sure they don't have a deck of win buttons to manage like the casters... but that is what makes playing them more interesting. You already know you don't have a button to lay down some serious hurt or a button to avoid smashing your face in the ground ext ext. You are a guy or gal with a weapon and your brains, and you have to make it work.

Overpowered? Maybe try to figure out some way to lead a foe into a structurally unstable area. Or perhaps set up an ambush. Or think on how to use diplomacy or subterfuge.

That is why I get so annoyed with this talk of optimization. If you focus this heavily on the rules, you miss out on the spirit of what you should be doing. You attach yourself to roles and rails that do not exist. At that point, you may as well just go play an MMO. I hate MMOs, but that's because it feels rigid. I am told I have to do X because I am playing a specific class, and because there are no options to acutally think about how to use the situation that is the only option.

Was the original fighter 'badly designed'? Maybe. So is the Truenamer. But they can be a ton of fun if you let yourself have fun with them and play with a DM who knows what they are doing. It's a play style that is different than 'play your card get a cookie' and it drives me nuts how people have no patience to sit down and try it and enjoy it for what it is.

To Anlashock: My point is that you don't just have one option. If anything, the ToB alternatives are more limiting. They are just easier. People fixate on this idea that the fighter and all fighter-like classes are just made to go up and be hitty and take damage. If that is how you are playing it... well honestly I have never even been able to process that.

It forces you to build a smaller toolkit, yes. But it also forces you to think more dynamically to solve problems. You actually have to get into your role, and the whole mentality of ToB, and subsequently 4th edition (since ToB was the prototype for that) is to remove all of that and make everything the same resource managing caster setup with slightly different mechanics to them. It removes an entire play style, one I would argue is far more rewarding, for the sake of a uniform system.

Charcoalninja:

My table, my rules. If people don't like it, they don't have to play.

I do everything in my power to ensure that no matter what system or what setting it is my players have a good time. I will bend over front, back and sideways to help accomdiate character concepts, Ensure everyone gets as much limelgiht as possible and gladly scrap any plans I have the second my players get a better idea. I have run whole 12 hour sessions on the fly because the players ignored the hook and they were happier for it.

In fact I would say those are some of our best remembered games.

But by that same token, It is my world, my universe, my creation. If I want something barred because it does not show up in my setting at the time period they have it? Or isn't there at all. That's my deal. If I feel there is something I simply cannot abide or manage, or that would break the fun or rules for everyone, I fully reserve my right to put my foot down and say no.

Fact is, If I honestly hate something enough or feel it is a tonal break from what I am going for in a game to the point where I could not DM properly, I consider that a valid reason to bar it. I will be up front about it. I will explain myself in detail, but I've always seen that as DM privilege and I likewise refuse to begrudge others for exercising the same.

I personally think the ToB is a lazy solution to a problem that never really existed or, at best, was easily fixed with a few simple house rules and some more dynamic thinking. If people are turned off by that, then they don't have to sit at my table, which is probably for the best because I force anyone regardless of class to move out of notions like win button and optimization and RAW very, very quickly.

[Tuvarkz]

Lead a foe into a structurally unstable area? Either you are forcing a caster into constantly retreating (And then at higher levels the enemy caster will have an easy time making the Concentration check to cast defensively and just use its choice of I win spells against the Fighter) or you are trying Reposition/Bullrush, which will work against the enemy caster (Assuming said caster isn't using Fly for some reason), but with how poorly CMB scales vs CMD, say goodbye to trying to get a pass outside of a nat 20 against your typical dragon, giant, or any other enemy with good physical stats. And if you don't have the improved combat maneuver feats necessary, you'll provoke an AoO, not to say that your enemy should also end up figuring out what you're trying to do.
Subterfuge or Diplomacy won't work that well, considering that even with WMH, you will basically have your level+3 in modifier to your Bluff/Diplo Check, and you will still have a weak save vs Detect Thoughts, Zone of Truth and other similar spells. (And then, honestly, you shouldn't count as Fighter 'features' what even a NPC class can do). Plus, you're still limited by 2+Int when you'll end up having to invest most of your point buy/ability score increases into physical stats-And you need Acrobatics, Climb, Swim and Perception already, 2 of which aren't baseline class skills for the fighter.
And focusing heavily on the rules? Heh, Warlords can other than damage dealers and buffers work as debuffers with Black Seraph, Healers with Silver Crane, battlefield controllers with a Seraph/Razor mix, (Related to that, I got a level 20 Warlord build meant to cover any potential role of battle at the same time, and be useful outside of combat as well) and be effective at it. I was just mentioning each class's main toolkit.
The Warder and the Stalker have quite similar flexibility, I was just mentioning what they naturally excel at.
Yes, 4th edition made the error of overly removing the variance between classes, but it's fine if there is vancian/spontaneous/spheres for casters, power points for manifesters, and maneuvers for martials. It gives variety and flavor to each group. Because it doesn't work when applied to everything doesn't mean it won't work when applied to just a part of it either.

