PDA

View Full Version : To ToB or not to ToB



Neon Knight
2007-07-06, 04:25 PM
So, I am a big fan of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It makes melee classes as fun to play as casters, in addition to being powerful enough to stay reasonably competitive later on against Batman and CoDzilla.

However, early game, wizards are not yet universe destroying invincible dark knights. They are, in fact, a tad fragile. And although they still have some good spells, they do not have anything earth shattering yet.

So if low level melee classes tend to be just as powerful (to a degree) as low level casters, are ToB classes a bit powerful early on?

I am asking because I was planning on DMing a low level "gritty" type of campaign focused on intrigue, mystery, and horror, and was wondering if I should allow ToB.

Morty
2007-07-06, 04:29 PM
I can't tell anything about balance issues, but ToB IMO completely doesn't fit "gritty" campaign described by you. Especially if you just replace standard meleers with ToBers.

Yechezkiel
2007-07-06, 04:32 PM
You could always let non-casters switch over (re-level, not cross-class) to ToB classes later on in their careers, when you feel the casters are starting to overshadow them.

Ivius
2007-07-06, 04:38 PM
I can't tell anything about balance issues, but ToB IMO completely doesn't fit "gritty" campaign described by you. Especially if you just replace standard meleers with ToBers.

Agreed. Wuxia =! gritty.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 04:39 PM
Tome of Battle classes actually work fairly well with other classes at low levels! Level 3 is when they pull the most ahead, I think--they pick up Mountain Hammer or another +2d6 damage maneuver, and a Warblade with Punishing Stance can hit for +3d6, with a 2d6 greatsword and, say, +4 to 6 from STR, and then for +2d6 the next round.
That's no more dangerous than a raging (half-)orc barbarian, though, really.

However, they don't fit gritty play very well. The Swordsage is an exception, though--you can use Shadow Blade and unarmed strikes+daggers to moddel a pretty brutal, gritty style of infighting, like a mix of Muay Thai and Kali, plus give'em a shadow-y flavor. Crusaders and Warblades are more heroic-fantasy, though, and the Swordsage can go that way, too.

Saph
2007-07-06, 04:42 PM
We've just finished a campaign with a mixture of ToB classes and spellcasters. I was the DM, and the game ran from 3rd to 7th level.

General consensus was that the ToB characters dominated just too thoroughly. The players who weren't using ToB characters all came up to me at one point or another and said something along the lines of "I feel really overshadowed, I'm just casting one spell or making one attack while these guys are doing all this super-stuff."

I think ToB is good for balancing casters with noncasters at the mid-high and high levels (level 11-20) but it's a bit too strong at levels 1-5. At any rate, no DM in my group apart from me is now willing to allow the book, so I won't get much more chance to experiment.

- Saph

Spiryt
2007-07-06, 04:42 PM
To ToB or not to ToB

I don't know, but this line is great.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 04:52 PM
I had a different experience from Saph in a couple of games. The first ran from levels 1 to 10. We had a barbarian who outdid the swordsage at levels 1 and 2 and did more damage even after that although was weaker defensively, and a Crusader that was great and apparently a blast to play. The Beguiler in the group had no complaints, and I played a wizard and did just fine--at least until I ran out of spells, which didn't actually happen every day once we hit level 3.

At level 5, the Crusader was definitely tougher than the barb but did less damage, and often wound up healing the barbarian; the Swordsage was catching up, doing TWF/shadow blade for solid damage, the barbarian hit harder but got taken out/hurt more often, and the Beguiler and my wizard were doing as you might expect. By level 10, the Crusader was doing an OK job of healing us all, but we kept some high-powered Cure scrolls for the Beguiler to UMD in emergencies (and used UMDed wands to heal during downtime).

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 04:53 PM
<Snip>
- Saph

Sounds like you had a party of Fighter/Paladin/Monk types with maybe one or two wizards(or the traditional cleric). Generally, yes, a Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage will totally overshadow those guys because they suck compared to their replacements.

Compared to a batman-wizard or CoDZilla within 3-7, however, ToB classes do not show any real improvement since they only have access to low level maneuvers and stances that aren't exactly the greatest of abilities. And normally they'll only fire off one of those abilities per round. Two, maybe, if you have a Swordsage who enjoys Boosts.

My suggestion is to put forward a game(with you as the DM) that completely removes Fighter/Paladin/Monk and replaces them with Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage respectively. You should see a vast improvement in the attitudes of people who normally play Fighter/Paladin/Useless. Err.. Monk.

Kizara
2007-07-06, 05:09 PM
ToB is overpowered in general, the content of your first post shows that you already understand this.

My advice is to not use it at all.

Saph
2007-07-06, 05:10 PM
Sounds like you had a party of Fighter/Paladin/Monk types with maybe one or two wizards(or the traditional cleric).

Actually, the total character roster, including replacements, came to:

ToB: Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Another Warblade

Non-ToB: Psion, Ranger, Druid, Psionic Warrior, Wizard, Another Psion

The Ranger one could understand, but even the Druid and Psionic Warrior told me they felt outclassed.

(Note: Over the course of the campaign, every single ToB character died. Every one. I think it was mostly due to the fact that since they did so much damage, they drew most of the enemy fire.)


My suggestion is to put forward a game(with you as the DM) that completely removes Fighter/Paladin/Monk and replaces them with Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage respectively. You should see a vast improvement in the attitudes of people who normally play Fighter/Paladin/Useless. Err.. Monk.

Eh, I could, but most of the players' attitudes have turned against the book now and I'd have to make quite a bit of effort to push through any game that allowed it. I think I'll keep that as a reserve option for if we ever get to highish levels and all the melee characters start complaining about being useless.

- Saph

Exarch
2007-07-06, 05:20 PM
Hasn't there already been 10 posts about this?

Regardless, ToB is only "overpowered" compared to Fighters and Paladins. Rangers and Barbarians still have their niche (well, whatever niche the Scout left the Ranger anyway). Monks will still be played by people, even if the Setting Sun maneuvers do it better. Melee characters always won in the beginning, now they can just stay competitive throughout the end.

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-06, 05:21 PM
ToB is overpowered in general, the content of your first post shows that you already understand this.

My advice is to not use it at all.

ToB is overpowered when compared to the PHB melee classes. When compared to the caster classes and newer melee classes it is balanced.

As for that Saph, how were the druid, psions, and wizard and physic warrior built?

A blaster Psion should (in my experience) equal your moderately well built ToB class over 4 encounters per day. More encounters and the psion gets correspondingly weaker, less and it gets more powerful.

A utility psion should be doing completely different stuff from a ToB class so that doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

Was the druid going for druidzilla or just being a spell caster? At the lower levels (the range you were playing in) a just casting druid will be outclassed by the ToB classes. A druidzilla one will be on par with them.

I understand the Psi Warrior though, that class really needs full BAB to stay competitive.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 05:22 PM
My advice is to not use it at all.

My advice is to ignore part of the above advice. Namely, the "at all" part. Certain parts of ToB(mostly the flavorful tactical feats) can be used in a gritty game if you apply them correctly. Allowing a full martial adept class in a game like that wouldn't be prudent.

However, if you intend for the game to grow beyond 10th level, I highly suggest allowing your players to use ToB classes. Or atleast allow them to 'trade out' levels of the more and more useless (read: Non-Barbarian/Rogue) classes for levels in something more useable.

EDIT: I'd disagree on Ranger having a point anymore. Between Scout(Bow) and Swordsage(Hunter's Stance + TWF), poor Ranger is left without a job.

Kizara
2007-07-06, 05:33 PM
I have found this thread very interesting.

I find it amusing that people feel a book isn't overpowered or unfair, yet its so good that you recommend that to be fair you allow anyone with non-ToB classes to trade them in.

Alot of the newer melee classes are overpowered, compare PHB2 knight with, say, the knight protector PRC or with fighter. Compare beguiler to bard.
Compare duskblade to ranger.

Does ToB continue this trend? Sure, that doesn't make it good though.

Does the book have interesting flavour in it? I don't know, maybe it does, but that's besides the point.

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 05:36 PM
I have found this thread very interesting.

I find it amusing that people feel a book isn't overpowered or unfair, yet its so good that you recommend that to be fair you allow anyone with non-ToB classes to trade them in.

Alot of the newer melee classes are overpowered, compare PHB2 knight with, say, the knight protector PRC or with fighter. Compare beguiler to bard.
Compare duskblade to ranger.

Does ToB continue this trend? Sure, that doesn't make it good though.

Does the book have interesting flavour in it? I don't know, maybe it does, but that's besides the point.

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

Not compared to casting classes. And that logic has been pointed out as a really *****y way to balance a game. Overpowered compared to other melee classes maybe, but they're weaker than what's considered to be level appropriate.

Oh noes, warblade>fighter.

Wizard>warblade>fighter. Being tier two isn't overpowered.

Captain van der Decken
2007-07-06, 05:40 PM
So, Kizara.. melee classes should be underpowered at high levels?


I think Warblade can be gritty. Iron Heart is mostly interesting ways of stabbing people, and Tiger Claw is more or less a barbarian.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 05:42 PM
Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

I'm not even gonna bother continuing this discussion based on what you've said above.

To OP: If you really want something more focused to the roleplay aspect, why not just push people toward skillmonkey classes? It'd definitely help, and an adequately built skillmonkey party still poses a threat to any BBEG.

Neon Knight
2007-07-06, 06:01 PM
Er, well...

I wasn't really going for something that was more roleplay aspect, I was just desiring a campaign where the first response to something's apperance did not include stab it and take its stuff.

I suppose that by using the word gritty, I invoked connotations that I might not be going for.

The main feel I want to get acorss is that although the PCs are fairly powerful, they can't just slaughter all the cultists/heretics/monsters/henchmen/minions in direct combat. If they tried, they'd certainly take many foes with them, but they would still die and by dieing fail their mission. Instead, I'd like them to try a bit of strategy. So far, I seem to be unable to acheive that fine balance of an encounter that, while challenging, does not end in a TPK. Throw in a pinch of generic horror and a bit of Lovecraftian stuff on the side, with a dash of simple puzzles and mysteries so the campaign isn't completely braindead, along with a small amount of political intriuge, and you have what I'm going for in a nutshell.

Secondly, Kizara, I just cannot describe how much I detest that "No ToB" suggestion. The whole reason I made this bloody post was because I realize ToB might not be the best fit for this campaign, but I like it so much I was considering putting it in anyway. I have never considered ToB overpowered. I consider core melee classes underpowered.

ToB is to normal melee classes what the Fighter is to the Warrior.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 06:16 PM
Swordsage or Warblade would do well in that type of scenario. Particularly a shadow-hand/setting-sun Swordsage or a white-raven/iron-heart Warblade.

Further: The description you were looking for was 'deadly tactical game'.

lukelightning
2007-07-06, 06:19 PM
I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers. Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others, inflict cold damage, get concealment, and who knows what else. An unlimited number of times. "But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 06:36 PM
Yes, a Swordsage would be able to get +2d6 Sneak Attack at 6th level when he's in a specific stance. By then, the Rogue has 3d6 that he can use perpetually.

Yes, they can use their abilities constantly. But a Swordsage has to take a full-round to refresh. A Warblade refreshes as a swift action, but he doesn't have alot of abilities to use in the first place. A Crusader doesn't refresh, but he also doesn't have a choice in his abilities unless the player is smart.

Further: Charm Person. Any illusion spell. Anything from Enchantment for that matter. None of the ToB classes can reproduce these effects.

Neon Knight
2007-07-06, 06:37 PM
The one who can heal himself is a crusader. He is a martial adept version of the cleric or paladin, and has access to a special discpline that contains divine related powers. Complaining about him healing himself is akin to complaining about a cleric's ability to heal himself, or a Paladin's lay on hands ability.

The ability to get supernatural forms of damage comes from discplies like Shadowhand and Desert Flame. These discplies have a super natural flare to them.

The concealment ability you mention is the Child of Shadow stance, granted by the Shadowhand discipline. He has to move at least 10 feet to gain the benefit of the stance.

The ability to gain sneak attack you mentioned is a 4th level stance of the Shadowhand discpline. It gives +2d6 sneak attack. Harldy going to invalidate a straight rogue. The ToB character aquires this ability at level 5. +2d6 sneak attack at level 5. You'll pardon me if I roll my eyes.

The discplies you are thinking of that grant damage bonuses, attack bonuses, bonuses to diasrm/trip/grapple are things like Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, and White Raven.

Of course, Tome of Battle abilities are not limited to damage boosts. With Setting Sun, for instance, I can pick up one of my opponents and throw him a short distance. Useful for getting some breathing space.

There are dozens of manuvers with a bewildering array of effects. I think bascially any sort of melee fighter could be created using ToB, in a manner similar to the Fighter.

My question to you and the rogue are: If you envy these abilites, why the heck don't you just multiclass and take a few levels? Unless you are a wizard or something (the first command of wizardry: Thou shall not give up spell levels) I can't think of a class offhand that couldn't benefit from ToB.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 06:55 PM
Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

Even if that were once the case, it certainly seems like Wizards of the Coast has realized that that's very poor game design, and is working to correct it.

Dark_Wind
2007-07-06, 07:03 PM
I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

At first level, I can see a caster feeling overshadowed, since at first level you're liable to run out of spells before the day is done. As you gain levels, you'll find that to be less of a problem. As to the Rogue, well, they aren't so hot in combat anyway, but he's got SA and more and better skills than even a Swordsage.



I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers.

They have those already. They're called feats.


Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others

Not nessecarily when they want to, though. Have you read how the Crusaders' maneuvers work? It's not always convenient. That, and the healing is somewhat lackluster.


inflict cold damage

Ooh, 1d6 extra damage once per encounter (and it really is just once, that's a Swordsage maneuver if it's the one I'm thinking of, so unless he wants to spend a full-round action to recover it...). Scary.


get concealment

As long as he keeps moving 10 per round, ya. Hard to do that in melee without provoking AoOs at 1st level, though. Tumble is less than reliable at that point.


An unlimited number of times.

Per day, yes. How many encounters do you guys fight per day at 1st level? And long encounters kill them. Swordsages especially, since once they run out they have a tough time getting them back and basically turn into glorified Experts.


"But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

Your spells are better than his maneuvers, though. Especially as you gain levels. Well, except against mindless enemies and such, but you knew that when you chose to play a beguiler.


The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

Sucky sneak attack. It's not worth it to use one of those stances, IMO.


I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

If he does, then that is a problem. If you're worried he will, then bring up your concerns with him.

Dausuul
2007-07-06, 07:07 PM
I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers. Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others, inflict cold damage, get concealment, and who knows what else. An unlimited number of times. "But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

*shrug* The ToB characters get a bunch of relatively minor abilities, usable unlimited times per day. You get sleep, also known as "the first-level wail of the banshee," four times per day. You have a rocket launcher, they have machine guns.

The first couple of levels are always kind of annoying for casters--not so much because they're behind on power (they're not) as because they have so few spells they have to spend most of their time plinking away with crossbows, which is boring. But that would be a problem even if your teammates were regular fighters and barbarians and so on.

As for the rogue, well, yeah, a rogue can't keep up with a ToB character in combat. But then, a ToB character can't pick locks, find traps, or get 8 skills a level. Whether this makes up for it depends on how many locks and traps you encounter.

Starsinger
2007-07-06, 07:14 PM
I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

Actually, that's my favorite part about ToB and Warlocks, the fact that they can go full throttle all day. "But... then players can fight all day.. *whine*" As opposed to the much less preferable, 30 minutes into the day, "Well.. out of spell slots, nap time!"

But the PCs are still human..oids. They have to sleep like everyone else does, just not because the Wizard and Band-Aid run out of spells.

Orzel
2007-07-06, 07:18 PM
ToB isn't all that powerful. Most of the stances, boost, and strikes assume you can catch the enemy. This matters little at low level though since there are few evasive enemies at low level.

At low levels skill moneys and caster aren't supposed to kill everything. They can help but until they gain enough resources, they can't kill for long. You are doing the same job so there should be little competition.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-06, 07:26 PM
Actually, that's my favorite part about ToB and Warlocks, the fact that they can go full throttle all day.

Thats the one thing I hate about Warlocks. Their power is spread over all day, so they're going to be mediocre all day rather than have their 30 minutes of fame like a Wizard.

Kalirren
2007-07-06, 07:38 PM
To give my two cents on the OP's question, the two questions of whether or not the ToB classes are overpowered compared to the normal classes and whether or not the ToB allows for grittiness are independent and should not be conflated. To answer the second question first, the classes in ToB don't lend themselves particularly to grittyness, but neither does D&D, really, yet you can still run gritty campaigns.

That said, balance-wise I think ToB is best left to itself, literally. ToB and traditional D&D spell-slots-based magic don't mix well at all. Either run completely without ToB, or run a campaign where the -only- thing allowed is ToB (or maybe ToB plus bard, and make the bard work like ToB), and build the world accordingly. I've contemplated doing the latter for a few months, and the opportunity to run/play in Wuxia d20 is tempting.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-06, 07:46 PM
A grim and gritty game is more a function of level than of class. If you're playing level 7 characters, you're superheroes. Even if you're a Commoner 7, you might very well survive getting shot with a ballista. Roll that over in your mind for a minute. Get a nice mental image. So much for "common", eh? This (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12393614&postcount=239) is a bit more thorough, and illustrates the issue nicely. (My apologies to the world for linking to my own work.)

You mention being concerned the frailty of the cast-y types. My experience is that it never really goes away for the arcanists -- they get better at hiding in magical bomb shelters, but getting caught with their pants down spells doom whether they're 1st, 10th, or 20th level. And while admittedly they're capable of building up more walls as the levels rise, so too are enemies more capable of busting through them. The bottom line is that Wizards have Save-or-Dies from level 1 (Sleep and Color Spray work wonders on groups, and Ray of Enfeeblement can absolutely emasculate anything that'd be worthy of taking on the party solo).

And all things considered, low-level martial adepts aren't really anything to write home about. A huge part of what ToB did was make melee more mobile, less reliant on full attacks... but until level 6, only TWFers care about full attacks anyway. While ToBers do have a couple of hot spots (at levels 4 and 6, Warblades and Fighters look fine side-by-side. At level 5, there's likely to be a bit of a spread as Warblades get a few new toys and Fighters get about as close to nothing as you'll ever find, and don't yet have their second attacks to pick up the slack.) There's not a whole lot I can say regarding that except that it happens from time to time -- hell, a Warlock looks like a killing machine at level 3, when he's making ranged touch attacks for nearly as much as a warrior is making his melee attacks for. But at most other levels, he looks more like a jester than a menace.

It should be noted that statistically, Warblades fall behind a well-built Barbarian in terms of damage output and will be equal in a lot of other respects. While I'm all for swapping out a lot of the original martial classes as levels increase, whether or not ToB works for you at low levels depends largely on how strong your group plays their other classes. The Martial Adepts are pretty well optimized out of the box; a lot of other classes really aren't, which means that even if they're potentially just as good, in practice a lot of players will make choices that keep them below par. Consider a Fighter that grabs Quick Draw and Acrobatic instead of Power Attack and Cleave -- there's not a whole lot you can do to help the guy out. ToB is a far better designed book largely because it's so difficult to screw up. There's still plenty of customization to be had, but the classes' skeletons are sturdy enough to support even some bizarre decisions.

My recommendation, which I've been entirely too long-winded in leading up to, is to ask your players what they're interested in first. It does you no good to say "This is what's allowed out of ToB, and nothing else will be accepted!" if they come to the table and say "Uh, okay. I'm playing a Warmage, that guy's playing a Druid, and the other dude's playing a Spellthief." Many pages of houserules have been saved by the foresight of "No one is going to care anyway."

I personally would lean towards including at least the Warblade and Swordsage, maybe watering them down with heavily-suggested multi-classing if you're not getting the flavor you like. The Crusader is a bit trickier on account of its healing, but so long as you don't allow any of it to be used out of combat you may end up being okay there, too. After all, there's a sizeable difference between "Grim and Gritty" and "Dead and Buried." It might not be a bad idea to try to convince a player to go Bard/Crusader and pick up Song of the White Raven; his Crusader healing mojo will get dampened a bit, but he'll still have plenty of tricks up his sleeve and be a competent combatant.

To Saph: I'm intrigued by your group's consensus of "They're so powerful, they died!" It seems to me that being a noisy, threatening guy and drawing fire away from the squishies is what a warrior is supposed to do; being upset with ToBers pulling it off (and not even successfully, at that) seems... odd. Any chance you could post a bit more about your group's discussions? And how did the ToB PCs react to the experience?

And in closing, when on earth did the world decide that the Scout is anything other than a complete piece of trash, and how did it arrive at such an absurd conclusion? Bow Rangers make Scouts look like the jokes they've always been.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-06, 07:53 PM
And in closing, when on earth did the world decide that the Scout is anything other than a complete piece of trash, and how did it arrive at such an absurd conclusion? Bow Rangers make Scouts look like the jokes they've always been.

It's because Skirmish sounds better than it is. I've made a decent replacement here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2782780).