[Optimator]

All the things you mention that a Fighter can do other than attack can be done to the same (or greater) extent by any other class. So if you look back on what the Fighter itself brings to the table it's pretty feeble. An Aristocrat or Expert can do those all those things just fine. See the problem now? Any class can roleplay and make tactical choices.

[Anlashok]

snip


The thing is, none of the options you describe are fighter specific.

In fact, the fighter isn't even very good at most of them.

So I'm not seeing how that's a point in favor of the fighter when a wizard, warblade, cleric, druid, swordsage, rogue, truenamer, archivist, warlock or commoner could all do those exact same things.

[Luch Ri]

The thing is, none of the options you describe are fighter specific.

In fact, the fighter isn't even very good at most of them.

So I'm not seeing how that's a point in favor of the fighter when a wizard, warblade, cleric, druid, swordsage, rogue, truenamer, archivist, warlock or commoner could all do those exact same things.


Fighter specific? No, but honestly it is often all a Fighter has... and that creates a very different play style.

I am not tying to disparage casters i and of themselves, but they can sadly be used as a crutch, one that people may never develop from. One of the best games I ever ran was a long standing solo game for my late best friend. He was a bard, and barely dipped into virtuoso. On paper his character was not good at much beyond jamming out, and even then I am sure there are or were better ways to do it. However by level 13 he had probably done more than most adventuring parties do by the time they hit epic, and usually won because of his smarts, his planning, and his roleplaying. Hell he didn't even remember what spells he had some times and had to look them up, because he didn't use them much.

Admittedly he had a few good NPC party members. But more to the point, he was forced to think more dynamically. Fighters are forced to think that way to survive all the time, and yet ToB just shrugs and says it is ok to hand them a win button set instead. It is boring. It is making them exactly the same as other classes and basically ignoring the play-style of the class because it isn't 'on par' with Wizards, which it never was and, well, never should be. And that isn't bad.

I don't let it show up on my table for the same reason I would disallow Drow before a specific 'time period' or why guns only exist in my oriental adventures style setting. Because I don't like it, I haven't found a place where I can tolerate it, and I have no use for it.

If others do, that is fine. But they aren't fighters, they are spellcasters with fightery stats and a weapon to base the damage on. The closest you get to a fighter with them is a guy who walks around throwing out limit breaks every other round. But actual fighters and their ilk need you to think more tactically when creating your character. Need you to be more aware of what options you have long term, to build not only for more options in a fight or what you may be good at but seeking ways to build so that you are able to do more outside of a fight.

Frankly that's another thing I like about the OotS comic. I went and re-read almost all of it in a binge the other day (passed out at 983). Truth is that characters like Roy are at the very least good starting points for how a fighter should be played. It isn't about just having one thign and hitting someone with it. It is about making all of the parts you create meld into a functional whole that is capable of more things, and making sure all of that supplements your role playing so that you are achieving and accomplishing things beyond what the raw on paper stats should suggest.

ToB, and 4th edition itself, are to me simple admissions that it is easier to just follow the RAW and make hitty, killy things or go for expected traps and trials that have been done to death in gaming. On paper solutions for the expected problems. In that way, it just shows me that the book is a symptom of a toxic mindset that has no place at my table.

[gadren]

I don't let it show up on my table for the same reason I would disallow Drow before a specific 'time period' or why guns only exist in my oriental adventures style setting. Because I don't like it, I haven't found a place where I can tolerate it, and I have no use for it.

Just curious, do you ever take into consideration what your players like, or is everything at your table "my way or the highway"?

[Luch Ri]

Just curious, do you ever take into consideration what your players like, or is everything at your table "my way or the highway"?

Of cousre I do. As I stated before, I bend over backwards to accomidate my players. Have a cool concept and not sure how ot do it? I will find every possible class/prestige class/feat/ext option you could use to get those results, lay it out for you and help you decide what works. Nothing exists? I will write it myself or take serious consideration of something you write if you like, and you always get final say since it is your concept.

I frequently give up on carefully laid plans to let the players do waht they wish if they have even spent time memorizing or semi-memorizing things out of vairous books to ensure i can provide a seamless adventure for their new chosen path on the fly.

A DM is there to create fun, and I do that. All I really ask are a very small number of reasonable concessions. Most of them going to D&D and, in particular, the campaign setting I have now spent almost 20 years refining. For the most part I will allow it if it is in the book, or even if it is not. if I think something won't work and will kill fun for other players I will tell you up front and work with you to ensure it works.

So long as my very reasonable short list of rules are respected and people don't try to 'slip one past me' Due to my perceived permissiveness I have no problem dumping everything I have into making the game fun for my players and seeking to give them a memorable experience. I've kept the same core group for over a decade, though we are all scattered now so we have to game online. But I've never once had a person complain about my DM style. Because at the end of the day I am there to give the players a fun time. That is what I do. I feel I ask scant little in return.

[Anlashok]

But more to the point, he was forced to think more dynamically. Fighters are forced to think that way to survive all the time, and yet ToB just shrugs and says it is ok to hand them a win button set instead

What win button? I can understand not liking ToB's mechanics, or not liking casters because some of their spells are too encounter defining, but I'm scratching my head at this one. ToB maneuvers aren't that strong. In fact, the strongest martial builds are still traditional full attackers (or revolve around exploiting specific maneuvers for specific advantages, but that's less a general ToB thin and more, well, exploiting some combination of mechanics).

So what win button? Your typical barbarian dipping pouncing charger has more of a win button than most traditional maneuver users.


The biggest thing ToB gives you is just some minor access to control and the ability to contribute to some degree without sacrificing your move action. Both of which enhance the things you claim you want players to do, not detract from it.


Honestly if you're looking for clever roleplaying and thinking on your feet and adapting to conditions rather than just using your one awesome move I can't think of any class better for that than a warblade or crusader.

[Luch Ri]

What win button? I can understand not liking ToB's mechanics, or not liking casters because some of their spells are too encounter defining, but I'm scratching my head at this one. ToB maneuvers aren't that strong. In fact, the strongest martial builds are still traditional full attackers (or revolve around exploiting specific maneuvers for specific advantages, but that's less a general ToB thin and more, well, exploiting some combination of mechanics).

So what win button? Your typical barbarian dipping pouncing charger has more of a win button than most traditional maneuver users.


The biggest thing ToB gives you is just some minor access to control and the ability to contribute to some degree without sacrificing your move action. Both of which enhance the things you claim you want players to do, not detract from it.


Honestly if you're looking for clever roleplaying and thinking on your feet and adapting to conditions rather than just using your one awesome move I can't think of any class better for that than a warblade or crusader.

But the warblade or crusader are exactly my point.

When I say 'win button', I mean a spell, or spell equivilant. A pre packaged set of mechancis to set off in the right situation to do the right thing. Something high payout, and limited use.

That is what I mean by win button. And again this is not saying one should not play a caster. But I think it is important to recognize many of the solutions offered to problems are, sadly, just using the same small set of tools every time. Pop your limit break or spell or whatever it may be, get the expected result, move on.

Frankly if people are simply seeing the fighter as 'stand there and hit', then I have ot say they are not being creative enough. I've done all sorts of crazy things based around fighters even before Pathfinder and it's much welcomed upgrade. But the key is that instead of being handed a set of mechanics to solve a pre determined set of problems you need to make everything you have work in synergy and have a more concrete idea of your characters skill sets. I don't just mean his skill ranks, but what overall he is capable of beyond being a meat shield.

That is a mentality I try to avoid giving my new players and will try to wean experienced players off of when I can. All my friends have seemed to enjoy it, and I am hoping to give my GF a good first REAL Pathfinder game based around it (she had a really bad experience with someone who basically used it as an elaborate excuse for a tableside sex RP. We are both kinksters so that part wasn't an issue... but by the sound of it the whole thing was a boring, painful, disjointed mess as a game)

My point is that it is a different play style. You have to consider constantly what you are and are not good at, you have to be aware of your environment, of the situation, of countless other factors. And yes you can get that way as a spell caster. But the play style will inevitably be different and the temptation to just throw out the resource for the job is always there.