Jerthanis
2007-07-06, 07:59 PM
My two cents on the issue? Mathew Woodring Stover is one of my favorite authors, and he writes very dark, gritty adventures. Yet I'd say every one of his protagonists would be designed with primarily levels in Swordsage. The difference between the almost magical floaty ballet/fights from the more artistic Wuxia movies and the most brutal fights out of Sin City are mostly down to the description of attacks more than the actual abilities or mechanics behind them. Just emphasize the violence and minimize the grace of the flavor.

In my experience they aren't overwhelmingly overpowered, they just get more options in battle, and more options means more fun for the most part. Barbarians will still outpace their damage, and Fighters will still have more feats. The fact that they don't fall as much behind spellcasters later level just means they aren't going to be PrCed out of as quick as the others. I haven't had much high level experience with ToB classes though, so I can't be absolutely sure they're NOT broken. Low level seemed fine with me, but my experience is hardly comprehensive. I suggest you allow them in, because having options in combat is awesome, just keep an eye on them to avoid any unexpected complications or unbalances. The same advice I'd give you with any new book. Try it to see if you like it, keep an eye out for trouble ahead until you're really familiar with it.

Neon Knight
2007-07-06, 07:59 PM
How is a Tuna such a font of common sense?

I'm gonna go ask my players. Thanks, oh mystical fishman!

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 08:03 PM
My two cents on the issue? Mathew Woodring Stover is one of my favorite authors, and he writes very dark, gritty adventures. Yet I'd say every one of his protagonists would be designed with primarily levels in Swordsage.
Oh, someone else has read Heroes Die and Blade of Tyshalle. :smile:
I've made a couple of Caine-style characters (one just recently), and I typically use TWF + Shadow Blade + Unarmed Strike swordsage variant to represent that kind of infighting style.

Draz74
2007-07-06, 08:10 PM
You could always nerf TOB a bit by making people unable to take them until after they've taken a couple levels in other classes first.

Example: To take your first level of Warblade, you have to have 4 levels of Fighter or Barbarian. To take your first level of Swordsage, you have to have BAB +3. To take your first level of Crusader, you have to have 4 levels of Fighter or Paladin.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-06, 08:11 PM
To the OP: If you want a game without the Kill-them-and-take-their-stuff overtone, I would suggest not allowing the Barbarian, Paladin, and to a lesser extent, the Fighter. This is because these classes encourage that style. The fighter can fight, and that's all, so in situations where he can't fight, he definitely is left out. The barbarian has the mythos of the raving, bloodthirsty charger, though if your players prefer the "Noble Savage" who is willing to talk first, its not an issue. The Paladin is tricky, because it really depends on alignments. If the people you want them to reason with are evil, the paladin needs to go. The Paladin is the one class that is almost impossible to work into morally gray campaigns, because it only works in a Black and White universe. The ToB classes can be introduced into a campaign like the one you described fairly easily. The Real problem, as always, is to make sure the Players get the memo. If you don't want any temptation for the Kill-them-and-take-their-stuff campaign without telling them, I would remove all Frontliners, including ToB, and even then you would need to closely monitor their characters, because someone is going to try and kick in the door.

Koji
2007-07-06, 08:32 PM
It's important to remember that ToB has some feats and other abilities that can be used by any class. If you're mixing traditional fighting classes with ToB, they should be advised to look at ToB, as well as perhaps complete warrior and a few other sources.

In my opinion, ToB FEELS overpowered. A character can be tossing out as many as five dice for his damage by level three, something no one else (barbarians) can even touch.

The important thing to remember is that if a player owns or is using ToB, he's probably fairly skilled at optimization. Someone using core classes isn't necessarily as lucky. Ask your optimized players to hep your sub-optimized players with their builds.

At best, ToB provides a way to enrich and diversify the battlefield for melee characters. The fighter becomes a skilled combatant, tripping or sundering while the Warblade powers through enemies the fighter disables with his superior damage. At worst, it's a way to make half your players feel useless.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 08:37 PM
A level 5 barbarian starting with 17 or 18 strength gets +4 from rage, +2 from being a half-orc, and attacks with a masterwork greatsword at +12, for 2d6+10, which comes out to about 5d6. He can attack like that every round while raging, and god forbid the wizard hastes him...

Fax Celestis
2007-07-06, 10:14 PM
In my opinion, ToB FEELS overpowered. A character can be tossing out as many as five dice for his damage by level three, something no one else (barbarians) can even touch. Rogue 3 with a greatsword throws 4 in a flanking position. Not bad.


At best, ToB provides a way to enrich and diversify the battlefield for melee characters. The fighter becomes a skilled combatant, tripping or sundering while the Warblade powers through enemies the fighter disables with his superior damage. At worst, it's a way to make half your players feel useless.

They should really only feel useless if your party isn't acting like a party and helping each other. This means with builds as much as it means in-character RP.

lukelightning
2007-07-06, 10:23 PM
You get sleep, also known as "the first-level wail of the banshee," four times per day. You have a rocket launcher, they have machine guns.

No, I discovered in our first battle that sleep sucks. It has a full round casting time. By the time you've finished casting it your targets are now hacking you up with weapons. Or your allies. Or spread out so you can only get one. Or all three.

Maybe my analysis will change after I've played for a while, but we've had one fight and I'm pretty much finished. And as for my chance to shine "outside of combat" doing beguiler stuff, one of these martial maneuver characters is some sort of hybrid bard that gets all these combat maneuvers.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-06, 10:27 PM
Maybe my analysis will change after I've played for a while, but we've had one fight and I'm pretty much finished. And as for my chance to shine "outside of combat" doing beguiler stuff, one of these martial maneuver characters is some sort of hybrid bard that gets all these combat maneuvers.

That doesn't sound like any of the classes in the book. Find out what class he's actually playing, or where he found it. Homebrew is always circumspect balance wise, and this might be a case of the unbalanced kind.

Gavin Sage
2007-07-06, 10:41 PM
To give my two cents on the OP's question, the two questions of whether or not the ToB classes are overpowered compared to the normal classes and whether or not the ToB allows for grittiness are independent and should not be conflated. To answer the second question first, the classes in ToB don't lend themselves particularly to grittyness, but neither does D&D, really, yet you can still run gritty campaigns.

That said, balance-wise I think ToB is best left to itself, literally. ToB and traditional D&D spell-slots-based magic don't mix well at all. Either run completely without ToB, or run a campaign where the -only- thing allowed is ToB (or maybe ToB plus bard, and make the bard work like ToB), and build the world accordingly. I've contemplated doing the latter for a few months, and the opportunity to run/play in Wuxia d20 is tempting.

Gee I was going to post but somebody already said what I wanted for me.

Neon Knight
2007-07-06, 10:58 PM
Where does this ToB and casters do not mix vibe come from?

ToB characters waiting for the wizard to get spells is no different that the Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin waiting for the wizard to get spells.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 11:01 PM
No, I discovered in our first battle that sleep sucks. It has a full round casting time. By the time you've finished casting it your targets are now hacking you up with weapons. Or your allies. Or spread out so you can only get one. Or all three.

Maybe my analysis will change after I've played for a while, but we've had one fight and I'm pretty much finished. And as for my chance to shine "outside of combat" doing beguiler stuff, one of these martial maneuver characters is some sort of hybrid bard that gets all these combat maneuvers.

Nobody, not even a straight bard, beats the Beguiler out of combat.

In-combat, especially at the early levels, Beguilers are very effective. If Sleep's casting time is too much, use Color Spray. Use Silent Image--a wall of stone or metal or smoke with wraiths in it that your allies *know* is an illusion mean that your allies can see through the wall, and the enemies can't. When you get Glitterdust, use that.

Beguilers are fine. I'm not sure why you're needing four spells a fight. (In any case, Beguilers can handle traps and social situations on top of that--and yes, low-level casters do tend to run out of spells. It's just a part of low-level life.)

Gavin Sage
2007-07-06, 11:27 PM
Where does this ToB and casters do not mix vibe come from?

ToB characters waiting for the wizard to get spells is no different that the Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin waiting for the wizard to get spells.

Standard fighting classes need the casters by design. A balance for casters being all squishy and weak early in the game. ToB can get along just fine on their own, well aside from healing maybe, because they are casters.

Just in general ToB throws everything around, they overpower normal melee classes and are going to beat out casters who aren't careful/optimized either. Consider the classic blaster mage, I saw a ToB 'spell' that does a straight 100 damage if memory serves, which Meteor Swarm is unlikely to beat. And while MS can strike an area, your going to have what maybe 2 on a Wizard before he has to sleep for 8 hours. None of the Martial Adepts take that long. Not everybody plays Batman, who I think is overrated anyways

At least that's how I see it. I don't believe melee is so underpowered as people around here think though, plus my belief for how to deal with casters being overpowered is to nerf them in some way, not add casting to melee classes.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-06, 11:40 PM
Ugh. Perfect Clarity is a ninth-level maneuver. At that level, not only do wizards have Disjunction, Time Stop, Shapechange, Wail of the Banshee, and Gate, not only will Barbarians consistently out-damage that (if you even hit), but there's maybe one CR-appropriate monster who can be seriously inconvenienced by it.

And Batman, "overrated"?

... screw it, I'm done.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-06, 11:41 PM
Just in general ToB throws everything around, they overpower normal melee classes and are going to beat out casters who aren't careful/optimized either. Consider the classic blaster mage, I saw a ToB 'spell' that does a straight 100 damage if memory serves, which Meteor Swarm is unlikely to beat. And while MS can strike an area, your going to have what maybe 2 on a Wizard before he has to sleep for 8 hours. None of the Martial Adepts take that long. Not everybody plays Batman, who I think is overrated anyways

Do you know what 100 damage is? That's about 28d6 to a single target. A meteor swarm potentially deals 16d6 bludgeoning to one target and 24d6 fire in a 40' radius. 40d6 averages to 140 damage. Further, a meteor swarm can be maximized. Maneuvers cannot. A maximized meteor swarm will do 240 damage to a single target (~40% bludgeoning/~60% fire), and 144 fire damage in a 40' radius around the target.

Further, the desert wind strike in question requires you to be in melee and to hit with a melee attack. Meteor swarm requires you to hit with four ranged touch attacks from a distance of up to 1200' away. A quarter mile away.

Despite being usable far more frequently each day, maneuvers are weaker than spells for two reasons. The first reason is that most maneuvers deal less damage or have a weaker effect than a spell of equal level. The second reason is that most maneuvers require the initiator to be in melee.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-06, 11:44 PM
Standard fighting classes need the casters by design. A balance for casters being all squishy and weak early in the game. ToB can get along just fine on their own, well aside from healing maybe, because they are casters.
"These guys are weak now, so they'll be the best later" is very poor game design, really.


Just in general ToB throws everything around, they overpower normal melee classes and are going to beat out casters who aren't careful/optimized either. Consider the classic blaster mage, I saw a ToB 'spell' that does a straight 100 damage if memory serves, which Meteor Swarm is unlikely to beat. And while MS can strike an area, your going to have what maybe 2 on a Wizard before he has to sleep for 8 hours. None of the Martial Adepts take that long. Not everybody plays Batman, who I think is overrated anyways
That's not true.
I'm not sure whether you're inexperienced with high-level play, with the Tome of Battle itself, or with spellcasters, but essentially everything in that paragraph is false--I call'em like I see'em.
First, Martial Adepts don't overpower normal melee classes so much as out-versatile (not really a word, but) them, have better defenses, and not so many gaping weaknesses. A martial adept's damage output isn't actually significantly better, for the most part. They're just better prepared for the realities of higher-level play.
They are not going to beat out spellcasters, except very poorly designed ones. Meteor Swarm is a terrible spell. Sorry, again, but it's true. I'm not sure why you're comparing things to some of the wizard's *worst* options.

There are two strikes that do 100 damage: one of them adds it to a normal attack; the other does 100 fire damage in an area. 100 fire damage in a burst is not very useful--fire immunity and resistance and reflex saves really mean that it won't do much. Adding 100 damage to a hit isn't so good, either--you're giving up a full attack, with which you might do more than 100 damage.
Best-case scenario, Meteor Swarm cast against a creature with no fire immunity and all the meteors hit--that's 32d6 damage, or 112 on average.
Best-case scenarios aren't the average (I'm not gonna work out the odds of hitting random high-level monster's touch ACs!), but Meteor Swarm is comparable... and then, like the Swordsage has his magic weapon, the wizard has his Rod of Maximize Spell. Boom, that's 198 damage.
What's more, the spellcaster can do this (about five times a day, mind, three Maximized, if he wants to fill his slots with it--which should be more than enough) from a Long range, without ever getting anywhere near danger. The Warblade that goes in and hits the Wyrm with a Strike of +100 Damage is going to eat that thing's full attack next round.
He might not survive.
The wizard's twiddling his fingers, All The Way Over There; if the dragon charges him, he'll take one hit at most, and live--presuming the dragon can reach him with a charge (no obstacles), presuming he doesn't have contingencies, didn't intentionally get out of its range, and so on and so forth--high-level wizards can do a LOT of things.

And Meteor Swarm is one of the wizard's *least* powerful high level spells! Instead, that wizard could be pummeling the dragon with two Split Ray Empowered Enervations a round: that's 6d4 negative levels, but really, even the 3d4 (especially if you make it 8+1d4 with a rod of maximization) are enough to make the dragon fail its next save. Speaking of saves, the wizard can beat a CR-equivalent dragon's Will save about half the time with his high-level spells; I saw the math done a while ago on this board. And how about Imprisonment, which offers a -4 penalty to that save?
Heck, how about good ol' Irresistible Dance?

I'm not sure why you'd compare Martial Adepts with intentionally poorly-designed wizards who do nothing but try to blow things up (especially with poor options such as straight-up Meteor Swarm). If you use a wizard's weakest tactic, the wizard will be weak. Is that a surprise? It's senseless to compare Meteor Swarm damage to full attack damage; a full attack can do far more. Melee characters do more damage--damage output is not the issue.


At least that's how I see it. I don't believe melee is so underpowered as people around here think though, plus my belief for how to deal with casters being overpowered is to nerf them in some way, not add casting to melee classes.
Both things need to be done: it's been said repeatedly here that melee classes have problems with *monsters*, not just with mages. Balors, Solars, Dragons... the big baddies... barbarians and fighters just don't measure up.

Draz74
2007-07-06, 11:46 PM
Further, the iron heart strike in question requires you to be in melee and to hit with a melee attack. Meteor swarm requires you to hit with four ranged touch attacks from a distance of up to 1200' away. A quarter mile away.

Fixed for you.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-06, 11:55 PM
Further, the desert wind strike in question requires you to be in melee and to hit with a melee attack. Meteor swarm requires you to hit with four ranged touch attacks from a distance of up to 1200' away. A quarter mile away.That's the Iron Heart one, Strike of Perfect Clarity. Inferno Blast is a 60ft radius burst centered on you, 100 fire damage with a Reflex save for half. Note that the save isn't actually mentioned explicitly, but it should be 19+Wis.

Let's look at this. It's a fire-based ability gained at level 17. That is, it's the most commonly resisted element at a level when a huge percentage of creatures have innate resistance or immunity to elements. Further, a level 17 PC should have a reputation, and someone with that much Desert Wind training is likely known for his fire-based abilities, as Desert Wind is unique even in ToB. Which means most intelligent foes are going to have resistances and immunities up even if they don't have them innately.

Even ignoring that, though, its a 60 ft radius burst centered on you. This isn't a Slow spell, where you can pick and choose who gets affected and who doesn't. This is an explosion. If you do this near your party, you incinerate them. Chalk that up as a negative. Moving on, it's an ability whose DC is based off of Wisdom, on a combat class that has no armor proficiency higher than light, meaning the DC is going to be piddly compared to a full caster thanks to MAD. And then there's the issue of Evasion and Improved Evasion.

And finally there's the whole "Meteor Swarm is a terrible, terrible spell and an absolute waste of a 9th level slot" thing. Seriously, you've got Shapechage, Gate, and Wish staring you in the face and you pick Meteor Swarm?

Is Inferno Blast nifty? Yes. Useful? Considerably less so.

Neon Knight
2007-07-07, 12:11 AM
I was going to post something, but the counter argument has pretty much been made.

Did you say ToB are casters? I'm not even gonna ask why....

Gavin Sage
2007-07-07, 02:17 AM
"These guys are weak now, so they'll be the best later" is very poor game design, really.

Yet has been there for a long time. And I've found tends to go into most things with a class system. Its to preserve magic being impressive and world shaking, a hallmark really of fantasy. When you have mundane dude with sword just as earth shaking its not as rich a world. Doesn't mean magic wielders shouldn't have very exploitable weakpoints that don't go away, but you are telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.


First, Martial Adepts don't overpower normal melee classes so much as out-versatile (not really a word, but) them, have better defenses, and not so many gaping weaknesses. A martial adept's damage output isn't actually significantly better, for the most part. They're just better prepared for the realities of higher-level play.

Greater versality in combat equates to over powering.

And when you say "not significantly better" do you mean when compared to a +5 greatsword Barbarian in a rage, with Power Attack, starts with 18 Str and 16 Con, and has something like a +5 Str. Or a sword and shield fighter that only rolled a 16 for their highest stat, and maybe wasted a feat or two on something for flavor or that sounds better then it is.

My point is how optimized do your normal melees have to be to come to the not significantly but still worse then Martial Adepts range.


They are not going to beat out spellcasters, except very poorly designed ones. Meteor Swarm is a terrible spell. Sorry, again, but it's true. I'm not sure why you're comparing things to some of the wizard's *worst* options.

And if you are a blaster mage looking for a for to put that 9th level spell on your list, there's another shooting spell on that level? People play blasters and the like. Plus for a lot of other spells, weakened is not the same as dead so somebody has to do damage sometime.


There are two strikes that do 100 damage: one of them adds it to a normal attack; the other does 100 fire damage in an area. 100 fire damage in a burst is not very useful--fire immunity and resistance and reflex saves really mean that it won't do much. Adding 100 damage to a hit isn't so good, either--you're giving up a full attack, with which you might do more than 100 damage.

Key word might, plus again how optimal a build are we talking about?



Best-case scenario, Meteor Swarm cast against a creature with no fire immunity and all the meteors hit--that's 32d6 damage, or 112 on average.
Best-case scenarios aren't the average (I'm not gonna work out the odds of hitting random high-level monster's touch ACs!), but Meteor Swarm is comparable... and then, like the Swordsage has his magic weapon, the wizard has his Rod of Maximize Spell. Boom, that's 198 damage.

And indeed we are talking a reasonably favorable situation. If no meteors hit we are looking at somewhere in the 70s range. But for a straight bonus it doesn't have to be favorable. Lots of potential for MS to come out down,

(And something of a side note, but category versus specific item. I consider specific items arguments fairly weak since its one item and may not always be availible)



What's more, the spellcaster can do this (about five times a day, mind, three Maximized, if he wants to fill his slots with it--which should be more than enough) from a Long range, without ever getting anywhere near danger. The Warblade that goes in and hits the Wyrm with a Strike of +100 Damage is going to eat that thing's full attack next round.
He might not survive.
The wizard's twiddling his fingers, All The Way Over There; if the dragon charges him, he'll take one hit at most, and live--presuming the dragon can reach him with a charge (no obstacles), presuming he doesn't have contingencies, didn't intentionally get out of its range, and so on and so forth--high-level wizards can do a LOT of things.

So this is a Sorceror, specialist in Evocation, or sporting 28 Int, as well high level. However since the Martial Adepts can renew their spells with hardly any time they can do +100 how many times a day? Gods help the poor wizard that has to face more then three battles before a chance to rest. And do Adepts get their lvl 9s only at 20th level?

Now as to the wyrm, of what type and age. Yeah the one on one adept still needs back up. But lets say we get 3 Adepts, an adult Red only has mid-200 something average HP I believe.


And Meteor Swarm is one of the wizard's *least* powerful high level spells! Instead, that wizard could be pummeling the dragon with two Split Ray Empowered Enervations a round: that's 6d4 negative levels, but really, even the 3d4 (especially if you make it 8+1d4 with a rod of maximization) are enough to make the dragon fail its next save. Speaking of saves, the wizard can beat a CR-equivalent dragon's Will save about half the time with his high-level spells; I saw the math done a while ago on this board. And how about Imprisonment, which offers a -4 penalty to that save?
Heck, how about good ol' Irresistible Dance?

Yes and every mage wants to mess around with multiple metamagic upgrades, or even thinks of them. Or isn't playing a sorceror.

And half the time... I find that even odds not something to bet on much with a number of enemies. Plus Imprisonment is touch, so you have worse problem then the melee if it fails. And Otto's dance is too, nor is weakened dead plus there are immunities to mind-effects out there. And for both thats sacking the benefit of doing this from a distance. Sure if it works, but if it doesn't...


I'm not sure why you'd compare Martial Adepts with intentionally poorly-designed wizards who do nothing but try to blow things up (especially with poor options such as straight-up Meteor Swarm). If you use a wizard's weakest tactic, the wizard will be weak. Is that a surprise? It's senseless to compare Meteor Swarm damage to full attack damage; a full attack can do far more. Melee characters do more damage--damage output is not the issue.

Both things need to be done: it's been said repeatedly here that melee classes have problems with *monsters*, not just with mages. Balors, Solars, Dragons... the big baddies... barbarians and fighters just don't measure up.

Who said it was intentional? I don't think Meteor Swarm or other blasting is terribly weak. Room full of baddies, nothing like offing half and weakening the others in one shot. Something a mage using one of save-or-whatever spells can run out of fast. And its still a lot of damage, I don't need to win in one round to consider my character effective. My original point was that ToB classes push into the caster area, without the limitations.

(And for big baddies fights, careful planning can almost always get it done in my experience. Yes the fighters are doing a lot of meat-shielding, but boss fights are were I expect mages to do all the work)

Starsinger
2007-07-07, 02:19 AM
Thats the one thing I hate about Warlocks. Their power is spread over all day, so they're going to be mediocre all day rather than have their 30 minutes of fame like a Wizard.

Well yeah, Warlocks are terrible compared to a Wizard, but this is D&D, few things aren't. And yes, warlocks are underpowered, but I think all day is a step in the right direction. Instead of 3 spells/day, why not weaker spells that you cna use at will? Without a "real" caster around to over shadow them, Warlocks aren't so bad.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-07-07, 02:49 AM
Not compared to casting classes. And that logic has been pointed out as a really *****y way to balance a game. Overpowered compared to other melee classes maybe, but they're weaker than what's considered to be level appropriate.

Oh noes, warblade>fighter.

Wizard>warblade>fighter. Being tier two isn't overpowered.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html

Why would someone that hits things with a stick be as powerful as someone who reshapes reality and tells the laws of physics to shut up and play dead? Wizards should be more powerful than melee-ers. It's a fantasy convention.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-07, 02:54 AM
I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers. Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others, inflict cold damage, get concealment, and who knows what else. An unlimited number of times. "But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.
:smallconfused:

Meanwhile, you disregard the Beguiler and Rogue's SKILLS. Which, let me check... yep, they get to use those all day.

Since a Beguiler needs only Int to be effective, they can potentially have more skill points than a rogue. And effective spells, with many, many options. I play a Beguiler, and am about to start with another. I've also done several ToB characters. Beguilers are far more powerful and versatile than an equal level ToB class, unless you're fighting enemies that can't be mind-affected (undead, constructs, etc). In which case, you can buff your party, or confuse your enemies with fog and illusions. Or if things go completely south, you can get the heck out of there faster than anyone else.

Meanwhile, your skills make you one of the most effective characters outside of battle. You can handle the rogue and bard's jobs without even touching your spells, or even using all your potential skills. Heck, Beguilers get trapfinding (goodbye rogue), and Glibness (goodbye Bard). In the "perfect" group of 4 classes, they usually are given a spot. Which ToB classes often aren't, in favor of a Druid.

Jeesh. I just hope your DM doesn't plan encounters based on characters who can use their abilities all day, and then go nova when they feel like it to boot. :smallannoyed:


Why would someone that hits things with a stick be as powerful as someone who reshapes reality and tells the laws of physics to shut up and play dead? Wizards should be more powerful than melee-ers. It's a fantasy convention.
Perhaps because D&D is a team game? Meanwhile, ToB classes aren't just hitting things with sticks. Depending on how you phrase them, they too are reshaping reality with their maneuvers. An easy example is that their precise manner of striking is like a mage's gestures, and both shift reality in different ways.

It's hardly a fantasy convention for wizards to outclass fighters. In certain realms of fantasy, yes. Perhaps you haven't read enough works where warriors trump mages (and there are plenty)

Roog
2007-07-07, 03:32 AM
Why would someone that hits things with a stick be as powerful as someone who reshapes reality and tells the laws of physics to shut up and play dead? Wizards should be more powerful than melee-ers. It's a fantasy convention.

If you think wizards should be more powerful, you can still do that in a balanced level system - just give the magic users a higher level.

Thats the fair and honest way to do it.

Then those of us who want to have fun with a balanced game (i.e. what the default should be), can play parties based on roughly equal power, and the GM can use CRs meaningfully.

Saph
2007-07-07, 05:12 AM
ToB is overpowered when compared to the PHB melee classes. When compared to the caster classes and newer melee classes it is balanced.

As for that Saph, how were the druid, psions, and wizard and physic warrior built?

A blaster Psion should (in my experience) equal your moderately well built ToB class over 4 encounters per day. More encounters and the psion gets correspondingly weaker, less and it gets more powerful.

That's pretty accurate actually. The Psion was a Elan kineticist blaster and the only one who compared to the ToB classes in lethality (Energy Missile is amazingly good, we rarely allow psionics so I've never seen it used before). The Druid was a summoner/zilla with Augment Summoning, and the Psionic Warrior was a toolbox/mobility type with ally-aiding powers.

Each had their own tricks, but in killyness the ToB classes left them all in the dust. Only the Psion could keep up, and then only while her PPs lasted.


To Saph: I'm intrigued by your group's consensus of "They're so powerful, they died!" It seems to me that being a noisy, threatening guy and drawing fire away from the squishies is what a warrior is supposed to do; being upset with ToBers pulling it off (and not even successfully, at that) seems... odd. Any chance you could post a bit more about your group's discussions? And how did the ToB PCs react to the experience?

I think the issue was that the non-ToB characters felt like they were reduced to spectators. None of them was useless, but they ended up being relegated to support/noncombat roles because they just couldn't keep up with the ToB types, especially over the long haul. By mid-campaign, the fights tended to look like this:

• Crusader or Warblade: On the front line killing stuff.
• Swordsage: Flanking the front line and shooting ranged touch attacks, killing stuff.
• Psion: Blasting stuff and killing stuff while her PPs lasted.
• Psionic Warrior: Fighting briefly on the front line, then falling back once he'd run out of psionic focus and using support powers like Empathic Transfer.
• Druid: Occasionally summoning or tossing a Flaming Sphere, but mostly using a wand of Cure Light Wounds.
• Ranger: Firing arrows that missed, and using a wand of Cure Light Wounds.

As for why the ToB characters died, that's due to my DMing style. I'm one of those DMs that feels that combat's only interesting if it carries some risk of PC death, so if the PCs aren't in danger I scale up the CR until they are. And I had to scale up the CR a LOT. After the first session, I don't think the party fought a single encounter at their CR. Everything was 2-3 points above their CR, and quite a few of the encounters were more. Even then, the party deaths usually only happened when the characters did something stupid (like closing to full attack range with a Wyvern after you've already been stung once and have lost 7 points of Con), because ToB characters are just that tough.

The problem with this was that to challenge the death-machine Crusader with a sky-high AC, self-healing, and White Raven Tactics, I had to send in monsters that could have squished the poor Ranger (played by a newbie who was in her first long-running campaign) into a sticky paste. She ended up surviving the whole campaign, but only because she never closed to melee range and because, quite honestly, she was such a low-priority target for the enemies.

As for what the ToB players thought? The munchkin loved it, obviously, despite his characters having the lifespan of a suicidally depressed lemming (had a Warblade, died, had a Crusader, died, had a Wizard, died, got reincarnated, nearly died, campaign ended). The swordsage player, on the other hand, told me repeatedly that he thought his PC was sickeningly overpowered. Not that he didn't make the most of it, but by the end he was actually trying to get me to kill him, just to see if it was even possible. He's going to be the DM next campaign, and he's already banned ToB. The player of the last warblade only played the character for three sessions, but pretty much agreed - "seems a bit overpowered".

So there you go, our group's experiences. Make of 'em what you will. :P

- Saph

Reinforcements
2007-07-07, 08:56 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html

Why would someone that hits things with a stick be as powerful as someone who reshapes reality and tells the laws of physics to shut up and play dead? Wizards should be more powerful than melee-ers. It's a fantasy convention.
Ridiculously good warriors are a fantasy convention, too. The reason spellcasters have generally been more powerful in D&D is that's the way it is in fantasy wargames, which is where D&D originated. That doesn't make it a good convention to follow.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 10:24 AM
That's pretty accurate actually. The Psion was a Elan kineticist blaster and the only one who compared to the ToB classes in lethality (Energy Missile is amazingly good, we rarely allow psionics so I've never seen it used before). The Druid was a summoner/zilla with Augment Summoning, and the Psionic Warrior was a toolbox/mobility type with ally-aiding powers.

Each had their own tricks, but in killyness the ToB classes left them all in the dust. Only the Psion could keep up, and then only while her PPs lasted.



I think the issue was that the non-ToB characters felt like they were reduced to spectators. None of them was useless, but they ended up being relegated to support/noncombat roles because they just couldn't keep up with the ToB types, especially over the long haul. By mid-campaign, the fights tended to look like this:

• Crusader or Warblade: On the front line killing stuff.
• Swordsage: Flanking the front line and shooting ranged touch attacks, killing stuff.
• Psion: Blasting stuff and killing stuff while her PPs lasted.
• Psionic Warrior: Fighting briefly on the front line, then falling back once he'd run out of psionic focus and using support powers like Empathic Transfer.
• Druid: Occasionally summoning or tossing a Flaming Sphere, but mostly using a wand of Cure Light Wounds.
• Ranger: Firing arrows that missed, and using a wand of Cure Light Wounds.

As for why the ToB characters died, that's due to my DMing style. I'm one of those DMs that feels that combat's only interesting if it carries some risk of PC death, so if the PCs aren't in danger I scale up the CR until they are. And I had to scale up the CR a LOT. After the first session, I don't think the party fought a single encounter at their CR. Everything was 2-3 points above their CR, and quite a few of the encounters were more. Even then, the party deaths usually only happened when the characters did something stupid (like closing to full attack range with a Wyvern after you've already been stung once and have lost 7 points of Con), because ToB characters are just that tough.

The problem with this was that to challenge the death-machine Crusader with a sky-high AC, self-healing, and White Raven Tactics, I had to send in monsters that could have squished the poor Ranger (played by a newbie who was in her first long-running campaign) into a sticky paste. She ended up surviving the whole campaign, but only because she never closed to melee range and because, quite honestly, she was such a low-priority target for the enemies.

As for what the ToB players thought? The munchkin loved it, obviously, despite his characters having the lifespan of a suicidally depressed lemming (had a Warblade, died, had a Crusader, died, had a Wizard, died, got reincarnated, nearly died, campaign ended). The swordsage player, on the other hand, told me repeatedly that he thought his PC was sickeningly overpowered. Not that he didn't make the most of it, but by the end he was actually trying to get me to kill him, just to see if it was even possible. He's going to be the DM next campaign, and he's already banned ToB. The player of the last warblade only played the character for three sessions, but pretty much agreed - "seems a bit overpowered".

So there you go, our group's experiences. Make of 'em what you will. :P

- Saph

It appears your problem lies in the fact that ToB classes don't really need twinkage to be good: they're very well optimized out of the box. And from your description of your other players, they hadn't done any sort of optimization whatsoever. A Psychic Warrior should be on-par with a Warblade any day of the week, if he chooses his powers right. Same with a Ranger who's allowed access to the Spell Compendium. And, honestly, Druids are tough to Zilla correctly, and "using a wand in combat" says "not Zillaing correctly".

I'll be frank: ToB is strong, about as strong as a well-built full caster. But if your players don't frequently make use of well-built full casters, then you probably shouldn't allow ToB either, because the ToBers will outclass everyone else at that point.

In short, ToB is powerful, but not broken. Play accordingly.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 11:25 AM
Yet has been there for a long time. And I've found tends to go into most things with a class system. Its to preserve magic being impressive and world shaking, a hallmark really of fantasy. When you have mundane dude with sword just as earth shaking its not as rich a world. Doesn't mean magic wielders shouldn't have very exploitable weakpoints that don't go away, but you are telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.
It is an archaic element that does not make for a good game! And no, it isn't a hallmark of all fantasy. What's more, D&D is a game, not a novel; it's not fun to be the weak person who can't contribute.


Greater versality in combat equates to over powering.
Not really. It makes for a better class, but it doesn't overpower much.


And when you say "not significantly better" do you mean when compared to a +5 greatsword Barbarian in a rage, with Power Attack, starts with 18 Str and 16 Con, and has something like a +5 Str. Or a sword and shield fighter that only rolled a 16 for their highest stat, and maybe wasted a feat or two on something for flavor or that sounds better then it is.
I am comparing relatively optimizied regular melee characters to relatively optimized martial adepts. Why would new classes be designed against a baseline of *intentionally suboptimal* characters? If we were to balance everything against sword and board fighters that spend feats on Skill Focus, everything would be bad!


My point is how optimized do your normal melees have to be to come to the not significantly but still worse then Martial Adepts range.
Depends--how optimized is the Martial Adept? It's possible to build a bad martial adept; it's just harder to screw one up completely--even a sword and shield wielding martial adept with bad feat choices can still pick decent maneuvers (of course, he could mess that up with bad choices, too).


And if you are a blaster mage looking for a for to put that 9th level spell on your list, there's another shooting spell on that level? People play blasters and the like. Plus for a lot of other spells, weakened is not the same as dead so somebody has to do damage sometime.
If you are a core blaster mage, you could use a maximized Disintegrate against a creature with lackluster Fort. saves. Or you could use Crushing Hand, which is evocation and has ridiculous grapple bonuses. Or you could not limit yourself to crappy spells.

Why do you want them to compare everything new to the *weakest* of the old stuff, like fighters with terrible feat choices and wizards who cast nothing but damage spells?!


And indeed we are talking a reasonably favorable situation. If no meteors hit we are looking at somewhere in the 70s range. But for a straight bonus it doesn't have to be favorable. Lots of potential for MS to come out down,
The martial adept can miss entirely, in which case he loses all of his damage. Also, there's damage reduction to worry about.


(And something of a side note, but category versus specific item. I consider specific items arguments fairly weak since its one item and may not always be availible)
Metamagic rods should be availible at a high level. They're meant to be. You can teleport and plane shift, I'm sure you can track one down *somewhere* in *some* world. There are rules for GP limits for towns, and what you can buy where; I'm not sure why you'd let a fighter purchase a +5 Holy Speed Whatever but not let a spellcaster get a Metamagic Rod of Maximization, Greater.
Characters are meant to have access to the items in the DMG. Change that, and you change the nature and balance of the game (not, I'd imagine, for the better--clerics and druids would have it even better).


So this is a Sorceror, specialist in Evocation, or sporting 28 Int, as well high level. However since the Martial Adepts can renew their spells with hardly any time they can do +100 how many times a day? Gods help the poor wizard that has to face more then three battles before a chance to rest. And do Adepts get their lvl 9s only at 20th level?
A level 20 spellcaster can easily face four or five battles. Martial Adepts and Spellcasters both get 9th level spells at level 17 (sorcerers at 18). Of COURSE a wizard has a high Intelligence. Five (regular wizard) or six (Evoker or sorcerer) 9th-level spell slots at level 20 is a bunch of Meteor Swarms, and then there's all their other spells.

The martial adept can do +100 as often as they can refresh their maneuvers (which, for all but the crusader--who gets no +100 strikes--eats up their combat round)... but why does this matter? How many encounters does a group HAVE in a day? Five? Six? Even when they're high level and can fly and teleport? Four is the number recommended by the book, but in my experience it tends to be less.

So, even a spellcaster using the weakest kind of spellcasting can match a martial adept's damage... and I've already pointed out that


Now as to the wyrm, of what type and age. Yeah the one on one adept still needs back up. But lets say we get 3 Adepts, an adult Red only has mid-200 something average HP I believe.
...if all of them get to it and hit it (dragons can buff themselves, fly fast, have a great AC, etc), yeah. That'd be the case for three barbarians full attacking, too.

Yes, a good party can destroy a dragon. So can a single spellcaster.


Yes and every mage wants to mess around with multiple metamagic upgrades, or even thinks of them. Or isn't playing a sorceror.
A spellcaster without metamagic rods is like a fighter without a weapon. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The blaster spellcaster does more damage than those 100-damage strikes--but is limited in how often he can do it. Isn't that traditional spellcaster/warrior "balance"?


And half the time... I find that even odds not something to bet on much with a number of enemies. Plus Imprisonment is touch, so you have worse problem then the melee if it fails. And Otto's dance is too, nor is weakened dead plus there are immunities to mind-effects out there. And for both thats sacking the benefit of doing this from a distance. Sure if it works, but if it doesn't...
Half the time = regular spell + quickened spell means you've got him. Or that you've got him in two rounds.
As for touch range, sure... that's what Arcane Reach is for. Archmage, again, is a prestige class spellcasters are expected to take. Or you could just get in range, cast defensively, and then use a rod to quicken a Teleport out. A dragon who has a 50% chance to make a save vs. Imprisonment before the -4 has a 30% chance after. That's not looking very good for the dragon. And Irresistible Dance has no saving throw! Unless the dragon has Mind Blank (not all of'em can cast spells that high level, and they are usually easy to dispel due to a significantly lower caster level than PC spellcasters), that's it.



Who said it was intentional? I don't think Meteor Swarm or other blasting is terribly weak. Room full of baddies, nothing like offing half and weakening the others in one shot. Something a mage using one of save-or-whatever spells can run out of fast. And its still a lot of damage, I don't need to win in one round to consider my character effective. My original point was that ToB classes push into the caster area, without the limitations.
I'm sorry, but blasting is essentially the weakest thing a wizard can do; I think that has been shown repeatedly, here. Compare the damage Haste adds to a Fireball's. If a Meteor Swarm takes out half a room, Wail of the Banshee would have gotten more. If there's a room full of enemies, they aren't very challenging individually... but they ARE likely to be fire resistant, at high levels. Honestly, how many high-level things don't have fire resistance/immunity? Wasting a ninth-level spell on a group of weaker enemies when you could just have fighters hit them or debuff them with a low-level spell is silly.


(And for big baddies fights, careful planning can almost always get it done in my experience. Yes the fighters are doing a lot of meat-shielding, but boss fights are were I expect mages to do all the work)
But you shouldn't. "Fighters can't contribute to a boss fight" is bad game design. It's not fun to not contribute. It's more fun when your character is doing things. Standing back and watching someone destroy the dragon with two or three spells in a round or two isn't.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You seem to think that Martial Adepts are overpowered because they are stronger than evokers (ignoring the fact that evokers are weak), even though I just showed you that ninth level spells are more powerful than ninth level maneuvers as well as more versatile. Then you complain because martial adepts are more powerful than actively DE-optimized melee characters.

Martial adepts are fine. They're powerful, but they're not the most powerful. They're in the second-most-powerful group with Psychic Warriors at higher levels, Favored Souls, Beguilers, et cetera.



I'll be frank: ToB is strong, about as strong as a well-built full caster. But if your players don't frequently make use of well-built full casters, then you probably shouldn't allow ToB either, because the ToBers will outclass everyone else at that point.

In short, ToB is powerful, but not broken. Play accordingly.
I wouldn't say that! Full casters are stronger... at least, the strong ones (druids, clerics, wizards, all the popular ones). I think that Tome of Battle characters are up there with the less powerful spellcasters (Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, and so on)... the Psychic Warrior is a good comparison, although the PW tends to run out of power points too early.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 11:29 AM
I wouldn't say that! Full casters are stronger... at least, the strong ones (druids, clerics, wizards, all the popular ones). I think that Tome of Battle characters are up there with the less powerful spellcasters (Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, and so on)... the Psychic Warrior is a good comparison, although the PW tends to run out of power points too early.

No, no. Well-built Sor/Wiz/Clr/Dru will knock the socks off of the ToBs. But a poorly built one? ToB wins.

Artemician
2007-07-07, 12:22 PM
I must say that ToB is a very, very good book to get. Why? Not because it lets Fighters contribute to high-level combat (though that's a good reason to get it as well). No, you should get it, because it's badass.

You see that Cleric in the corner over there? That guy with Blade Barrier, Spiritual Weapon and Flame Strike? That guy squishing a goblin beneath his mailed foot? He's badass.

You see that Sorceror up there in the sky? That guy who just impaled the BBEG through the heart with a Disintegrate? He's badass as well.

Alas for the Fighter. He tried to charge the BBEG, and got splattered. So not badass. Well, at least he was better than his predecessor, who simply tried to sweep the legs out from under enemies, and in the end was killed from 100 ft away with a bolt through the heart.

Lets hope his successor will be -
Hey look! A swordsage! This should be-

HOLY CRAP DID YOU JUST SEE THAT? That guy just leapt onto the enemy and ripped his head off! Now that's badass.

In a more serious tone of voice, while you can always find a way to roleplay something boring in an interesting manner (like Haley's fight versus the goblins, which was simply Tumble Checks and normal attack rolls), there is a limit to how much you can spin out.

ToB lets you spin out way cooler stuff, by letting you do things you couldn't otherwise do, so the Crunch matches the Fluff. You can't RP a Fighter jumping onto an enemy and ripping his head off, if he's armed with a Greatsword, and has just killed the enemy with it. You can't make the Fighter do a jump slide and leave flaming footprints behind him. You can't make the Fighter show his raw power, and shrug off Magic that would kill or disable an ordinary person. You can, however, do this with ToB.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-07, 12:43 PM
Kasrkin: Is this discussion providing any meaningful answer to your question, or is it time for a spin-off thread? I get the feeling the conversation is getting off-topic.