The ToB, and 4th edition, remove something unique from the tabletop experience, at least for D&D/pathfinder. You can find it in other games just fine still, Hell I'd say a good fighter should have alot in common with a good Hunter: The vigil character. But it takes a problem that should have been fixed by focusing on things like tactical feats and a wider set of fighter feats and other easy fixes that would make a fighter more interesting and enjoyable... and instead decided to make it a caster class just like everything else. To me, that just feels painfully lazy and misses the point.

[Morty]

This is all well and good, but any pretence you had of actually participating in this thread's topic, as opposed to condemning the book (which was pretty flimsy to begin with) is gone now.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah man, quit with the irrelevant walls of text.

[Pluto!]

The point is that it is a different play style. You have to consider constantly what you are and are not good at, you have to be aware of your environment, of the situation, of countless other factors. And yes you can get that way as a spell caster. But the play style will inevitably be different and the temptation to just throw out the resource for the job is always there.
I don't disagree that in games where there are fewer rules, "Generative" options (making up something sweet to do, having the GM determine how to mechanically reflect it) are favored over "Selective" options (going down a list of explicitly available actions and picking one).

But I disagree with your pount in the context of Fighter gameplay versus Warblade gameplay. The problem is that 3e doesn't leave the rules white-space that improvisational "Generative" combat relies on. You want to topple a stone tower on the giant monster? The rules explicitly lay out the hardness of the stone and the ability of your hammer to smash through it (and the numbers are so unfavorable that it's not even worth it). You want to kick a guard down a staircase to trip the oncoming mob? There are explicit rules for these things (and they require multiple specific feats that your improviser probably doesn't have).

You are free to houserule around the rules, but at that point, you're putting the assumptions of 3e's rigid wargame system into question, and those extensive and all-encompassing rules are the entire basis of the system. If you don't need a feat to do something, you're cheapening the folks who build for those feata. If you don't need to pay attention to hardnesses or HP, or to specific Jump DCs or combat modifiers, what elements of the ruleset can you assume you're working with when making your tactical decisions every round?

I felt similarly around the time 4e came out and used to argue something similar because despite doing everything I wanted from the system, it still felt a little off. The problem is that 3e painted itself into an uncomfortable area where the game rules attempt to encompass everything, but do so in a way that poses more limitations than empowerment.

4e and ToB-enabled 3e are one solution to that problem: explicitly enabled decision trees right at your fingertips, enabling all characters to competently and fluidly make meaningful actions each and every round. Castles and Crusades and other stripped-down/simplified rulesets pose another solution, by leaving the white space for improvisation, but omitting the specific rulings that reign in or limit player options.

But bringing this back around to PF, which is also in that uncomfortably limited place of built-in limitations, adding ToB does still present a solution to the limited abilities problem, by providing an array of interesting selective decisions to players. It would be possible to go the other way and just gutting the system of things that make interesting actions suck (eg. AoOs, nonproficiency penalties, HD contributions to CMD, various oppressively unfavorable DCs and numeric progressions), but you would be appreciably undermining the tactical wargame that 80% of the PF/3e system (and presumably 80% of its appeal) is built around.

If you enjoy the Generative style of gameplay, I would strongly suggest shifting to a system that less actively undermines your playstyle. Because talking about the Fighter being able to do big sweet things that most fighters just numerically cannot do doesn't make a lot of sense in this context.

[Luch Ri]

Honestly Pluto! I get what you are saying, and I appreciate it. I also appreciate that we have all derailed this thing heavily so I am going to try and make this my last comment on it. Granted I THINK the OP has his answer by now, and had for a while, but just for the spirit of it I feel i should close my own arguments to avoid further muddling things.

You keep mentioning 3E as a tactical war game, and I can appreciate that. That is in the games DNA. But, well, I've never seen it that way. Not then, not 2E, never.

I look at all tabletop RPGs the same, as a life simulator. You are making a person, in a setting, who does these specific things. The War game in the past means that there are going to be combat leanings for most games, and not just PF, and that is acceptable. Hell that is half the fun.