Neon Knight
2007-07-07, 12:45 PM
Nah, pretty on topic. The topic was to include ToB or not to, and people are just debating the merits and pitfalls of ToB. It's still useful.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 12:47 PM
Since I'm a ToB fangirl, here's another merit: it's just plain more FUN. You have more options, and the things you can do are cooler, plus the mechanics themselves are more interesting--there's some amount of swift action management, resource allocation, etc, all without the nagging worry of "can't unload, have to save for later" spellcasters can give. It's a lot of fun to play a ToB character.

Morty
2007-07-07, 12:59 PM
I must say that ToB is a very, very good book to get. Why? Not because it lets Fighters contribute to high-level combat (though that's a good reason to get it as well). No, you should get it, because it's badass.

You see that Cleric in the corner over there? That guy with Blade Barrier, Spiritual Weapon and Flame Strike? That guy squishing a goblin beneath his mailed foot? He's badass.

You see that Sorceror up there in the sky? That guy who just impaled the BBEG through the heart with a Disintegrate? He's badass as well.

Alas for the Fighter. He tried to charge the BBEG, and got splattered. So not badass. Well, at least he was better than his predecessor, who simply tried to sweep the legs out from under enemies, and in the end was killed from 100 ft away with a bolt through the heart.

Lets hope his successor will be -
Hey look! A swordsage! This should be-

HOLY CRAP DID YOU JUST SEE THAT? That guy just leapt onto the enemy and ripped his head off! Now that's badass.

In a more serious tone of voice, while you can always find a way to roleplay something boring in an interesting manner (like Haley's fight versus the goblins, which was simply Tumble Checks and normal attack rolls), there is a limit to how much you can spin out.

ToB lets you spin out way cooler stuff, by letting you do things you couldn't otherwise do, so the Crunch matches the Fluff. You can't RP a Fighter jumping onto an enemy and ripping his head off, if he's armed with a Greatsword, and has just killed the enemy with it. You can't make the Fighter do a jump slide and leave flaming footprints behind him. You can't make the Fighter show his raw power, and shrug off Magic that would kill or disable an ordinary person. You can, however, do this with ToB.

Of course, you're not taking into account that someone might want to play fighter without being "badass" and performing extremely lame manga-like moves? The problem with ToB is it forces you to be "badass". Being badass isn't bad thing if someone likes it, but some people want fighter to be mundane- which is perfectly possible to accomplish while keeping him effective.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-07, 01:06 PM
Of course, you're not taking into account that someone might want to play fighter without being "badass" and performing extremely lame manga-like moves? The problem with ToB is it forces you to be "badass". Being badass isn't bad thing if someone likes it, but some people want fighter to be mundane- which is perfectly possible to accomplish while keeping him effective.

"I want to play a fighter, so I can be ineffective and watch the mages take out enemies that could kill me if I got too close, and whom I couldn't hurt anyways! Yay!"

The maneuvers don't have to be manga-esque, either. The Arland campaign on these boards was set up to show that ToB can be applied in all sorts of ways (at least, until the DM was unable to continue)--in this particular instance, a medieval Scottish/Irish style of fighting. It's all in the description, people. You don't have to make it ki or feel like it's from an Eastern fighting style. ToB is very easy to cast in a Western fighting sense as well.

Orzel
2007-07-07, 01:08 PM
Don't people want to just stab faces anymore? Do we have to backflip off a waterfall and surround our blades with dark flames first?- Zoon, Orzel's talking axe


Can a brother just charge at people and knock off heads anymore?

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 01:15 PM
Of course, you're not taking into account that someone might want to play fighter without being "badass" and performing extremely lame manga-like moves? The problem with ToB is it forces you to be "badass". Being badass isn't bad thing if someone likes it, but some people want fighter to be mundane- which is perfectly possible to accomplish while keeping him effective.
The thing is, ToB can do that as well.

Let us look, for example, at the Sapphire Nightmare Blade maneuver of the Diamond Mind school. It lets a character wait until the opponent opens himself and then make a move.

How about Vanguard Strike of Devoted Spirit? It lets a character "batter aside your foe's defenses with a vicious, overwhelming attack, leaving him vulnerable for your allies' blows". I.e. you hit him hard and your buddy gets to stab him.

A student of the Iron Heart who employs Punishing Stance holds his weapon above his head to get more strength to his blows. (This, in fact, is an actual swordfighting stance.)

What in ToB is so particularly manga-like?



Can a brother just charge at people and knock off heads anymore?
Sure. The strike Charging Minotaur of Stone Dragon lets you do pretty much just that.

Morty
2007-07-07, 01:15 PM
"I want to play a fighter, so I can be ineffective and watch the mages take out enemies that could kill me if I got too close, and whom I couldn't hurt anyways! Yay!"

Did I say anything about fighter's effectiveness? I said that ToB can't be fighter replacement because people may not like the style, and that fighters can be effective while still being mundane, goddammit. It's not my fault that D&D failed to achieve it- not to mention I don't care because I don't run high-level, high-powered campaigns.


The maneuvers don't have to be manga-esque, either. The Arland campaign on these boards was set up to show that ToB can be applied in all sorts of ways (at least, until the DM was unable to continue)--in this particular instance, a medieval Scottish/Irish style of fighting. It's all in the description, people. You don't have to make it ki or feel like it's from an Eastern fighting style. ToB is very easy to cast in a Western fighting sense as well.

It's not the effects, it's the methods of acquiring them. Specific, fancy-named rechargable manuevers. Besides, what Artemician desribed was manga-style. Plus, it's unoriginal and uninventive when meleers use the same "9 levels of something" system as casters and manifesters.


What in ToB is so particularly manga-like?

See above.

NEO|Phyte
2007-07-07, 01:15 PM
Can a brother just charge at people and knock off heads anymore?

*points at the White Raven discipline*

Can you say you and all of your allies within 30' getting to charge the same guy with some hefty bonuses?

Plus, since the extra damage is a set amount and not dice, it *should* be eligable for things like mounted lance/critical multiplication, but I may be wrong on that.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 01:17 PM
Of course, you're not taking into account that someone might want to play fighter without being "badass" and performing extremely lame manga-like moves? The problem with ToB is it forces you to be "badass".

Most people who play fighters want to be badass, rather than, well, lame.

"Manga-like moves"? Your character does not have to shout out "Rabid Wolf Strike!" when he uses it. You can flavor Tome of Battle maneuvers in gritty ways as well as in Wuxia ways (the supernatural desert wind/shadow hand ones are an exception, but even those can be modified). And, in fact, many of them have a default flavor that's not anime-related in any way: "just that tough" (Iron Heart) or "strength of the earth" (Stone Dragon) or "nimble and elusive" (Setting Sun) or "master of tactical combat" (White Raven) or "precision and control" (Diamond Mind). Even Desert Wind is half "fire" and half "mobile desert warfare" ; Shadow Hand is half "kill them with shadow and yell out Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike" and half "stealth and hitting weak points". It's not very manga-like at all unless you make it so.

Tome of Battle characters can be badass in various ways. For example, I like to use a TWFing Swordsage with the Unarmed variant to represent a double-knife style with Muay Thai type striking, which is more gritty or brutal than at all wuxia. A Warblade could be played as extremely disciplined, delivering powerful single strikes through precise control and shaking off spells and other effects (which is a traditional warrior archetype, by the way). And so on.
But it's not badass to sit out the fight every time you have to make a Will save, like Fighters tend to.


Edit: specific named manevuers? You mean, like "lunge" and "disengage" and "stop-thrust" and "balestra" (a maneuver in which you do a weird hop and then lunge, basically)?

Or maybe like wrestling moves, all of which have names (and some which you have to set up, i.e. recharge)?

Or maybe like German medieval swordsmanship, which had stances and specific named strikes? Things like "Strike of Wrath", "Crooked Strike", "Murder-Stroke", "Half-Sword", executed from the "Ox Stance", or the "Fool's Guard", or the "From-Day Stance"?

"Readying" is the mechanic. It's very easy to flavor a Crusader or Warblade as a completely mundane warrior.

Morty
2007-07-07, 01:20 PM
Most people who play fighters want to be badass, rather than, well, lame.

But you can feel badass while still being normal fighter. It's just that D&D often fails to achieve it at higher levels. In my avatar there's guy who was killing mages and was overall "badass" while still being completely mundane warrior with sword.
Besides, like I said, it's the methods not effects I don't like. When I see nine levels of specific, rechargable manuevers, it means that it's extraordinary, quasi-magic school of fighting. Call me a traditionalist if you like, 'cause that's true. Sorry.


Or maybe like German medieval swordsmanship, which had stances and specific named strikes? Things like "Strike of Wrath", "Crooked Strike", "Murder-Stroke", "Half-Sword", executed from the "Ox Stance", or the "Fool's Guard", or the "From-Day Stance"?

I can't help but notice those are far less specific and weird that ToB ones.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 01:25 PM
Besides, like I said, it's the methods not effects I don't like. When I see nine levels of specific, rechargable manuevers, it means that it's extraordinary, quasi-magic school of fighting.

...no, it doesn't? I mean... HOW? See above about named stances and attacks. "Readying" maneuvers is just a mechanic; you can play it as not being able to whip out any given move at any time because it's just not appropriate, and sometimes you have to pull back into a normal guard stance to gather yourself (something that does happen during fights--I see it in hand-to-hand sparring, fencing, kendo...)

You're saying "there's nine levels, so it's MAGIC!", and disregarding the fact that it has a totally mundane flavor, and that real, mundane swords instruction had stances and "maneuvers" and fancy names.

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 01:26 PM
When I see nine levels of specific, rechargable manuevers, it means that it's extraordinary, quasi-magic school of fighting.
No, what it means is that you perceive it as an extraordinary, quasi-magic school of fighting.[/nitpick] Not all Fighters can charge any given turn, nor can Barbarians Rage 24/7.

(Granted, they can't make Balance checks to float in the air, either. But newither can all Swordsages.)


Call me a traditionalist if you like, 'cause that's true.
You being traditionalist or ToB being as you described?


Ædit:

I can't help but notice those are far less specific and weird that ToB ones.
How about "Colossus Strike", "Giant's Stance", "Bonecrusher" or "Feigned Opening"?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 01:30 PM
okay, Tome of Battle's names are for the most part a little fancier. So what? Tome of Battle is for a fantasy world, you know, with magic and dragons. So the names are fancier--it's still perfectly playable as the same kind of mundane swordsmanship.

If I were to redo a medieval-German fechtbuch, and rename the Mordschlag the "Mountain Hammer Strike", sword-and-shield the "Ready in Eight Directions Stance", the Oberhau the "Falling Star Strike", sword-and-dagger fighting the "Citrine Poxes of Contagion style", and the Schielhau the "Shadow Blade Technique"... would it somehow change it and make it non-mundane?

For that matter, Chinese martial arts use a lot of fanciful names... which doesn't make them non-mundane. You could just as easily give them simple names.

Morty
2007-07-07, 01:30 PM
...no, it doesn't? I mean... HOW? See above about named stances and attacks. "Readying" maneuvers is just a mechanic; you can play it as not being able to whip out any given move at any time because it's just not appropriate, and sometimes you have to pull back into a normal guard stance to gather yourself (something that does happen during fights--I see it in hand-to-hand sparring, fencing, kendo...)

Sorry, maybe I'm thick-headed traditionalist, but if there were to be manuever system in D&D- that's very good idea by itself- it shouldn't look like ToB. Manuevers should be less of "strike of X" and more of just different moves, with its disadvantages and advantages. And it shouldn't work like magic.


You're saying "there's nine levels, so it's MAGIC!", and disregarding the fact that it has a totally mundane flavor, and that real, mundane swords instruction had stances and "maneuvers" and fancy names.

I never said it wasn't mundane because it has nine levels. It's not mundane because it has nine specific schools, extremely specific, rechargable manuevers and nine levels of them.


You being traditionalist or ToB being as you described?

That I'm traditionalist.


No, what it means is that you perceive it as an extraordinary, quasi-magic school of fighting.[/nitpick] Not all Fighters can charge any given turn, nor can Barbarians Rage 24/7.

So? That's how perceive ToB, but it's the only thing that matters in deciding which books I use. I'm not denying anyone's right to use ToB, you know.


If I were to redo a medieval-German fechtbuch, and rename the Mordschlag the "Mountain Hammer Strike", sword-and-shield the "Ready in Eight Directions Stance", the Oberhau the "Falling Star Strike", sword-and-dagger fighting the "Citrine Poxes of Contagion style", and the Schielhau the "Shadow Blade Technique"... would it somehow change it and make it non-mundane?

Slightly.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 01:38 PM
Sorry, maybe I'm thick-headed traditionalist, but if there were to be manuever system in D&D- that's very good idea by itself- it shouldn't look like ToB. Manuevers should be less of "strike of X" and more of just different moves, with its disadvantages and advantages. And it shouldn't work like magic.
But. It. DOESN'T. Work. Like. Magic. It's a system that has a lot more in common with feats than with spellcasting.
Tome of Battle provides a new mechanic, which can be flavored as wuxia-kung-fu-yell-the-attack-name... and can just as easily be flavored as mundane combat.

Player one:
"Wu Lei leaps up, holding her six-foot blade overhead, and sends winds roaring in all directions, yelling "ELDER MOUNTAIN HAMMER!" as she brings it down with bone-crushing force on the ogre's head! Her aura flares with golden light and scarlet rage!"

Player two:
"Jack the Half-Knight raises his broadsword in a two-handed parry--one hand on the hilt, the other iron gauntlet pressed against the flat of the blade, so the enemy's superior strength doesn't just knock his sword aside--that sends the ogre's club ringing off to the side; he moves in under its arm, hammering his sword into its ribs." And to the DM, "I five-foot-step forward and then use Elder Mountain Hammer."

Same mechanic. Two totally different playstyles. The latter is completely mundane.

"Different moves" is too fine for a system like D&D to represent. You can flavor regular attack rolls as different "moves" if you like.


I never said it wasn't mundane because it has nine levels. It's not mundane because it has nine specific schools, extremely specific, rechargable manuevers and nine levels of them.
How is "+2d6 damage, ignore hardness and DR" extremely specific? There's tons of ways to play that, from a fierce two-handed overhand strike to a One-Inch Punch type of deal. It has nine schools... um, so what? Real swordsmanship had schools, too. And distinct styles. Nine levels is for gameplay and balance reasons, to work with the established system.


Edit: I don't think you get what I'm saying at the end, there. Calling the Oberschlag the "Falling Star Strike", the Mordschlag the "Mountain Hammer", and a sword and shield style the "Ready in Eight Directions Stance" wouldn't change how they work. The fancy names don't make it non-mundane.

Edit 2: "...slightly"? Um, HOW would changing the name suddenly make a strong overhead strike less mundane? You do realize that plenty of styles did have very fancy names?

As for "rechargable", how about tactical feats (which are perfectly mundane)? Many of them take certain actions to set up, or otherwise aren't useable all the time.

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 01:39 PM
So? That's how perceive ToB, but it's the only thing that matters in deciding which books I use. I'm not denying anyone's right to use ToB, you know.
No, it's just that I was trying to prove that there are other "rechargable" maneuverlike features already in the DnD rules. Sorry about the nitpicking.

Morty
2007-07-07, 01:46 PM
But. It. DOESN'T. Work. Like. Magic. It's a system that has a lot more in common with feats than with spellcasting.
Tome of Battle provides a new mechanic, which can be flavored as wuxia-kung-fu-yell-the-attack-name... and can just as easily be flavored as mundane combat.

Player one:
"Wu Lei leaps up, holding his six-foot blade overhead, and sends winds roaring in all directions, yelling "ELDER MOUNTAIN HAMMER!" as he brings it down with bone-crushing force on the ogre's head! His aura flares with golden light and scarlet rage!"

Player two:
"Jack the Half-Knight raises his broadsword in a parry that sends the ogre's club ringing off to the side; he moves in under its arm, hammering his sword into its ribs." And to the DM, "I five-foot-step forward and then use Elder Mountain Hammer."

Same mechanic. Two totally different playstyles. The latter is completely mundane.

But I can model this with just using feats or class features -the latter if I used a fix that'd give the fighter some class features to start with. And it would sound much better, at least for me.


Edit: I don't think you get what I'm saying at the end, there. Calling the Oberschlag the "Falling Star Strike", the Mordschlag the "Mountain Hammer", and a sword and shield style the "Ready in Eight Directions Stance" wouldn't change how they work. The fancy names don't make it non-mundane.

It's because I didn't have time to finish that post. What I meant was, that it wouldn't make those manuevers less mundane, but making them work like ToB- woud. Plus, specific manuevers should be reserved for experienced fighter, while ToBers get them from start.


As for "rechargable", how about tactical feats (which are perfectly mundane)? Many of them take certain actions to set up, or otherwise aren't useable all the time.

It's not the same. You can use ToB manuevers all the time, and later you have to recharge them. And tactical feats just work in specific circumstances.
Finally, I'm perfectly fine with you using ToB as mundane swordplay. But I don't do that, because it doesn't feel "right" for me. It's the matter of taste, really.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 01:52 PM
But I can model this with just using feats or class features -the latter if I used a fix that'd give the fighter some class features to start with. And it would sound much better, at least for me.
...you can model it without any mechanics at *all*. Any given flavor can be made with dozens of different mechanics--and ToB's *mechanics* are fun and in the right power level on their own. ToB's mechanics are already out, and they're fine... but somehow, you refuse to see them as able to model mundane combat (even though it's been shown that they can). You can't seem to separate the mechanics from how you describe things.


Those schools, as far as I know, aren't named "Iron Heart" or "Stone Dragon".
...um, so? D&D isn't set in the real world.


It's because I didn't have time to finish that post. What I meant was, that it wouldn't make those manuevers less mundane, but making them work like ToB- woud. Plus, specific manuevers should be reserved for experienced fighter, while ToBers get them from start.
Finally, I'm perfectly fine with you using ToB as mundane swordplay. But I don't do that, because it doesn't feel "right" for me. It's the matter of taste, really.
..."making them work like Tome of Battle"? What on earth? I'm talking about real life, not D&D. If "Oberschlag" meant "Falling Star Strike", it's still be an overhead strike. Fancy names don't give the things they're attached to magic.
You seem to be confusing actual battle maneuvers with "maneuvers" as a mechanical term.

I'm not sure why it doesn't feel "right" to you, but you could probably have a lot of fun with ToB if you got over that. Half the schools are *intended* for gritty or tactical mundane warriors. Dismissing the book as "eh, it's magical manga stuff" is kind of short-sighted in light of all that.


Why on earth would maneuvers--which can be things like the "lunge", the "Mordschlag", the "Fool's Guard"--be reserved for experienced fighters when they're the building blocks of traditional swordsmanship?



It's not the same. You can use ToB manuevers all the time, and later you have to recharge them. And tactical feats just work in specific circumstances.
...yes. The mechanics are obviously different. And yet, you can't use either of them all the time, but you can use them as many times a day as you want. How is taking a swift action plus a standard attack to get Mountain Hammer back different from charging and power attacking to set up your Combat Brute tactical feat option?

You seem to be unable to wrap your head around the concept that just because you take a full-round action to recover your maneuvers doesn't mean that in-character, you're standing there and "recovering your maneuvers".
In-character, you may just be unable to repeat the attack you described when you OOCly used Mountain Hammer, because your enemy isn't giving you the right opening. After you recover Mountain Hammer (in-character, you pull back into a guard stance and then approach again) you can describe getting the same kind of opening again.

The point is, no, real swordsmanship doesn't have "readying maneuvers" and "maneuver recovery". But that's a mechanic.

"Totally mundane warrior" is a pretty ridiculous archetype for a world full of magic, anyway...

Penguinizer
2007-07-07, 01:54 PM
What in ToB is so particularly manga-like?



Just about anything in Desert Wind...

And some things in Shadow Hand.

I still really like it.

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 01:57 PM
Just about anything in Desert Wind...

And some things in Shadow Hand.

I still really like it.
Well, okay, those. And lots of the high-level stuff of the other schools too. And the Weapons of Legacy.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-07, 01:59 PM
How does the high end stuff of every other school besides Devoted Spirit count as manga-esque?

Arbitrarity
2007-07-07, 02:00 PM
ToB manuvers take specific circumstances (some of them).

Furthermore, specific manuvers are reserved for experienced combatants. Whaddaya think the "levels" are for?

Lastly, fluff is manipulable. In any circumstance, it can be manipulated to a great extent. Five-Shadow-Creeping-Ice-Enervation strike? It's an accurate blow, designed to cripple by impacting a key point on the body.

Of course, flame blasts are a bit harder to deal with. And running so fast you cause fire is just silly. A reason to potentially ban desert wind, and parts of shadow hand.

But the rest is easily changable to mundanity. Even things like some of the Devoted spirit healing can be described as revitalizing the spirit, and pressing on despite injury.