However I think taking the war game out of it and treating it as an overall 'life simulator' is simply a more interesting way of doing it. Admittedly I am biased. In no small part because I actually did end up using 3.5/D20 to help me start building tools to deal with others in the real world when I got my autism diagnosis. Because I was an adult, I understood D&D, and it did eventually end up being part of the way I fixed some of my bigger issues and learned to relate with others.

You are correct though, there are rules for these things, lots of them. And that can make it harder to get around or manipulate things. It does require a DM who is willing to work with you and your ideas, and it is not exclusive to the fighter. But I can't say that I find the fighter to be broken to begin with.

I remember dragging this out for literally dozens of pages in a fight back on the old WotC board, way back when ToB was new. I don't want to be that hostile kid anymore and I don't want to beat my point into the ground because I know everyone plays differently. But I simply can't get behind ToB or 4th. Because I am not looking for a tactical war game. I have never run D&D as a tactical war game. Hell even when I made my players fight off invading armies or attack some huge legion of lawful creatures at endgame I let them think outside of the box.

That is what I see in the fighter. You have to make your build decisions carefully, stick true to a character and find the way to make that character contribute and be a part of things. You don't have to be a one trick pony or a hitty guy by any means, it just takes more work. But it is rewarding work and a rewarding play style that the ToB disregards simply because making another caster system is easier for people.

And if people want to run that in other games, I say more power to them. As I stated before to the OP I think it should be easy to convert considering how close PF and 3.5 are. But no, it has no place at my table. Because it is an unwanted solution to a 'problem' that is more or less my whole DM style and view on the game.

It may have started out as a tactical war game. that may be in there. But to me D&D has moved FAR past that point.

[Prime32]

The issue is that "my class is fighter" is a concept that exists only in D&D mechanics. If you had fun while ignoring the D&D mechanics then that's good, but it doesn't make sense to say that the D&D mechanics were responsible for it.


You are correct though, there are rules for these things, lots of them. And that can make it harder to get around or manipulate things. It does require a DM who is willing to work with you and your ideas, and it is not exclusive to the fighter. But I can't say that I find the fighter to be broken to begin with.There are lots of systems which don't have these obstacles though - where you don't have to stop playing the system to do what you want. FATE (http://fate-srd.com/) for instance is built from the ground up around coming up with creative uses for your skills and environment, to the point where giving your character extra personality traits is often more useful than giving them extra combat abilities (even in a campaign that consists entirely of combat). There are no fixed statistics for the durability of stone, spellcasters are more along the lines of "I am a fire mage" rather than having a list of spells on their sheet (they can still have a few signature tricks, but in a looser sense than D&D), etc.

[Captain Morgan]

Hell, just playing 5e over a 3.P would be a step in the right direction.

I do appreciate a focus on rollplaying, and creative DM'ing to help Fighters (and Rogues) be relevant. But PF is a terrible system to use if you want to make creative use of the environment around you. Among other things, you have to hope that the DM has built an environment with things to use, and some folks (myself included) are weaker at creating settings to begin with. Then you have a ton of mechanics to wrestle with. And a DM isn't guaranteed to be permissive in a situation where the rules are ambiguous or actively go against you.

Also, having spell like options only narrows your thinking if you let it. I wound up running a Ranger, his animal companion, and a Harbinger in an encounter against a Gravity Elemental. All 3 failed their save against the Elemental's Hold effect, increasing their gravity and pinning them all to the ground under the weight of their own equipment. The Ranger and tiger had to pass on their turn because they had no options. The Harbinger, however, was able to teleport above the creature and use it's increased weight to smash the wounded elemental under him, finishing the living singularity off. The DM didn't see it coming, and it was suitably epic and creative, and got a rousing cheer from the rest of the table.

[upho]

I wound up running a Ranger, his animal companion, and a Harbinger in an encounter against a Gravity Elemental. All 3 failed their save against the Elemental's Hold effect, increasing their gravity and pinning them all to the ground under the weight of their own equipment. The Ranger and tiger had to pass on their turn because they had no options. The Harbinger, however, was able to teleport above the creature and use it's increased weight to smash the wounded elemental under him, finishing the living singularity off. The DM didn't see it coming, and it was suitably epic and creative, and got a rousing cheer from the rest of the table.I just gotta say I love this example. Hilarious and smart! And exactly the kind of badass/fun/creative thing ToB/PoW enables and which the fighter unfortunately lacks.

[Luch Ri]

I do have a few things to say, and I am sorry as i was half hoping to end it before and not force my walls of text on others, but I do have a few points to make if I may.

First, I think I finally get one of the big things that I was too angry and stupid and young to get back when ToB came out. That is fully understanding different people do come to this game in different ways. I can understand that not everyone came in to it the odd way I did though my quirky friends and though obsessing over the manual for 'eye of the beholder' and the like. And that is ok. So if I do end up offending anyone I just want to say in advance that I am sorry, and that it is not my intention.

That being said, I do have to wonder why people think I dislike 3.p or 3.5.

I love them! I will note here that I play many different systems. MANY. I currently have a game with a digimon homebrew system that may be getting a session run this week. I was running Shadowrun 5th edition before that. Before that was black crusade and a pathfinder game. I do World of Darkness, Scion, Got a BESM mech game planned, Hell I've run Maids before, many times.

To me they are all different tools with slightly or not so slighlty different uses. They each work best for a specific atmosphere. But like any tool or item I get my hands on, I'm going to modify them and tweak them until they fit my style better. I suppose I forget not everyone does this.

I like 3.P. I like having those intricate building blocks to mash up with restrictions or astercies (or whatever they are called) to help things keep a bit more shape. It's fun to build characters all on your own with that sort of system.

But for me the rules are like Blackwing. Wonderful to have when you need them, best to be ignored when not... so long as the players don't realize that is happening.

The DM is the world, and the world is there in these cases to provide a fun, challenging, theatric environment for the characters that have been created so that they can try to shape it in fun and interesting ways.

ToB, as has been pointed out, seems to be created from the mindset of a purely tabletop wargame mentality. With roles and optimization and other things I don't like. So, for me, I just don't let them in my games when I run. I make the same types of concessions to my fellow players when they DM, and things work out.

If other people enjoy it, that's fine. But 3.X does not have to be simply one thing. I think that is where I got frustrated all those years ago. For me I can see so many possibilities of what it, or any system, could be or can be with only the slightest shift of gears. Sure I could run in GURPS or some such. Not FATE because I had bad memories of it and not anything by Palladium because of the last time we tried to run RIFTS. But there are other options. And sometimes I will use them.

But these rule sets are not bible. They aren't carved in stone. They are tools, and it should not always be about using the one that mgiht seem objectively best by design, but using the one that functionally fits the best with the atmosphere you are trying to create.

But like many tabletop games i suppose it all boils down to different people seeing it in different ways. For me, it is just frustrating at times that people only see 3.X in such and such a way whatever that way may be, and limit themselves to rules that the DMG spells out should simply be guidelines. Rules that are there to be tinkered with and worked on and played with... and yes even ignored as the case may be.

There are better systems out there objectively, but that does not mean they are the 'right' system, if you catch my meaning.

[Manyasone]

I've been playing the game since second edition, and what I find is that you can't look at a character as a single entity. Most adventures asume a group of likeminded individuals that work together to accomplish something. However, as soon as you include mysticals, the muggle get eaten alive. I've seen this happen at a table I master. My current group has a lack in full casters both divine, arcane or psionic. They blitz encounters and most of the time that works...until they encounter a succubus bard and her two shining children bodyguards...first round dominate on the tank, and the entire party blinded by the children plus a buttload of fire damage...Point is, I'm sorry to say, fighters are professional soldiers, which is good (I was one once earlier in life)but against mysticals with a DM who doesn't pull punches, they're lunch...
And I know this is off topic, people, just my two cents

[Captain Morgan]

That being said, I do have to wonder why people think I dislike 3.p or 3.5.

I don't think anyone accused you of disliking 3.P. Rather, you seem to be using the system in ways that aren't intended. Which is fine, frankly, if you enjoy it. As you pointed out, the rules should only exist in so far as they enable fun, not get in the way of it. I myself enjoy a ton of house rules which I think you’d also like—things which make skill checks more relevant over spells, solo campaigns where my own lone fighter has been able to sabotage an entire military, lax enforcement of concealment rules to allow a Rogue to sneak attack more.