Let's see. How is Mountain Tombstone Strike Manga-esque, despite all attempts to render it mundane?

Morty
2007-07-07, 02:00 PM
...you can model it without any mechanics at *all*. Any given flavor can be made with dozens of different mechanics--and ToB's *mechanics* are fun and in the right power level on their own. ToB's mechanics are already out, and they're fine... but somehow, you refuse to see them as able to model mundane combat (even though it's been shown that they can). You can't seem to separate the mechanics from how you describe things.

Yeah, I have troubles with separating mechanic and description. That's why I'm against using ToB as mundane melee fight.


...um, so? D&D isn't set in the real world.

Then we sould cease to make comparisions.


..."making them work like Tome of Battle"? What on earth? I'm talking about real life, not D&D. If "Oberschlag" meant "Falling Star Strike", it's still be an overhead strike. Fancy names don't give the things they're attached to magic.
You seem to be confusing actual battle maneuvers with "maneuvers" as a mechanical term.

Alright then, simply renaming styles or manuevers doesn't change them in any way. You're right here.


I'm not sure why it doesn't feel "right" to you, but you could probably have a lot of fun with ToB if you got over that. Half the schools are *intended* for gritty or tactical mundane warriors. Dismissing the book as "eh, it's magical manga stuff" is kind of short-sighted in light of all that.

Maybe it's because I'm really allergic to anything manga. And I don't agree that any schools are intended for gritty warriors. For me, martial adepts just seem like more "elite" warriors.


Why on earth would maneuvers--which can be things like the "lunge", the "Mordschlag", the "Fool's Guard"--be reserved for experienced fighters when they're the building blocks of traditional swordsmanship?

Then they should be things every fighter can do if he's high level enough. Not something you have to pick like ToB manuevers. But I have to point out that I'm preety green about real-life swormanship.


"Totally mundane warrior" is a pretty ridiculous archetype for a world full of magic, anyway...

On high-levels, yes.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 02:01 PM
And really, does it matter? Flavor is the easiest thing to replace. DMs do it all the time when they make their own campaign settings.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 02:02 PM
How does the high end stuff of every other school besides Devoted Spirit count as manga-esque?

...Devoted Spirit isn't mangaesque. HP =/= lack of wounds; getting HP back doesn't mean your wounds seal up before your enemies' very eyes. You get a second wind, you keep fighting, you press them so you don't have to exert a lot of effort to do it, et cetera. A Devoted Spirit crusader can be a warrior who heals himself with divine power, or a nasty Hexblade-style fellow who's really draining his enemy's life force (which is why he heals himself as he does damage), or a gritty, "why won't he FALL. DOWN?!" warrior who just doesn't give up until the enemy's dead.

"Giant blast of fire" is mangaesque. "Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike" and walking on air are mangaesque. Attacking a lot? No. Attacking really hard? No. Attacking really precisely? No. etc.

Inyssius Tor
2007-07-07, 02:04 PM
Despite the ludicrous, cartoony name, "Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike" isn't really all that supernatural...

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 02:05 PM
Yeah, I have troubles with separating mechanic and description. That's why I'm against using ToB as mundane melee fight. Do you not use weapons greater than masterwork? Feats that provide supernatural effects? Accept buffs from your caster companions? A maneuver is no different.


Maybe it's because I'm really allergic to anything manga. And I don't agree that any schools are intended for gritty warriors. For me, martial adepts just seem like more "elite" warriors. And what's wrong with gritty elite soldiers?


Then they should be things every fighter can do if he's high level enough. Not something you have to pick like ToB manuevers. But I have to point out that I'm preety green about real-life swormanship.

Disciplines represent different styles of fighting, not being an anime character. Your prejudice against anime doesn't make ToB bad, it makes ToB not for you. There's a world of difference there.

Morty
2007-07-07, 02:11 PM
Do you not use weapons greater than masterwork? Feats that provide supernatural effects? Accept buffs from your caster companions? A maneuver is no different.

Not quite. I don't like magic items, that's true, but they're survivable if done properly. Can you give some examples of feats that give supernatural effects? I accept(although I'm usually playing casters anyway) buffs from casters because they're supposed to cast spells.


And what's wrong with gritty elite soldiers?

By "elite" I mean "better than normal". In other words, when I look at flavor of martial adepts, it seems to me that these guys are supposed to be better that normal fighters.


Disciplines represent different styles of fighting, not being an anime character. Your prejudice against anime doesn't make ToB bad, it makes ToB not for you. There's a world of difference there.

I never said that ToB is bad. I said it's not for me. If you get the impression that it's bad from my posts, it's misunderstanding.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 02:12 PM
Yeah, I have troubles with separating mechanic and description. That's why I'm against using ToB as mundane melee fight.
You'll get a *lot* fewer options out of D&D that way.


Then we sould cease to make comparisions.
Way to miss the point.


Alright then, simply renaming styles or manuevers doesn't change them in any way. You're right here.
So ToB's "fancy names" don't make it any less mundane.


Maybe it's because I'm really allergic to anything manga. And I don't agree that any schools are intended for gritty warriors. For me, martial adepts just seem like more "elite" warriors.
Are you kdding me? Tiger Claw is about savage, brutal attacks. Iron Heart is about being Just That Tough. A Warblade focusing on Iron Heart and Tiger Claw is just a tough bastard who hits hard and gets angry when he fights.


Then they should be things every fighter can do if he's high level enough. Not something you have to pick like ToB manuevers. But I have to point out that I'm preety green about real-life swormanship.
Maybe you don't understand what a, say, Fool's Guard is.
It's just holding your blade low to invite the enemy closer in and then hit him. In Tallhoffer's fechtbuch, it's a longsword thing, but I've done similar things while fencing. "From-Day Stance" just means holding your sword over your shoulder or head. "Zornhau", the "Strike of Wrath", is just a diagonal cut made out of the "From-Day Stance". The "Crooked Strike" is just striking left from a right position or vice versa.
If I parry as part of my attack--a cut that also deflects my enemy's blade--and then follow up with a similar cut to press my advantage (things a swordsman would do without thinking about it), you could describe it like that... or, formally, as Absetzen und Dublieren.

I think part of your problem with "mundane warriors" is that you don't really understand what mundane combat was like, nor what formal sword training was like... or what a "maneuver", the kind with real-life names, really is.
(And by the way, if you're trading blows with giants, or even ogres? So not mundane anymore.)

ToB's stlyes and stances don't correspond to real-life styles and stances, and no one was saying they do--I was saying that real life has named styles and stances and "move names" too, and that having them doesn't automatically make ToB mystical.


On high-levels, yes.
On any past the first few. Seriously, you're fighting things with blindsight[/i and [i]spell-like abilities, young dragons, enemies with mind-affecting abilities, etc, giants, long before you're high level.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 02:15 PM
Not quite. I don't like magic items, that's true, but they're survivable if done properly. Can you give some examples of feats that give supernatural effects? I accept(although I'm usually playing casters anyway) buffs from casters because they're supposed to cast spells.
Attacking five, six, ten times in a round isn't supernatural? Leap of the Heavens plus a high jump check doesn't give supernatural results? Stunning Fist and Falling Star Strike aren't supernatural--paralyzing people by hitting them? Cutting a guy's sword in half in one hit and then cutting *him* in half (Combat Brute's momentum swing) is *mundane*?


By "elite" I mean "better than normal". In other words, when I look at flavor of martial adepts, it seems to me that these guys are supposed to be better that normal fighters.
Yeah, they are. Just like trained swordsmen were better than guys who just picked a longsword up and fought people haphazardly.


I never said that ToB is bad. I said it's not for me. If you get the impression that it's bad from my posts, it's misunderstanding.
Okay, sure... but the things you HAVE said about it aren't true.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 02:16 PM
Not quite. I don't like magic items, that's true, but they're survivable if done properly. Can you give some examples of feats that give supernatural effects? I accept(although I'm usually playing casters anyway) buffs from casters because they're supposed to cast spells.
From core? Dodge. Blind-Fight. Diehard. Snatch Arrows. Manyshot. Improved Sunder. To name a few.


By "elite" I mean "better than normal". In other words, when I look at flavor of martial adepts, it seems to me that these guys are supposed to be better that normal fighters. They are. D&D is heroic fantasy, and "mundane fighters" are not "heroes;" they're "extras" or "redshirts".

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 02:17 PM
How does the high end stuff of every other school besides Devoted Spirit count as manga-esque?
Well, it is rather over-the-top, not unlike the fighting in certain manga. (Or action movies, or samurai movies, or wuxia movies, or literature, or anime, or whatever. Probably not Azumanga Daioh, though. "Manga-like" is just a handy-dandy catch-all term that is patently wrong, but really does give a certain picture of what is being talked about.)

Strike of Perfect Clarity, for example, is not far from what I would expect of Jin from Samurai Champloo (great anime, by the by), and I could swear I've seen Time Stands Still somewhere. Tiger Claw moves are the quintessential crimson fountain moves (*SPLOOTCH*), and White Raven is just epic. I believe Earthstrike Quake is pretty popular among some fantasy warriors, and Tornado Throw? Fantastic, in more ways than one.

Oh, and I didn't actually say "every other school". :smallwink:


...Devoted Spirit isn't mangaesque. HP =/= lack of wounds; getting HP back doesn't mean your wounds seal up before your enemies' very eyes.
It doesn't have to mean, but it sure could!

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-07, 02:17 PM
Of course, flame blasts are a bit harder to deal with. And running so fast you cause fire is just silly. A reason to potentially ban desert wind, and parts of shadow hand.See, even this I question. The Swordsage has some abilities that fall nicely in the middle ground between the warriors and the mages, making him uniquely suited for either a "high fantasy, wizards and dragons and demons, oh my" campaign or for a "no nonsense, bleed in the trenches as the fireballs explode around us" fantasy campaign. The only difference is that in the first you might lop off the totally mundane classes and play the Swordsage (and his cousins) as the warrior folk, and in the latter you might get rid of the mages and call the Swordsage a magician. It's only in a "magic is gone, I'm not sure why we're not playing Iron Heroes" game that I'd dump Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.

Oh, and addressing the ZOMG OVARPOWAR'D angle (and I say that with my tongue in my cheek, not a chip on my shoulder) Tempest Stormwind is crunching numbers again, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12990532&postcount=262) and it looks like a core-only Barbarian puts up comparable damage numbers to Warblade. Two things to note here are that he reversed the columns in his non-charging summary, and that I haven't been able to actually check out the spreadsheet itself yet on account of lack of software. It's worth looking at, though.

Really, if you're concerned about huge damage outputs from martial adepts, White Raven's the one to worry about, and even that's really good in the same way that Haste is really good. That is, it's almost clearly better than everything else, but it also involves the whole team, so nobody but the DM cares much.

And Fax, you missed Far Shot and Improved Precise Shot. "I will now fire an arrow from half a mile away and hit the freckle on the ear of a man shooting at me from the arrow slit of a castle."

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-07, 02:23 PM
Despite the ludicrous, cartoony name, "Five Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike" isn't really all that supernatural...

Despite the fact that it's a Supernatural ability and actually damages the target's abilities with creeping, icy shadows?

Morty
2007-07-07, 02:24 PM
You'll get a *lot* fewer options out of D&D that way.

Possibly.


So ToB's "fancy names" don't make it any less mundane.

Not by themselves, yes. They're the part of what makes them non-mundane.


Are you kdding me? Tiger Claw is about savage, brutal attacks. Iron Heart is about being Just That Tough. A Warblade focusing on Iron Heart and Tiger Claw is just a tough bastard who hits hard and gets angry when he fights.

Well, by reading through some manuevers' descriptions, I got another impression. This may be wrong impression, though.


Maybe you don't understand what a, say, Fool's Guard is.
It's just holding your blade low to invite the enemy closer in and then hit him. In Tallhoffer's fechtbuch, it's a longsword thing, but I've done similar things while fencing. "From-Day Stance" just means holding your sword over your shoulder or head. "Zornhau", the "Strike of Wrath", is just a diagonal cut made out of the "From-Day Stance". The "Crooked Strike" is just striking left from a right position or vice versa.
If I parry as part of my attack--a cut that also deflects my enemy's blade--and then follow up with a similar cut to press my advantage (things a swordsman would do without thinking about it), you could describe it like that... or, formally, as Absetzen und Dublieren.

Alright then. I still quite think ToB isn't good way to picture them -because of the "just" part- but point taken.


I think part of your problem with "mundane warriors" is that you don't really understand what mundane combat was like, nor what formal sword training was like... or what a "maneuver", the kind with real-life names, really is.

When I hear manuever I think "move or stance in combat", or maybe "specific way of dealing a blow". Is that wrong? Yes, I'm not familiar with medieval swordmanship.


(And by the way, if you're trading blows with giants, or even ogres? So not mundane anymore.)

Why not? I'm just fighting with something that's bigger than me, but it's still about exchanging blows.


On any past the first few. Seriously, you're fighting things with blindsight[/i and [i]spell-like abilities, young dragons, enemies with mind-affecting abilities, etc, giants, long before you're high level.

As far as I know, fighters are dealing with things like this just fine before high levels.


From core? Dodge. Blind-Fight. Diehard. Snatch Arrows. Manyshot. Improved Sunder. To name a few.

How are those supernatural?

But overall- alright, ToB can be used to picture normal swordplay, even if it's not the best way. I'm convinced. But I still wouldn't use it except in high-levels campaign when I felt that meleers are overshadowed.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-07, 02:36 PM
See, even this I question. The Swordsage has some abilities that fall nicely in the middle ground between the warriors and the mages, making him uniquely suited for either a "high fantasy, wizards and dragons and demons, oh my" campaign or for a "no nonsense, bleed in the trenches as the fireballs explode around us" fantasy campaign. The only difference is that in the first you might lop off the totally mundane classes and play the Swordsage (and his cousins) as the warrior folk, and in the latter you might get rid of the mages and call the Swordsage a magician. It's only in a "magic is gone, I'm not sure why we're not playing Iron Heroes" game that I'd dump Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.


I was just giving that for an example of a "dislikes supernatural" angle. I like those manuvers just fine.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-07, 02:44 PM
...Devoted Spirit isn't mangaesque.

I meant the stance where you get dropped into negative HP just to be completely healed back to 1. The point where yes, it IS wounds and yes, you are getting hurt and bleeding.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 02:57 PM
Erm, minor protest...Tiger Claw is packed with moves where you jump over the enemy and hit them really hard. Not being a combat historian, I could be wrong, but I'd be really surprised if that has any mundane (or remotely logical) basis. It isn't all like that, but there is a whole line of maneuvers dedicated to it.

I want to like ToB, because something like it is the only way I might be able to play a humanoid fighting character without being bored to death, but it makes it hard sometimes. Like the white raven maneuver where, by shouting a lot, you enable other people to take a full-round action out of turn with no impact on initiative.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-07-07, 03:01 PM
I meant the stance where you get dropped into negative HP just to be completely healed back to 1. The point where yes, it IS wounds and yes, you are getting hurt and bleeding.I like to think of it as the John McClane stance.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 03:06 PM
Ulzgoroth - Having read the book, I haven't seen any such manuever. White Raven Tactics allows you to permanently set someone's initiative number to your initiative number -1.

Additionally, I certainly have seen highly mobile fighters use leaps as a very useful combat tactic. Capoeira (spelled wrong, I'm sure) masters with tower shields are not your friends.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 03:09 PM
How are those supernatural?

Do you want to try doing any of those in real life?

Morty
2007-07-07, 03:16 PM
Do you want to try doing any of those in real life?

Well, Imp. Sunder, Manyshot and Snatch Arrows are extraordinary, but the rest:
-Dodge- you just, well, dodge attacks of ceratin enemy
-Blindfight- you know how to fight when you can't see anything. Granted, that one is fairly non-mundane too.
-Diehard- you're just though bastard who's hard to kill. I personally love this feat, BTW.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 03:17 PM
Well, Imp. Sunder, Manyshot and Snatch Arrows are extraordinary, but the rest:
-Dodge- you just, well, dodge attacks of ceratin enemy
-Blindfight- you know how to fight when you can't see anything. Granted, that one is fairly non-mundane too.
-Diehard- you're just though bastard who's hard to kill. I personally love this feat, BTW.

The point, is, however, that these feats allow you to do things with your character that no human in existence has ever been able to attempt. Okay, maybe not Dodge. But the rest? Yeah.

And that's exactly what maneuvers do for a character.

Mike_G
2007-07-07, 03:25 PM
Do you want to try doing any of those in real life?

Well, to be fair, you did include Dodge, which is just +1 to AC, versus the one guy you're facing, so that's not particularly supernatural. It's just being 5% harder to hit, which is no big deal for a trained fighter.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 03:29 PM
Well, to be fair, you did include Dodge, which is just +1 to AC, versus the one guy you're facing, so that's not particularly supernatural. It's just being 5% harder to hit, which is no big deal for a trained fighter.

Yeah, Dodge is a stretch. But the others?

Morty
2007-07-07, 03:31 PM
The point, is, however, that these feats allow you to do things with your character that no human in existence has ever been able to attempt. Okay, maybe not Dodge. But the rest? Yeah.

And that's exactly what maneuvers do for a character.

Yeah, except I don't use these feats either, exactly for that reason. Except Dodge and Diehard. And even Blindfight isn't that extraordinary, you just have good sense of orientation and good hearing. It only works in melee, after all.
BTW, I already said that alright, ToB can be used for "mundane" swordfight. It's just I still don't like the idea of replacing standard meleers with ToBers.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 03:40 PM
Ulzgoroth - Having read the book, I haven't seen any such manuever. White Raven Tactics allows you to permanently set someone's initiative number to your initiative number -1.
Well, for maximum clarity I should have noted it's a specific full-round action. War Master's Charge, among other things, enables allies within 30 feet to perform a (constrained) charge as an immediate action. Tactics bothers me on its own, even when not actually abused, but not as much.


Additionally, I certainly have seen highly mobile fighters use leaps as a very useful combat tactic. Capoeira (spelled wrong, I'm sure) masters with tower shields are not your friends.
Um, ok, but I ask specifically...do they fling themselves at or over the heads of their enemies? Because Claw at the Moon and (the admittedly beyond the scope of real humans) Death from Above do just that.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 03:46 PM
Ulz - At and in some cases over, yes.

You're right, War Leader's Charge doesn't change initiative, so I was off base. But it's just a systemic way to present the idea of a unified charge without having to go the systemically clunky route of everyone holding their actions and then having to deal with what exact route they take during their charge. I see what you dislike, but I'd say it's the result of the initiative system and the zany charge rules, not TOB.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 04:07 PM
M0rty, ol' lad, it's unrealistic for a human warrior (in the generic sense) to be able to stand a chance against an ogre or a troll, let alone a dragon. Realistically, the dragon should take the warrior out with one bite.

That's not much fun. So fighters, barbarians, and yes, the Tome of Battle classes are all capable of doing things that at impossible by normal mortals. This is deliberate. This is what the game was designed for. If you don't want to play someone "superhuman," D&D probably isn't the game system for you.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 04:15 PM
Ulz - At and in some cases over, yes.
Are you referring to this Capoeira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira)? It doesn't seem like they would have anything to do with tower shields, or weapons, if so...nor is it clear from what I can find whether or not it's a serious combat form.

EDIT: Nor is it actually clear that they jump at or over one another, but I won't question that one.

You're right, War Leader's Charge doesn't change initiative, so I was off base. But it's just a systemic way to present the idea of a unified charge without having to go the systemically clunky route of everyone holding their actions and then having to deal with what exact route they take during their charge. I see what you dislike, but I'd say it's the result of the initiative system and the zany charge rules, not TOB.
They could have avoided the absurdity it produces if they chose to do so. I wouldn't exactly like it if it just adjusted the initiative of those effected to match yours and made the charge expend their action, but that would be mostly consistent with the system. As it is, it gives them 3 full-round actions in two rounds, without time-manipulation. They spend 18 seconds over the course of 12.:smallfurious:

The pathing aid I don't object to. Simultaneity is a messy and confusing place when you look at it through sequential-turn based rules.

Morty
2007-07-07, 04:16 PM
M0rty, ol' lad, it's unrealistic for a human warrior (in the generic sense) to be able to stand a chance against an ogre or a troll, let alone a dragon. Realistically, the dragon should take the warrior out with one bite.

*sigh* I don't have anything against warriors performing awesome feats on higher levels. It's just that low-level fighter is someone who just swings sword. And ToB, in my view, isn't like that. Not to mention that I just plainly don't like ToB's approach for giving fighters capability of doing nigh-impossible things.


That's not much fun. So fighters, barbarians, and yes, the Tome of Battle classes are all capable of doing things that at impossible by normal mortals. This is deliberate. This is what the game was designed for. If you don't want to play someone "superhuman," D&D probably isn't the game system for you.

I actually quite like D&D mechanically. It's the heroic fantasy concept I really can't work with. And yes, I'm going to play another system as soon as I can. Heck, I'm currently working on my own.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-07-07, 04:27 PM
ToB is overpowered in general, the content of your first post shows that you already understand this.

My advice is to not use it at all.

Overpowered as compared to....what?

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 04:28 PM
*sigh* I don't have anything against warriors performing awesome feats on higher levels. It's just that low-level fighter is someone who just swings sword. And ToB, in my view, isn't like that. Not to mention that I just plainly don't like ToB's approach for giving fighters capability of doing nigh-impossible things.
What do you consider an awesome feat among the lower level maneuvers? Under the 'mortals are levels 1-4, maybe 5' understanding, you can only look at level 1 and 2 maneuvers. Under the 'not a magic man' assumption, forget Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, and in my opinion Devoted Spirit. Now, what's left that troubles you? I can think of 3 or 4 moderately weird ones, but they aren't overwhelmingly bad.

Also, 'someone who just swings sword' is a warrior. A fighter is someone with quite a bit of special technique with regard to swinging that sword. Feats, in the PHB fighter's case.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 04:28 PM
Overpowered as compared to....what?

Seconded. I too am curious.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 04:29 PM
Ulzgoroth : War leader's charge doesn't produce extra time, anymore than Time Stands Still does. It just denotes a high level of efficiency. What's wrong with a fighter being good, really good at leading a charge?

And as stated before, I'm talking about capoeira masters fighting with swords and shields, because that's where I've seen the really impressive leaping tactics.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 04:33 PM
*sigh* I don't have anything against warriors performing awesome feats on higher levels. It's just that low-level fighter is someone who just swings sword. And ToB, in my view, isn't like that. Not to mention that I just plainly don't like ToB's approach for giving fighters capability of doing nigh-impossible things.



I actually quite like D&D mechanically. It's the heroic fantasy concept I really can't work with. And yes, I'm going to play another system as soon as I can. Heck, I'm currently working on my own.

D20 Past might be your best bet, then.

Morty
2007-07-07, 04:36 PM
What do you consider an awesome feat among the lower level maneuvers? Under the 'mortals are levels 1-4, maybe 5' understanding, you can only look at level 1 and 2 maneuvers. Under the 'not a magic man' assumption, forget Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, and in my opinion Devoted Spirit. Now, what's left that troubles you? I can think of 3 or 4 moderately weird ones, but they aren't overwhelmingly bad.

I just feels wrong for me. I don't have anything against martial adepts themselves, but I don't like the idea of every warrior being one.


D20 Past might be your best bet, then.

I've never heard of it. Besides, it's going to be hard to convince my DM to play something else. And I'm personally really fond of Vancian casting. I really like how it can be used to restrict what caster can do and what he can't- if used properly. But I'm going to DM WFRPG as soon as current and next D&D campaign ends.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 04:38 PM
D20 Past might be your best bet, then.

Seconded. Or World of Darkness (the system, not the fluff).

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 04:44 PM
Ulzgoroth : War leader's charge doesn't produce extra time, anymore than Time Stands Still does. It just denotes a high level of efficiency. What's wrong with a fighter being good, really good at leading a charge?
I can easily accept that training/skills/whatever gives a particular character the ability to violate the normal rules in a mundane manner, like Time Stands Still...they aren't really modifying time, just moving with exceptional speed. The problem with War Leader's Charge, and to a lesser degree much of the rest of White Raven, is that you are enabling other people to violate the normal rules. Using only your voice, in an explicitly non-magical manner.

The attack and damage bonuses, eh...though the level 1 commoner with a dagger who just inflicted enough damage to kill himself twice over is a little stunned...but the ability to take actions that would normally be completely impossible is something else.

And as stated before, I'm talking about capoeira masters fighting with swords and shields, because that's where I've seen the really impressive leaping tactics.
Right, and I'm trying to verify some of this from a second source. So far what I have strongly fails to support both the 'fighting' and 'swords and shields' details, and weakly supports the 'jumping'.

I just feels wrong for me. I don't have anything against martial adepts themselves, but I don't like the idea of every warrior being one.
Well, that more or less denies any points of attack:smallwink: . Only don't forget...not every warrior should be one. A lot of them should be Warrior class, even professional soldiers. Fighters, barbarians, and all the rest are intended to capture specially trained or gifted combatants, not the general standard.

Attilargh
2007-07-07, 04:54 PM
I've never heard of it. Besides, it's going to be hard to convince my DM to play something else. And I'm personally really fond of Vancian casting. I really like how it can be used to restrict what caster can do and what he can't- if used properly. But I'm going to DM WFRPG as soon as current and next D&D campaign ends.
D20 Past (http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Products/Default.aspx?doc=177400000) is a supplement for D20 Modern that details various periods of history from about the middle ages to the second World War. D20 Modern is basically the same game as DnD, just with magic (Vancian) and psionics as optional rules instead of a necessary part of the gameplay.


Ædit: Just read some of the magical items. Keen Chainsaw, anyone? Or how about MacGyver's best friend, the Duct Tape of Repair?

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 04:56 PM
Except I'm not talking about capoeira as a discipline at all, I'm talking about certain capoeira masters of my acquaintance, whom I saw engaging in the sort of ridiculous armed acrobatic combat that Tiger Claw is supposed to represent.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-07, 04:58 PM
Seconded. I too am curious.

The warrior! And the commoner!

Raum
2007-07-07, 05:11 PM
ToB is generally on par with the second tier of classes - sorcerers, psychic warriors, rogues, etc. While I do agree the fluff leaves a bit to be desired, it's a pretty good fit mechanically.


And as stated before, I'm talking about capoeira masters fighting with swords and shields, because that's where I've seen the really impressive leaping tactics.Err, capoeira was developed after gunpowder became prevalent. There would have been very little reason to develop sword and shield techniques.


The warrior! And the commoner!Don't forget the samurai... :)

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:15 PM
The warrior! And the commoner!

Yes. And what is wrong with that statement? No one should be forced to play a commoner, thatīs not what I mean, but with all that powercreep your lvl 5 crusader or adept of choice could probably eradicate a small village (crusader lends itself especially well to this), which is a tad early for that. Also, I donīt like martial adepts. Theyīre like dragons - you want smart, vicous and versatile combatants, but instead of giving them things like increased mobility or a plethora of options which are vastly dependent on correct use, you give them bigger sticks. And spell-like abilities/breath weapons. And mountain tombstone whatever.

Of course I could introduce the MoPAL (Master of purple anal lightning), who has a D12, full BAB and channels the sublime way through his sphincter as a "breath" weapon each turn, as a free action, for a few d6. And, as ridiculous as it may sound, he isnīt more powerful than the wizard at lvl 10 or above. But that doesnīt make him a fighter alternative - It just makes him a dude with a sword that hits monsters with lightning from his ass.
ToB classes donīt attack, they always use magical or semi-magical effects, even if they only grant attacks. This whole "exceptional training" gets damn old if everybodyīs exceptional. Thatīs Reagan. Thatīs saying "I want every American to have an above-average income!"

yeah, thanks.

Bassetking
2007-07-07, 05:23 PM
Yes. And what is wrong with that statement? No one should be forced to play a commoner, thatīs not what I mean, but with all that powercreep your lvl 5 crusader or adept of choice could probably eradicate a small village (crusader lends itself especially well to this), which is a tad early for that. Also, I donīt like martial adepts. Theyīre like dragons - you want smart, vicous and versatile combatants, but instead of giving them things like increased mobility or a plethora of options which are vastly dependent on correct use, you give them bigger sticks. And spell-like abilities/breath weapons. And mountain tombstone whatever.

Of course I could introduce the MoPAL (Master of purple anal lightning), who has a D12, full BAB and channels the sublime way through his sphincter as a "breath" weapon each turn, as a free action, for a few d6. And, as ridiculous as it may sound, he isnīt more powerful than the wizard at lvl 10 or above. But that doesnīt make him a fighter alternative - It just makes him a dude with a sword that hits monsters with lightning from his ass.
ToB classes donīt attack, they always use magical or semi-magical effects, even if they only grant attacks. This whole "exceptional training" gets damn old if everybodyīs exceptional. Thatīs Reagan. Thatīs saying "I want every American to have an above-average income!"

yeah, thanks.

Level 5 is Third Level spells.

Invisibility, Summon Monster III, Summon Monster III, Summon Monster I x3...

Well, that's one heck of a dead town.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 05:24 PM
Yes. And what is wrong with that statement? No one should be forced to play a commoner, thatīs not what I mean, but with all that powercreep your lvl 5 crusader or adept of choice could probably eradicate a small village (crusader lends itself especially well to this), which is a tad early for that. Also, I donīt like martial adepts. Theyīre like dragons - you want smart, vicous and versatile combatants, but instead of giving them things like increased mobility or a plethora of options which are vastly dependent on correct use, you give them bigger sticks. And spell-like abilities/breath weapons. And mountain tombstone whatever.
A Warlock could eradicate an entire village as early as level one or two. Being suited to killing large masses of terribly weak NPCs doesn't make something overpowered--the NPC classes aren't meant to be particularily functional or balanced against the PC classes.

So, an argument that a class is overpowered because it can kill level 1 NPCs in large numbers is, well... entirely senseless. Some classes are just well-suited to that sort of thing--and it isn't even the most powerful ones, necessarily (i.e. the Warlock). After all, a Fighter 1 with the Mineral Warrior template, +1 LA, has DR 8/adamantine; he call kill an arbitrarily high number of Commoner 1s.


Of course I could introduce the MoPAL (Master of purple anal lightning), who has a D12, full BAB and channels the sublime way through his sphincter as a "breath" weapon each turn, as a free action, for a few d6. And, as ridiculous as it may sound, he isnīt more powerful than the wizard at lvl 10 or above. But that doesnīt make him a fighter alternative - It just makes him a dude with a sword that hits monsters with lightning from his ass.
ToB classes donīt attack, they always use magical or semi-magical effects, even if they only grant attacks. This whole "exceptional training" gets damn old if everybodyīs exceptional. Thatīs Reagan. Thatīs saying "I want every American to have an above-average income!"

yeah, thanks.

Read above: there's nothing magical or semi-magical about 4/5ths of the Tome of Battle. Why makes the Flashing Sun maneuver "semi-magical", but Flurry of Blows (which does the same thing) mundane?

ToB classes, by and large, hit things with sharp metal sticks. Their martial art lets them hit things with sticks more times, or harder, or fight off outside influence so they can keep hitting things with sticks, and so on, but they're hitting things--except for the two half-schools which set things on fire and teleport through shadows. Those are magical. But the rest? We've gone over this. It's only as magical as you want it to be.

Not everybody's exceptional: the PCs are. That's a major premise of D&D.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:29 PM
Level 5 is Third Level spells.

Invisibility, Summon Monster III, Summon Monster III, Summon Monster I x3...

Well, that's one heck of a dead town.

No - you couldnīt take on more than maybe 30-40 commoners, because your spells run out of duration before itīs over. They will hide or run for their lives, and not simply stand there and wiat to be killed. And a few survivors with short bows are still a threat to your life. The Crusader? Kills em all, unless heīs stupid enought to let them all bumrush him in the town square. And even then he takes them down if heīs lucky........
Not everyone is stupid. But being able to pull things of like standing in the town square and still killing everything tends do make you, since itīs not necessesary to think. The same reason why I always view Dragons as idiot savants instead of universal geniuses.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 05:29 PM
They don't, Kioran. I'm sorry. They use powerful attacks, sure. But most of them are not magical or even mystical. The warblade doesn't even get any of these magical mystery maneuvers.

And yes, they're not the average warrior. That's because the average warrior is the warrior. Not the fighter. No the barbarian. All of the main classes represent exceptional individuals. They are a cut above. This is why the player's handbook says you reroll if you don't get at least one stat of 14 or higher or a total modifier of at least +1. You are supposed to be better than other people, whether through specialized training or innate gifts.

And you don't need to use the flavor of the sublime way. You can change that to suit. Maybe you're actually just making things up as you go along (crusader's maneuver recovery works well for this), or you've picked things up as you went along. It's no different from the fighter's acquisition of feats.

FreeloadingSausage
2007-07-07, 05:30 PM
Hmph.

All I have to say to the original poster is:

I once played a game with two players and a real spectacle of a GM. The characters were fourth level and were meant to be racially evil monstrous minionoids, i.e. I was playing a Kobold, my friend was a Hobgoblin.

My friend played the general Hobgoblin Figh-Tar, with Power Attack, Cleave, Blah, Blah, Blah.

My Kobold was a Rogue 1/ Ranger 1/ Bard 2, with Dodge and Deceitful.

My friend's Ability Scores were out the wazoo, altogether his modifiers added up to +11. Mine added up to -1 (but I had 20 Dex--moderately important for later reference.)

In every way, shape, form, fashion, method and mannerism I was entirely outclassed (well except in my Dex score, but I'm getting to that.)

Now, according to what most people would seem to think on this board from what I've read, I should have felt extremely overshadowed and Harrumphed my way into a re-roll. However, this was not the case.

I didn't so much overshadow the Fight-Tar as trash him. Sure he got to do some damage to some creature or other by wacking them with a short sword (the only equipment the GM gave him), but who really cared? I skated around on a rusty buckler while tootling my bone flute and making Ghost Sounds resound off the interior of the bucket helmet of the Lawful Good Paladin BBGG after I used Animate Rope to tie his leg to a rock.

Is the point of this story to illustrate the uses of level 0 and 1 Bard Spells? No. The point is that if the players of your (or anyone's) game feel overshadowed, it's because they aren't doing their job. In my opinion, Combat fun (or any fun for that matter) shouldn't come from, "I attack. I do damage."

If you use the ToB and it makes non ToB characters feel underpowered, then tell them to stop looking at DoT's and tell them the story of a Deceitful Kobold Rogue/Ranger/Bard who beat the living fun out of a Super-Paladin by blinding him with light, tripping him with rope, and stuffing rotten fruit in his face while the Fighter ran away after falling to 12 HP.

Of course, the GM could have been needlessly draconian and said, "but the Rules don't say that Dancing Lights causes any kind of dazzlement, even if you Mend the ventilation holes in his helmet together and cast it right in front of his eyes." But he didn't. He accepted that it was a reasonable outcome according to the situation, and a crapkicker character got to shine.

I haven't read the ToB, but it sounds like it's desperately trying to inject flavor into a dull combat system. Tell your characters to do it themselves (even if they're boring old Figh-Tars). Be a little lax and reasonable in your interpretation of the rules, and see if you get any complaints.

Oh, and play 7th Sea.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-07, 05:30 PM
A Warlock could eradicate an entire village as early as level one or two.

Dragonfire Adept 1/Marshal 1. Marshal takes Charisma aura while DFA picks up the Beguiling Influence invocation. +10 to Diplomacy with 18 CHA. 6 ranks of Diplomacy, 5 ranks of Bluff, and 5 ranks of Knowledge: Nobility. Thats a grand total of +20 to Diplomacy at level 2. Why eradicate the village when you can lead it?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 05:35 PM
Of course, the GM could have been needlessly draconian and said, "but the Rules don't say that Dancing Lights causes any kind of dazzlement, even if you Mend the ventilation holes in his helmet together and cast it right in front of his eyes." But he didn't, and a crapkicker character got to shine.


I'm sorry, but "the DM can fix things so even the weak characters get chances to shine" is not a substitute for good game design.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:37 PM
A Warlock could eradicate an entire village as early as level one or two. Being suited to killing large masses of terribly weak NPCs doesn't make something overpowered--the NPC classes aren't meant to be particularily functional or balanced against the PC classes.

So, an argument that a class is overpowered because it can kill level 1 NPCs in large numbers is, well... entirely senseless. Some classes are just well-suited to that sort of thing--and it isn't even the most powerful ones, necessarily (i.e. the Warlock). After all, a Fighter 1 with the Mineral Warrior template, +1 LA, has DR 8/adamantine; he call kill an arbitrarily high number of Commoner 1s.



Read above: there's nothing magical or semi-magical about 4/5ths of the Tome of Battle. Why makes the Flashing Sun maneuver "semi-magical", but Flurry of Blows (which does the same thing) mundane?

ToB classes, by and large, hit things with sharp metal sticks. Their martial art lets them hit things with sticks more times, or harder, or fight off outside influence so they can keep hitting things with sticks, and so on, but they're hitting things--except for the two half-schools which set things on fire and teleport through shadows. Those are magical. But the rest? We've gone over this. It's only as magical as you want it to be.

Not everybody's exceptional: the PCs are. That's a major premise of D&D.

Mineral warrior, just like Lloth-touched and similiar - brutally broken powercreep. Of course it doesnīt matter with campaigns which always start at lvl 12, but it breaks low level campaigns. And no, the warlock cannot. Your commoners are frigging stupid if he can. What are javelins for? I know, they donīt do atomic damage with multiple headshots of doom, but they get the job of hitting the warlock at 30 paces done......
As for exceptional PCs: Exceptional people shouldnīt be exceptional because they can stand in the way of a train and the train bounces of. They should be exceptional because they have some power, but use it to great effect, instead of having great power.
And the setting sun maneuver is a lot beter than Flurry of blows because that one is more like a representation of striking repeatedly with fists, elbows and everything else you have - itīs multiattack, not incredible and blinding speed. And even if it is, itīs limited to a bunch of one-handed or double weapons which do little damage and are easy to handle. by a person with low BAB.
Crusaders healing themselves is also pretty supernatural to me.

If you want stronger Stick-swingers, donīt give them larger sticks, give them more skills points and opportuinites to use their surroundings and brains in a fight. ToB is just dumbing things down.

FreeloadingSausage
2007-07-07, 05:39 PM
I'm sorry, but "the DM can fix things so even the weak characters get chances to shine" is not a substitute for good game design.

But that's not necessarily "fixing things." That's being open with the rules enough to allow creativity from a weak player to make up for blandness from a powerful character.

And honestly, D&D isn't being run on a computer, so why should it feel like it is?

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 05:40 PM
TOB adds to the number of options a character can use. There is no combat action available to standard fighters which is denied to TOB characters. Thus the statement "TOB is just dumbing things down" is entirely nonsensical. In what universe is adding more options dumbing things down?

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 05:41 PM
If you want stronger Stick-swingers, donīt give them larger sticks, give them more skills points and opportuinites to use their surroundings and brains in a fight. ToB is just dumbing things down.

You don't even know you're contradicting yourself, do you?

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 05:43 PM
Martial adepts don't do more damage than barbarians. How, exactly, are they getting bigger sticks? They just have more ways to attack. That's all.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 05:47 PM
Martial adepts don't do more damage than barbarians. How, exactly, are they getting bigger sticks? They just have more ways to attack. That's all.

And how does "more options" equate "bigger sticks"? It doesn't. It equates to that sentence used earlier: "fighting with brains."

FreeloadingSausage
2007-07-07, 05:48 PM
If you want stronger Stick-swingers, donīt give them larger sticks, give them more skills points and opportuinites to use their surroundings and brains in a fight. ToB is just dumbing things down.

This is, in a nut-shell, what I am saying. Except I wouldn't say ToB's dumbing anything down, I'd say it's trying to liven things up, but that should be the player's job.

NPC's follow the rules. PC's bend the rules, as far as the GM is willing to allow, and this is why they win. = My Gaming Philosophy.

Seems to work well for me and mine.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:49 PM
TOB adds to the number of options a character can use. There is no combat action available to standard fighters which is denied to TOB characters. Thus the statement "TOB is just dumbing things down" is entirely nonsensical. In what universe is adding more options dumbing things down?

Because the "old" options of the Fighter donīt make sense anymore. Flintlocks introduced new options to battles - but they also spelled out the end of heavy cavalry, since inexpensive blocks of Infantry with fireamrs slaughtered these expensive and highly trained troops(see: battle at Mikatagahara).
Why rage? Why Trip or Disarm? Use the seven-headed-weasel-crack with the whatever stance, itīs guaranteed to do more damage. And I know, there are lvl 20 Fighter builds who have killed a lvl 20 Warblade - but that Warblade can practically ignore most debuffing effects (more intelligent and brainy magic) and is more powerful in most other situations.
And they all have much more ressources than the usual Melee classes and can wade through normal NPCs.

For low-level old-style PC-classes, NPCs still pose a limited threat. for you? cannon fodder. Vast discrepancies in power make combat dull. I once introduced a limited-charge laser pistol into a fantasy campaign. of course you had only 50 shots - but in every really threatening situation, you could whip it out and save the day. Did i mention the campaign crumbled? (Yeah, i was an idiot that time)

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 05:51 PM
NPC's follow the rules. PC's bend the rules, as far as the GM is willing to allow, and this is why they win.

Yes! The PCs are exceptional individuals in a heroic fantasy game: they should be near-demigods.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 05:52 PM
The TOB classes were designed to replace the PHB melee classes. So what?

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-07, 05:54 PM
NPC's follow the rules. PC's bend the rules, as far as the GM is willing to allow, and this is why they win.

PCs win because they are exceptional and the NPCs are average. They do not win because they have plot immunity.

Plot immunity makes for a very boring story. "Oh. Yay. Another Balor. Are we going to defeat this one by throwing a bucket on his head so he overheats, too?"