But when you move in that direction, you move away from the baseline expectations of the game that your average player experiences. Which also means your experience is less relevant when it comes to evaluating the game, particularly when the topic of conversation is “rules conversions” vs “homebrew.” What you play has simply moved too far away to be helpful. It is like if we were talking about what the best item on the McDonald's menu is, and you said "spaghetti" because the person who owns your local McDonald's franchise threw out the old menu and replaced it with Italian American Cuisine. That's fine if you prefer spaghetti, but it's really not McDonald's anymore.


ToB, as has been pointed out, seems to be created from the mindset of a purely tabletop wargame mentality. With roles and optimization and other things I don't like..
I can’t especially speak of ToB, but this is blatantly untrue for Path of War. PoW is incredibly flavorful. Each initiation class and archetype captures the essence of a particularly character very well. In fact, DSP allocates more text per page to flavor over function than Paizo does by a pretty wide margin. Let's compare how the Harbinger and the Barbarian get their movement speed increased by 10 feet:

Ill Tidings (Ex): Like unwanted news, the harbinger travels swiftly. The harbinger gains a 10 foot competence bonus to her movement speeds. This bonus increases by 10 feet at 10th level.

Fast Movement (Ex): A barbarian's land speed is faster than the norm for her race by +10 feet. This benefit applies only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor, and not carrying a heavy load. Apply this bonus before modifying the barbarian's speed because of any load carried or armor worn. This bonus stacks with any other bonuses to the barbarian's land speed.

This carries over to the disciplines as well-- any given maneuver has more proportional space given to flavor over function than a comparable Paizo spell, rage power, or feat. This flavor can be used to inspire all sorts of awesome roll playing. I built my first Harbinger around the Shattered Mirror Discipline, and he became a parallel reality "reflection" of another player's character to be introduced when I handed the DM reins over to that player. He had a backstory, flaws, and traits all built from the ground up to fit his theme. In play, he can not only do anything creative a Fighter can, but pull off stunts like the aforementioned teleportation gravity bomb, or use a Hat of Disguise in conjunction with confusion effects, feinting and teleporting to trick enemies into attacking their own comrades mid-melee.

Another newer player asked me to be build him a character. He's a professional wrestling fanatic, and wanted to be a Luchador. While most of that could be captured in the Paizo Brawler, Brawler's MAD combined with our point buy didn't allow much room for charisma, which he was disappointed by during his first session because he wanted to hype up the crowd after he supplexed a monster. So I rerolled the character as a Steelfist Commando Warlord, and he now had a full BAB, high charisma wrestler. He's much happier. Again, he can do anything creative a Fighter would, butalso use the power of Hulkmania to rev up allies. And maneuvers give him options that simply don't exist otherwise in Pathfinder mechanics, like grabbing an enemy and throwing it. (And you can throw it into another enemy, or something in the environment, as you see fit.)

Being a Fighter doesn't enable more creativity. Being creative enables creativity. And having more tools to interact with the world around you only increases the ways you can get creative. This isn't just true of ToB/PoW. A Fighter could, in the right context, damage pillars to cause a roof to cave in a la Roy vs Thog. So could an Inquisitor or a Cleric. The Inquisitor could also accomplish this by casting Tremor Blast, and the Cleric Stone Shape. Not only that, but they could potentially trigger the same effect without needing the nearly the same environmental context to pull it off.

[Bucky]

Is there a good way to fix PoW classes' difficulty accessing ToB maneuvers, in games that use both?

[gadren]

Is there a good way to fix PoW classes' difficulty accessing ToB maneuvers, in games that use both?

As I said before, this is how I do it:

All classes from the Book of Nine Swords may add 3 disciplines from the Path of War to their class's available disciplines. All classes from the Path of War may add 3 disciplines from the Book of Nine Swords to their class's available disciplines.

That's the quick and dirty way anyway. You may, as GM, want to pick three specific extra disciplines that fit each class, for thematic reasons.

[Azoth]

Is there a good way to fix PoW classes' difficulty accessing ToB maneuvers, in games that use both?

Another option that requires slightly more work, would be to write up traditions for the ToB disciplines. That way players can join organizations to swap out a discipline from PoW or PoW:E for one from ToB.

There is also a trait in PoW:E that allows swapping one discipline for any other. Unorthodox Method is its name IIRC.