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:54 PM
And how does "more options" equate "bigger sticks"? It doesn't. It equates to that sentence used earlier: "fighting with brains."

More options = Ability to attack more powerfully for almost indefinite time.

How does that differ from a bigger stick? And the applications of most of these things arenīt even hard to see. Itīs not brains if itīs obvious how to use it to better effect.
Having ranks in Climb and Jump and dropping on to your enemies is brains, because some wouldnīt have even thought to use the ceiling. Standing in clump of enemies and activationg "time stands still" for maximum damge so you donīt waste the free attacks you get? Not so much.
Generally, fighting with brains are things Computer games canīt adequately simulate. ToB? Easy and predictable, and presumably available in a game not so far in the future.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-07, 05:55 PM
3rd level Fighter with a Spiked Chain and a potion of Enlarge Person. Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Combat Reflexes.

Commoners and warriors are no longer a threat.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-07, 05:58 PM
More options = Ability to attack more powerfully for almost indefinite time.

How does that differ from a bigger stick? And the applications of most of these things arenīt even hard to see. Itīs not brains if itīs obvious how to use it to better effect.
Having ranks in Climb and Jump and dropping on to your enemies is brains, because some wouldnīt have even thought to use the ceiling. Standing in clump of enemies and activationg "time stands still" for maximum damge so you donīt waste the free attacks you get? Not so much.
Generally, fighting with brains are things Computer games canīt adequately simulate. ToB? Easy and predictable, and presumably available in a game not so far in the future.

But... but... Martial Adepts don't attack more powerfully. Barbarians can out damage them. Blaster mages can out damage them.

Knowing which maneuver to use and when actually requires someone to think. Rolling a skill check doesn't.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 05:58 PM
Except of course, that TOB characters are in fact better at doing that sorta drop from the ceiling stuff, because they have the skill points to do it successfully.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 05:58 PM
ToB classes aren't really stronger than the traditional melee classes until about level three. They don't really start taking off until level five or six, and by that point, the Druid had become Mr. Combat, and has replaced the fighter and barbarian anyway.

And again, the martial adepts never out-damage the other melee classes (assuming both are focused on damage and are made by equally competent players). That is not what makes them better combatants. They are better because they have more options and skills.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 05:59 PM
PCs win because they are exceptional and the NPCs are average. They do not win because they have plot immunity.

Plot immunity makes for a very boring story. "Oh. Yay. Another Balor. Are we going to defeat this one by throwing a bucket on his head so he overheats, too?"

I was under the impression giving them oodles and noodles of additional power is plot immunity of sorts. If you donīt like their approach to problems when letting them fight creatively, it doesnīt work, like that bucket.

If, however, one of the Crusaders says "well, we shouldnīt tell the duke of the income orc battaillon(380 Orcs) because I can simply stand on the road and kill 200 of them" You can hardly tell him "erm, you healing powers donīt work".
Some of your best plot devices go down the drain when NPCs are incapable of affecting the characters.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-07, 06:02 PM
If, however, one of the Crusaders says "well, we shouldnīt tell the duke of the income orc battaillon(380 Orcs) because I can simply stand on the road and kill 200 of them"

You realize that a reach-weapon on a DEX-fighter with enlarge person, Improved Trip, and healing potions can do the exact same thing through AoOs, right?

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 06:04 PM
TOB classes are not overpowered. They are below the various full casters. I don't see you complaining about a wizard's capacity to kill 300 orcs.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 06:11 PM
You realize that a reach-weapon on a DEX-fighter with enlarge person, Improved Trip, and healing potions can do the exact same thing through AoOs, right?

He canīt. They attack with bows and ventilate him. Either he has light armor and takes lots of damage(likely with a Dex fighter), or he has medium armor for a little more protection. Either way, his enlarge person will probably wear off, and he has no way to heal himself before it does, so he either presses on and dies, or he retreates and loses the powers. A Fighter needs to be clever to pull this of, since he probably has only one shot.
A Crusader can easily retry, since he heals himself up and sets another ambush down the road.

As for Fighters dealing more damage: In a duel. Against one person. The Fighters and Barbs beating the Martial adepts were mostly one-trick ponies. And our warblade has "iron heart surge" while the barbarion cowers in fear before a dretch(has actually happened in our group). Insert anything else than a nice, clean, 1 on 1 duel, and the Martial Adept is much more likely to be able to deal with it. And not because his player is smart, but because he has his work laid out for him with his special maneuvers.

Giving Fighters no skill points and mediocre HD(as in the full HD without class features, which includes skill points, BAB and Saves)is the one big mistake Iīll never understand, and quite possibly the only thing ToB corrected. Martial characters actually making anything else than a fortitude save or being able to survive on their own without being rangers.

Kioran
2007-07-07, 06:12 PM
TOB classes are not overpowered. They are below the various full casters. I don't see you complaining about a wizard's capacity to kill 300 orcs.

See my MoPAL comment. Of course the MoPAL is less powerful than the Wizard. But then, almost everything is. That is no good justification to bring out the cookies for everyone. Honestly, Iīm tired. iīll sleep now. G`night everyone.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 06:16 PM
What, pray, makes the martial adept immune to arrows? Why is this a problem for the fighter, but not the warblade? I must have missed that class feature.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 06:28 PM
He canīt. They attack with bows and ventilate him. Either he has light armor and takes lots of damage(likely with a Dex fighter), or he has medium armor for a little more protection. Either way, his enlarge person will probably wear off, and he has no way to heal himself before it does, so he either presses on and dies, or he retreates and loses the powers. A Fighter needs to be clever to pull this of, since he probably has only one shot.
A Crusader can easily retry, since he heals himself up and sets another ambush down the road.
How is he doing that again? The orcs still have their bows, and it doesn't seem to me that the crusader is very good at healing short of level 17 (at which point yes, you can probably kill them, so what? The rogue can probably kill them. With a shortbow.). Occasionally he can get some damage reduction, but either very little as a stance, or only occasionally after hitting someone successfully.

In fact, even at level 17 you can forget it. The mega-heal-doomstrike is a standard action...if the orcs come near enough for you to move-attack rather than charging them (or better still not getting to charge them), you deserve to win because they have the tactical competence of lemmings.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 06:29 PM
Mineral warrior, just like Lloth-touched and similiar - brutally broken powercreep. Of course it doesnīt matter with campaigns which always start at lvl 12, but it breaks low level campaigns. And no, the warlock cannot. Your commoners are frigging stupid if he can. What are javelins for? I know, they donīt do atomic damage with multiple headshots of doom, but they get the job of hitting the warlock at 30 paces done......
Mineral Warrior is +1 LA. That LA can and does hurt. It's one of the few templates that's actually worth its LA. The LA hurts less in the level 3-4 range than in the level 19-20 range, but it can mean giving up a capstone ability, it delays class feature and feat acquisition...
The Warlock CAN, because she chooses the invocation that lets her shoot people from 250 feet away. If she hides, they can't even SEE her from over there. Then she can use her level 2 wealth on a wand of Lesser Vigor for the rare hits she'll take.


As for exceptional PCs: Exceptional people shouldnīt be exceptional because they can stand in the way of a train and the train bounces of. They should be exceptional because they have some power, but use it to great effect, instead of having great power.
Except that trains don't bounce off ToB characters. Neither do ogres. They just wind up being better suited for high level play than Fighters. You also missed the point entirely: you said that if everybody's exceptional nobody's exceptional, basically, and in return I pointed out that not everybody's a Martial Adept--just the PCs and a few NPCs.


And the setting sun maneuver is a lot beter than Flurry of blows because that one is more like a representation of striking repeatedly with fists, elbows and everything else you have - itīs multiattack, not incredible and blinding speed. And even if it is, itīs limited to a bunch of one-handed or double weapons which do little damage and are easy to handle. by a person with low BAB.
A weapon's base damage is almost irrelevant. And, hey, monk 1/Full BAB Classes X still gets Flurry.
The maneuver isn't better than Flurry of Blows, because you can use the maneuver *once* before having to recover it... which is a wasted full round, in combat. A Swordsage can blow through four maneuvers in two or three rounds; recover them after that and you're cutting your efficiency down by 1/3 or 1/4.

As for the maneuver being better because it's a representation of striking repeatedly--fluff doesn't make things better. You could just as easily say that Flashing Sun is striking repeatedly and Flurry of Blows represents being really fast. Mechanically, they have similar effects. You've yet to explain why one is "semi-magical".


Crusaders healing themselves is also pretty supernatural to me.
Covered this. HP loss isn't wounds, and HP recovery isn't wounds sealing up.

[/quote]If you want stronger Stick-swingers, donīt give them larger sticks, give them more skills points and opportuinites to use their surroundings and brains in a fight. ToB is just dumbing things down.[/QUOTE]
"Opportunities to use their surroundings and brains"? Like what? D&D doesn't work in a way that lets you "use your brains in a fight" without huge amounts of DM Fiat (which, when properly applied, can fix anything... but shouldn't be relied on).

ToB *does* give them more skill points, by the way. And it gives them more opportunities to do different things, becdause they are now more less reliant on slugging it out with full attacks and have fewer gaping weaknesses.

ToB adds options. It doesn't dumb anything down. The barbarian is more likely to just rage and hit things than the Martial Adept.


Because the "old" options of the Fighter donīt make sense anymore. Flintlocks introduced new options to battles - but they also spelled out the end of heavy cavalry, since inexpensive blocks of Infantry with fireamrs slaughtered these expensive and highly trained troops(see: battle at Mikatagahara).
Why rage? Why Trip or Disarm? Use the seven-headed-weasel-crack with the whatever stance, itīs guaranteed to do more damage. And I know, there are lvl 20 Fighter builds who have killed a lvl 20 Warblade - but that Warblade can practically ignore most debuffing effects (more intelligent and brainy magic) and is more powerful in most other situations.
And they all have much more ressources than the usual Melee classes and can wade through normal NPCs.
Why rage? Why trip or disarm? Because tripping is still good, and raging barbarians do more damage than martial adepts. I don't think you've taken a very good look at Tome of Battle--the Warblade can end some debuffs with Iron Heart Surge (and then has to recover it, wasting a round), he can replace a save with a concentration check--again, once before recovery, and he has to prepare that instead of other maneuvers, majorly cutting into his offensive ability.
The Warblade, incidentally, can still trip and disarm. He just has other options, too, because the old ones weren't enough.

Yes, a level 20 Warblade is much better than a level 20 Fighter (but not necessarily one-on-one, a Karmic Strike/reach/AoO-based Fighter build could take one on with no fear). You seem to be missing the fact that the Fighter is a poorly designed class, and does not cope well with the realities of high level combat. Being able to contribute isn't overpowering, it's what a character should be able to do.

I don't see you ragging on the Fighter for being tons better than the Samurai. So why criticize Tome of Battle for being better than the Fighter? Why not the cleric, the druid, even the Barbarian (the Fighter's clear superior in a core-only game)?


For low-level old-style PC-classes, NPCs still pose a limited threat. for you? cannon fodder. Vast discrepancies in power make combat dull. I once introduced a limited-charge laser pistol into a fantasy campaign. of course you had only 50 shots - but in every really threatening situation, you could whip it out and save the day. Did i mention the campaign crumbled? (Yeah, i was an idiot that time)
Except that Tome of Battle characters don't casually sweep away CR appropriate challenges. They are not as powerful as you seem to think. You don't seem very familiar with the book. The Warblade doesn't have a laser pistol--you're thinking of wizards there.

NPC classes do not pose a threat to the PCs except as vast mobs, after the first few levels. Those vast mobs also threaten martial adepts--the Crusader is the best at fighting vast mobs, but overwhelm his 1d6+IL healing with 20s, and the mob wins. Swordsages and Warblades are just as vulnerable to mobs as most classes (Dragon Shamans are great at mob-killing, since they can heal themselves faster than the mob can damage them, after a certain point, too; Warlocks can snipe from a distance. Neither of those are strong classes. Mob-killing has nothing to do with anything).
Eventually, even vast mobs stop being threatening. PC classes are not balanced against groups of 50 commoners.



More options = Ability to attack more powerfully for almost indefinite time.

How does that differ from a bigger stick? And the applications of most of these things arenīt even hard to see. Itīs not brains if itīs obvious how to use it to better effect.
But they CAN'T attack more powerfully. A raging barbarian or paladin with charging feats outdamages a martial adept. Their strengths is that they have better defense, better mobility, are less likely to be shut down--they're more likely to contribute.


Having ranks in Climb and Jump and dropping on to your enemies is brains, because some wouldnīt have even thought to use the ceiling. Standing in clump of enemies and activationg "time stands still" for maximum damge so you donīt waste the free attacks you get? Not so much.
Dropping down from the ceiling into the middle of your enemies? Just as possible for a Martial Adept. Not that dropping down onto your enemies is effective in D&D.


Generally, fighting with brains are things Computer games canīt adequately simulate. ToB? Easy and predictable, and presumably available in a game not so far in the future.
ToB classes take more brains: there is more resource allocation and management involved in playing a Martial Adept (what maneuvers? Boosts and strikes to hit harder but run out faster, or counters for defense to cut into offensive capability? What do you use your swift action on? Do you want to waste time recovering maneuvers, or fight on without them?) than in playing a fighter, whose options are limited to "I hit it" and "I trip it". How, exactly, do you play a "brainy" fighter?


I was under the impression giving them oodles and noodles of additional power is plot immunity of sorts. If you donīt like their approach to problems when letting them fight creatively, it doesnīt work, like that bucket.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE OODLES OF ADDITIONAL POWER. You have yet to do anything more than say that they're almighty. They have flexibility, defense, options, mobility--but not much more in the way of offensive power. They're better than fighters. They're not going to keel over at the first Will save... why is that a BAD thing?


If, however, one of the Crusaders says "well, we shouldnīt tell the duke of the income orc battaillon(380 Orcs) because I can simply stand on the road and kill 200 of them" You can hardly tell him "erm, you healing powers donīt work".
Some of your best plot devices go down the drain when NPCs are incapable of affecting the characters.
...but a Crusader can't kill 200 orcs, unless the party is so high-level that the party could do it with or without the crusader (summons, AoE spells, boom). A warlock can be flying and invisible 250 feet above their heads and chain-blast them all to death, and yet the Warlock isn't overpowered.

Give those orcs some barbarian levels if you still want them to be a threat.



He canīt. They attack with bows and ventilate him. Either he has light armor and takes lots of damage(likely with a Dex fighter), or he has medium armor for a little more protection. Either way, his enlarge person will probably wear off, and he has no way to heal himself before it does, so he either presses on and dies, or he retreates and loses the powers. A Fighter needs to be clever to pull this of, since he probably has only one shot.
A Crusader can easily retry, since he heals himself up and sets another ambush down the road.
...except that if "they attack with bows and ventilate him", they can do the same to the Crusader. Who needs to be meleeing them to heal himself, BTW; he can't go beat on a harmless bunny. And if he's meleeing them, they can overwhelm him with 20s the same as they could any other fighter--it's just a little harder, because he gets back a handful of HP a round (on average). The Crusader happens to be good against large groups of very weak monsters... which aren't a credible threat to any party anyway.
I don't think you've thought this through. I'm not sure why you think a level 5 crusader can kill 200 orcs, or whatever it was.


As for Fighters dealing more damage: In a duel. Against one person. The Fighters and Barbs beating the Martial adepts were mostly one-trick ponies. And our warblade has "iron heart surge" while the barbarion cowers in fear before a dretch(has actually happened in our group). Insert anything else than a nice, clean, 1 on 1 duel, and the Martial Adept is much more likely to be able to deal with it. And not because his player is smart, but because he has his work laid out for him with his special maneuvers.
A Warblade can't use IHS to break free of fear, because you have to be able to take a standard action to use IHS.

Yes, Martial Adepts are more capable. That's not a problem--the problem is that Fighters aren't capable enough.


Giving Fighters no skill points and mediocre HD(as in the full HD without class features, which includes skill points, BAB and Saves)is the one big mistake Iīll never understand, and quite possibly the only thing ToB corrected. Martial characters actually making anything else than a fortitude save or being able to survive on their own without being rangers.
So, if you want characters to be able to make their saves, survive on their own, and actually be able to deal with mobile opponents... what do you have against ToB? Fighters have major problems doing those things, and no amount of "playing it smart" counters that.



See my MoPAL comment. Of course the MoPAL is less powerful than the Wizard. But then, almost everything is. That is no good justification to bring out the cookies for everyone. Honestly, Iīm tired. iīll sleep now. G`night everyone.
Forget the wizard. The Fighter is less powerful than almost *everything else*. He's near the bottom of the heap. Tome of Battle characters aren't MoPALs, they're up there with Psychic Warriors, Spirit Shamans, Shugenjas, et cetera. They're not being raised to the level of "CoDzilla" or wizards. They're good without being too good.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-07, 06:43 PM
Covered this. HP loss isn't wounds, and HP recovery isn't wounds sealing up.
While HP is not (always) required to represent wounds, this is not supported by the text. The maneuver descriptions do reference wounds sealing up, health restoring, and energy flowing. This is one of two reasons I'd never play with a crusader.

Also, some weapon abilities do require actual injury to make sense...note, a poisoned weapon actually draws blood if it hits and damages you. Always, otherwise the poison doesn't work. Why is it that a non-poisoned sword doesn't? I prefer the 'relative wounds' description. A fighter losing 50 HP might suffer the same injury as a wizard losing 20, though it required a power-attacking giant to inflict the wound on the fighter, and just a lucky orc to hit the wizard.

thorgrim29
2007-07-07, 07:22 PM
Well, into the breach again it seems.....

I say to ToB. Let me explain the situation I'm currently facing. I play a warblade, one guy plays a cleric (healing and war domain, tower sheild, big mace (d12), big armor), one guy plays a mage, and another plays a beguiler. Now due to some bad decisions and player abscence, I'm level 4, the beguiler and the cleric are level 3, and the mage is level 2. So we get in a fight with level 2 or 3 gards, we kill the guys, half of them are on the ground from a colour spray, and the other end up squished pretty easy.

Now, my damage output is being compared to that of the healbot/defense cleric, so of course I win, especially with one more level, I point this out, and the fact that the beguiler basically killed half of them before the combat and that the cleric heals, the mage takes potshots with a wand of magic missile, so he's usefull, put he's not doing a lot of damage, just ALWAYS HITTING, so it adds up pretty equal IMO. I explain this, and it's all good. Then the mage and the beguiler leave, because the players had to go (my explanation is that they get gastro). Now it's just the cleric and me.

We get a quest to kill a dragon (around 100 hp, DR 10, does decent damage, but dumb as dirt, no breath weapon, basically slams headfirst into things). To help us we had the help of a few npc's who mostly got killed, and we made it topple a tower on itself (fighting in a ruined city). So, we killed it, ate the heart (see my topic), went on to loot a tomb. My conclusions were that everyone was equally usefull (well, exept the mage), and that the warblade was'nt that bad. But no, the dm and the cleric's player whine about the "uberpowerfullness" of emerald razor and mountain hammer.

My conclusions about this are that people who think only in term of damage output will beleive that the ToB is overpowered, but when put in focus, all I did was smash stuff hard in HtH combat, wheras the other pc's healed, charmed, burned to a tender crisp and likewise did a lot of very usefull but sadly overlooked things. The problem is a lack of putting it in focus.


Wow, that was a bit long winded, but I felt it would be better to explain it completely to prove my point.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-07, 07:30 PM
It's a good thing you weren't playing as an optimized charge barbarian, or they'd REALLY be whining about how overpowered you are.

If people don't like Tome of Battle to bring melee classes closer to the power levels of the casters, then they should ban the traditional mages and use psionics or Tome of Magic to bring the casters closer to the power level of the traditional melee classes. Psionics doesn't overshadow fighters/barbarians/etc nearly as much at higher levels compared to the Vancian system. The same goes for Tome of Magic casters.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 07:40 PM
Perhaps it is because what you're doing is new, Thorgrim? Everyone's seen the mage chuck a magic missile before. No one's ever seen an emerald razor before.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-07, 07:43 PM
Emerald Razor? That's what your DM thought was overpowered?

It's exactly the same as the Deep Impact (except, admitedly, available two levels earlier), except you can't ready it and use it in the same round.

TheOOB
2007-07-07, 07:57 PM
If you think ToB is overpowered or over the top, perhaps D&D isn't the game for you. D&D is about epic heroes who fight nasty villains and powerful monsters, it's not about a band of weak poorly trained grunts being picked off one by one by an overwhelming force. The hp system alone completely ruins any of D&D's chance at being realistic or gritty, so I don't see what the problum is with a combat system that makes logical sense and still leaves you weaker then a favored soul, quite possibly the worst full caster class?

If you personally dont understand or dont like ToB, thats perfectly fine, different strokes for different folks, but if you're not allowing it because it's silly and over the top, go play d20 modern, true20, GURPS, shadowrun, WoD, earthdawn, ect.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 08:01 PM
a favored soul, quite possibly the worst full caster class?

Sorry, what? Favored souls make great self-buffing melee characters, much like clerics do.

Reinforcements
2007-07-07, 08:16 PM
You know, Kioran, if you thought that the martial adepts were overpowered, you could have just said that instead of using this ridiculous metaphor about big sticks.

And I'm afraid that the title of "worst full caster class" goes unequivocally to the Healer. First runner up is the Warmage.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-07, 08:34 PM
The Healer can actually do some niftiness with healing if used right, but yeah. It is pretty bad.

TheOOB
2007-07-07, 08:35 PM
You know, Kioran, if you thought that the martial adepts were overpowered, you could have just said that instead of using this ridiculous metaphor about big sticks.

And I'm afraid that the title of "worst full caster class" goes unequivocally to the Healer. First runner up is the Warmage.

Meh, I never really considered the healer or warmage to be full-caster, as they have extreamly limited spell access, not access to a full class list like the cleric, wizard, and such.

Favored Souls are worse then wizards/clerics/sorcerers ect primarly because they need two attributes to be good instead of one, also they have access to the cleric spell list, which is weaker then the wizards, and only get a small portion of it.

Thrawn183
2007-07-07, 09:22 PM
Interestingly enough, this topic is being discussed on the wizards forums. In particular,
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=876039 (This is the first time I've ever tried to do a link before, hope it works,) is a thread called the gauntlet where people come up with core melee and ToB melee builds and throw them against melee monsters.

I didn't realize they made monsters this tough. The CR 3 Runehound has DR 5/silver AND fast healing 3. And Fighters and Barbarians have been beating them. I used to pooh-pooh trip fighters and fighters that did things like "hold the line," man have my eyes been opened. My warblade? Lost every fight because at levels <5 she couldn't hit hard enough, and higher than that she got grappled into the ground: I just ran all the fights higher than that level assuming the mobs wouldn't grapple because it wasn't even worth my time otherwise. My ranger? Well, I haven't gone nearly as far, but things are looking pretty nice right about now (though there's going to be a rough chunk in there just before I get some actual spellcasting abilities.)

Someone earlier mentioned not being able to throw on CR encounters at a party anymore. Well from what I've just seen, your standard fighters and barbarians can already solo virtually any on CR encounter, add in another three characters and of course it isn't going to be a challenge.

That said, I like ToB because I like getting new things. Shiny things. Instead of an extra attack per round (every five levels), I get a new attack every level. I like being able to do things other than charge or full-round attack.

But I implore you, look at my warblade build there. She has used 3 attack maneuvers: mountain hammer, bonecrushing strike and insightful strike. Every single one of these can be played has her stabbing the heck out of somebody with her rapier. There is absolutely nothing flashier visually about this character than your standard samurai.

You know, I almost crapped my pants when I first saw the +100 damage strike. Then my friend showed me an arcane thesis'd twinned maximized disintegrate. Then I really did crap my pants (ok, not really, but it definitely put things in perspective)

TheOOB
2007-07-07, 09:29 PM
100 damage seems like a big number, but at 20th level really damage less then the triple digits really is irrelevant unless they fail their massive damage save.

Ceridan
2007-07-07, 09:52 PM
How is he doing that again? The orcs still have their bows, and it doesn't seem to me that the crusader is very good at healing short of level 17 (at which point yes, you can probably kill them, so what? The rogue can probably kill them. With a shortbow.). Occasionally he can get some damage reduction, but either very little as a stance, or only occasionally after hitting someone successfully.

In fact, even at level 17 you can forget it. The mega-heal-doomstrike is a standard action...if the orcs come near enough for you to move-attack rather than charging them (or better still not getting to charge them), you deserve to win because they have the tactical competence of lemmings.

Well said.

Bosh
2007-07-07, 10:20 PM
I think a lot of the disconnet on this thread is people comparing a lot of things that are hard to compare. As far as I can tell its very easy to make a decently powerful ToB character as they're fairly powerful out of the box and its fairly simple to figure out which of their abilities to use. So if your party is any of the following then ToB classes can seem overpowered:

1. Core only + ToB. Then ToB class would whipe the floor with the non-casters, since non-Casters suck horrifically with Core only rules.
2. A party with casters who don't play tactically. If your Wizard casts mostly Evocation, your Cleric is a healbot and your druid relies on his casting and ignores his special abilities then ToB can seem overpowered since its fairly simple to figure out how to play a ToB class tactically but its not always so obvious how to play a powerful caster, especially if you're used to 2nd Edition or MMORPGs and try to play a caster with tactics that make more sense in those games than in 3.5 D&D.
3. You play with people who make gimpy builds. Like I said before ToB classes are basically OK out of the box. Something like a Fighter isn't but if you have a stack of books and just the right combination of feats a Fighter can be quite powerful.

So basically a ToB class isn't hurt as much power-wise but bad tactics, a limited number of books (all they really need is the ToB book) and bad feat selection as other classes. If you party has bad tactics, a limited number of book or has people that choose feats like Monkey Grip ToB classes can seem overpowered, if your group doesn't it won't. Simple.

My last D&D group included my half-orc barbarian/fighter, a wizard who liked evocation with a few levels of elf paragon, a scout/rogue multiclass, a bard who mostly used cure wands in combat and a ranger/duskblade multiclass. My barbarian/fighter was the most powerful member of the group and I look things like Skill Focus: Intimidate as feats. If I had been a well-built ToB class I would have made the rest of the party look useless.

If I played with a party of CODzillas and Batman mages my barbarian/fighter would've been a joke and I would've made him be a Warblade instead.

It all depends on the kind of party you play with.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-07, 11:10 PM
ToB classes don't really need twinkage to be good: they're very well optimized out of the box.

I think this sums up ToB pretty well, in terms of how 'overpowered' it is. ToB is overpowered in the way that monk is underpowered- monk's HAVE to be optimized the heck out of to be effective, ToB classes are just plug-and-play (most of the 'optimizing' is using the right manuevers at the right time).

In short, monks are weak because they require a greater level of optimization than their fellow party members to contribute at the same level, and ToB characters are strong because the classes they replace (fighter, paladin, monk) have to be optimized than them to contribute at the same level.

-further tangents ahead-

I have to fall in with the 'ToB is very anime' crowd though. However, I like anime, and so this isn't a problem for me. I also think that warblade is strictly better than fighter, crusader is strictly better than paladin, and swordsage is strictly better than monk (duh). Barbarian is still competetive, as is ranger.


The (slight) problem I do have with ToB is increased power creep. The Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard party can deal with CR appropriate challenges, but the fighter is at the bottom of the totem pole. If you replace him with a ToB class, the party's power level is higher, which means encounters of the same CR aren't a challenge any more.

EDIT- wow, there is a stance called Holocaust Cloak- that makes my day.

Counterspin
2007-07-07, 11:24 PM
I would like to note that even with unoptimized characters, I've never had a party have trouble with something at their CR.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 11:28 PM
On the other hand, it's not as high as a druid/cleric/wizard/rogue party.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-07, 11:35 PM
True, but I'm not arguing that Warblade replaces Druid.

Jack Mann
2007-07-07, 11:48 PM
The druid replaces the fighter, though. There's no real power creep, because that role could already be filled by a more powerful class than the warblade or the crusader.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-08, 01:38 AM
Essentially, the *average* power level goes up somewhat, but the maximum power level doesn't really budge much.

Morty
2007-07-08, 03:14 PM
I don't think "Druid replaces fighter" is valid argument here, because it's not fighter's(or any other meleer) fault here. It's fault of poor game design. And frankly, if on 5th level druid replaces fighter, he replaces warblade as well- as far as I know, martial adepts aren't much stronger than standard meleers on low levels. Yeah, fighter is weak class, I don't argue about that. But the fact that druid replaces him isn't his fault. Not to mention warblade isn't really fighter replacement, as he lacks heavy armor and ranged weapons.

ZeroNumerous
2007-07-08, 03:29 PM
Warblade can do things other than "I stand there and hit it" though. It remains a valid class to advance to 20. Fighter, however, does not.

Morty
2007-07-08, 03:33 PM
Warblade can do things other than "I stand there and hit it" though. It remains a valid class to advance to 20. Fighter, however, does not.

That's absolutely true. I don't recall anyone denying that. But before 10 lelvel, i.e before he runs out of feats, fighter can be viable, even if warblade is better and more interesting. Druid replacing fighter is because druid is broken.

Jack Mann
2007-07-08, 03:37 PM
Yes, the druid is more powerful than the warblade. But at higher levels, at least the warblade can still consistently contribute to the party, even if he isn't as strong as the druid. The fighter has a lot of trouble doing so.

And the fault is just as much in the fighter's design as it is the druid's. The fighter is a very poorly designed class. Very rarely can a fighter build withstand the realities of high-level combat.

Now, you say that this is all right, that fighters shouldn't be as good as casters at high levels, and maybe that works for you. But for most of us, we don't want to be spear-carriers. We don't want to be sidekicks. We want to be heroes. We want to be Lancelot, or Cuchulain, or Conan. We want to slay dragons. We want to do the things that aren't possible in real life. And sometimes, we want to do that by swinging a sword instead of casting a spell. Warblades let us do that. Fighters don't.

Morty
2007-07-08, 03:43 PM
Hey. I never said it's alright that fighter has troubles contributing on high levels, and is weaker than casters. It's just I don't quite like ToB's approach and belive that casters need nerfing down just as fighters need pumping up. And yes, fighter is poorly designed class, I know that. Bonus feats don't make a class.

Kioran
2007-07-08, 05:44 PM
But fixing the Fighter requires no stances and fancy maneuvers. Some of uslike characters which are easy to play. If "I hit it with my sowrd" is your basic operation, then some of us feel it frees us to learn the ropes and plan special actions, instead of juggling a few default special attacks like the buttons in an MMORPG (and now, after the 12 second cooldown, I reactivate Diamond nightmare strike to deal another 24% damage. Rinse and repeat a few rounds later).
The basic martial class (Fighter, or with ToB Warblade) should be easy to play, with active, special tactics as a viable, even useful and strong option, The problem with a Fighter is not the absence of a will save or any of these, itīs more fundamental - the most important things to a Fighter are not his special tricks or feats, the most important things are things as basic as Attack Bonus, HP and AC.
Of course feats influence these, but in second edition, the Fighter worked like Elementals: Elemental HD suck, but they get a lot of them, so they still have strong offensive and desent saves, and an awesome soak to boot. Even without good class features. Second Edition Fighters were weaker than anything else on their lvl, but were always several levels ahead of the others.

Now in 3 ed. , lvls are supposed to be equivalent, so the Fighter gets Feats to fire him up. And theoretically,all is fine. Problem is, as someone before me already said, Fighters need to water down their most powerful class feature at higher lvls because the most useful feats are already taken. A Fighter doesnīt need special maneuvers - he needs better HD, more Feats with passive bonuses and so, opportunities to use the old sticck swinger creatively, involving player smarts and DM fiat.

ToB addreses the power discrepancy, but in a way that turns the martial characters less flavory and more uniform, since, like spells, thereīs a huge disparity between the effectiveness of maneuvers and stances even on the same lvl.
On a related note: I donīt see where DM fiat for combat actions or reflavoring the ToB actions differ much from each other - both are deliberate alterations to the text as written......

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-08, 06:12 PM
The fighters biggest problem is not a poor will save, or a lack of HP, or a lack of class features, or a lack of AC, or a low BAB. You could jump the fighter up with an extra 100 HP, 10 AC, 10 BAB (with an extra attack in it), and give him a dozen different ways to use his sword to whack stuff for extra damage.

He would still be weak in high level play.

The fighters biggest disadvantage is in mobility. He can't attack a flying enemy that uses ranged attacks, he can't escape a force cage, he can't close with the pit fiend or balor, he can't touch the wizard, and he can't force the enemy to not run away. You say this can be compensated for with items, the wizard uses disjunction and the fighter is promptly screwed. Or the chained Dispel magic + quickened chained shatter.

The ToB classes make the fighter competitive by getting away from the full attack as the standard way for a melee character to deal damage, providing mobility options, and providing party buffing abilities.

With a standard action attack that deals a hundred damage it becomes viable for the melee character to chase after the enemy and hit him. The short range teleport abilities in Shadow Hand are excellent because they allow the swordsage to escape from a forcecage or teleport to the enemy and then unleash a full attack.

The fighter was built on and for a flawed combat system that made several bad assumptions about what other party members and enemies would do. The 4th edition fighter will be a lot more like the ToB classes and moved away from his reliance on Full Attack Actions.

Dhavaer
2007-07-08, 06:14 PM
On a related note: I donīt see where DM fiat for combat actions or reflavoring the ToB actions differ much from each other - both are deliberate alterations to the text as written......

One is an alteration to the rules, the other an alteration to the fluff.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-08, 06:17 PM
A Fighter doesnīt need special maneuvers - he needs better HD, more Feats with passive bonuses and so, opportunities to use the old sticck swinger creatively, involving player smarts and DM fiat.
How do you reconcile 'more passive bonuses' with 'use stick swinger creatively'? While I don't disagree with the notion of a major buff to the fighter-only feats (which normally aren't worth the feat, as I understand it), that would be an encouragement to use your stick-swinger in the very creative mode of 'I stand up to the enemy and full-attack. Then I do it again!' Which is already much encouraged, apparently, except that it usually can't be achieved.

I'm exceedingly curious about the 'player smarts/DM fiat' concept helping the fighter out. FreeloadingSausage's story, for instance, besides involving some incredible (and I would say unwise) generosity on spells doing things far outside their capabilities, inventing new movement modes, and probably being let off on a number of much-deserved AoOs, is far more a tale of how spellcasters can benefit from creative use of abilities and environment.

The tricks a fighter can do are enumerated in the combat section of the SRD. I don't see any huge gaps there. It's mages who have an enormous number of ways to manipulate everything in sight, with balance taken into account (weakly) only for spells that directly target the enemy.

ToB addreses the power discrepancy, but in a way that turns the martial characters less flavory and more uniform, since, like spells, thereīs a huge disparity between the effectiveness of maneuvers and stances even on the same lvl.
Um, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there are a great many different patterns offered by ToB, with different strengths. Just as one weak example, the hugely powerful 'hit and Heal' strike from Devoted Spirit works spectacularly with a stand-and-fight approach (if you can get the enemy in reach), but does nothing for the charging pattern...where the aligned charges (which give you DR) and some White Raven maneuvers are far more appropriate.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-08, 06:20 PM
The 4th edition fighter will be a lot more like the ToB classes and moved away from his reliance on Full Attack Actions.

I tend to agree that this is most likely. Is see the class line-up looking alot like this:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid (PHBII wildshape)
Fighter (looks alot like Warblade)
Monk (looks a lot like Swordsage)
Crusader
Rogue
Ranger
Sorceror
Wizard

EDIT- on a side note, I heard that WotC is going to be officially announcing there intention to make 4th edition soon. Any word?

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-08, 06:26 PM
I tend to agree that this is most likely. Is see the class line-up looking alot like this:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid (PHBII wildshape)
Fighter (looks alot like Warblade)
Monk (looks a lot like Swordsage)
Crusader
Rogue
Ranger
Sorceror
Wizard

I would change a bit.

Barbarian - The charger type melee
Bard - Beefed up but pretty much as he is now
Cleric - Something like the Favored Soul will replace the Cleric
Druid (PHBII wildshape) - Agreed. PHB2 Wildshape and they lose the restriction on metal.
Fighter (looks alot like Warblade) - Yeah, somewhere in between Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader, and the current fighter.
Monk (looks a lot like Swordsage) - Yeah, a slightly modified swordsage.
Crusader - Replacing the Paladin and removing the fluff restrictions. I can see a few variants so they can be played like the current paladin.
Rogue - Given some version of ToB like maneuvers. Shadow Hand perhaps.
Ranger - The archery character. Beefing up its ranged combat abilities.
Sorceror - Will be like the Psion on a spell points system
Wizard - Might keep the current magic system but spells will be drasticalyl rebalanced

Bassetking
2007-07-08, 06:59 PM
The ToB classes make the fighter competitive by getting away from the full attack as the standard way for a melee character to deal damage, providing mobility options, and providing party buffing abilities.

Tippy speaks truth about the primary weakness of the Fighter Class.

The Full Attack.

Those three words strike un-utterable terror into the heart of any Fighter worth his +3 Flaming Burst Greatsword. Mainly because he so infrequently is allowed to use it. Any enemy that has an intelligence higher than Circus Peanuts will move to prevent a fighter from staying in Full Attack range, and has the special abilities to allow it to function without using its own Full Attack.

The introduction of the ToB Classes as classes independent from the Full Attack Effectiveness requirement allows Melee to function outside of this restraint, and, bluntly, prove effective in combat, outside of a one-trick-pony build.

Kioran
2007-07-08, 07:01 PM
Clever wrestling is a good example of a passive bonus working very well - it makes the Fighter capable of actually grappling something, or, more important, resist grapple attempts to a certain degree. Power critical,, though weak, goes in the right direction as well.

As for flying enemies: Thatīs where the creativity sets in: Use harpoons to pull them down or whatever. Iīve yet to see someone use a net in combat. Thatīs because these weapons suck much more than they should. I donīt see a problem with making Tanglefoot bags or nets or harpoons a lot more powerful (as in, for example, the net restricting the victim to a single standard Action or such) If thereīs the option of having Feats which help to avoid this.
And donīt even make it a single Feat - make it a chain, or let the feats stack (a lot, like for example Iron will and such should do that). Thereīs nothing wrong with Fighters and Feats, just give em useful Feats.
Problem is, apart from the Arcane Casters(Grease, Evards Tentacles), thereīs little battlefield control. there should be mundane means. Not as special attacks, but as regualr equipment and standard actions. Being able to perform some of these better, as a passive Bonus, is a lot better in line with a "experienced combatant" fluff without supernatural influences, apart from being easier on the newbies.

D&D4 doesnīt need new classes balanced for slightly altered 3.5, it needs a new system of combat where you need more than a ring of freedom of movement or a overland flight and concentration to win and where generic people (only with hit dice) can do more stuff then getting AoOs for doing anything else then straight attacking.
ToB doesnīt solve that problem, but then, itīs more off a stopgap than a real alternative.

PinkysBrain
2007-07-08, 07:15 PM
Grappling/netting dragons or balors is just not a good idea.

OOTS_Rules.
2007-07-08, 07:17 PM
I think melee classes (DS, DB, KN, FTR, PAL, RNG, BRB, MNK) should get 1 HD boost. (Fighters get d12, Knights get d20, so on, so forth)

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-08, 08:30 PM
I think melee classes (DS, DB, KN, FTR, PAL, RNG, BRB, MNK) should get 1 HD boost. (Fighters get d12, Knights get d20, so on, so forth)

As I said. You could give the fighter a hundred extra hit points over 20 levels and it wouldn't increase his worth by any significant amount in the end game.

Hell I would let you make a core fighter with a thousand hit points at level 20 and my level 20 wizard can have 10 hit points and I would still win.

The fighters weakness is mobility, which includes his reliance on the full attack. Fix that issue and you have fixed the fighter (or at least made it playable in high level play without going for a few specific builds)

Morty
2007-07-09, 03:27 AM
Ranger - The archery character. Beefing up its ranged combat abilities.

Disagree here. Ranger shouldn't be "archery character". Sure, archery ought to be viable option for someone like ranger, but not the only. Ranger class should focus on melding fighting and skillmonkeyish capabilities. Leave being just warrior who uses bow to fighters.

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-09, 03:43 AM
Disagree here. Ranger shouldn't be "archery character". Sure, archery ought to be viable option for someone like ranger, but not the only. Ranger class should focus on melding fighting and skillmonkeyish capabilities. Leave being just warrior who uses bow to fighters.

I was generalizing. The ranger should become a scout/skillmonkey/archer type character.

Oh, does anyone know what role the ranger was actually suppsoed to fill in the party?

Full BAB, 2 good saves, 2nd best skill points in the game, a better skill set than the fighter, a fairly decent HD, minor spell casting, and an animal companion.

Yet they still manage to be just Ok. It seems like WoTC couldn't decided what to do with them.

Morty
2007-07-09, 03:48 AM
For now, ranger is secondary skillmonkey and secondary fighter, at least that's how I see it.
But whatever is done with ranger, he needs more combat options than just archery. I've always pictured meleeing rangers with one one-handed weapon.

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-09, 04:01 AM
For now, ranger is secondary skillmonkey and secondary fighter, at least that's how I see it.
But whatever is done with ranger, he needs more combat options than just archery. I've always pictured meleeing rangers with one one-handed weapon.

Yeah, I would dump their casting for maneuvers and more passive bonuses.

I mean as it is now a TWF swordsage beats a TWF ranger hands down.

Morty
2007-07-09, 04:04 AM
This whole "TWF ranger" thing needs to end anyway. I can't see any logical reason for ranger to focus on TWF more than any other melee class. Anyone knows why WoTC sticks with this?
I wouldn't scrap their spellcasting for manuevers. The way I see it, every melee class should get manuevers- however will they look like- but fighter will get more of them, while rangers, paladins and barbarians will have more class features.

Dhavaer
2007-07-09, 04:13 AM
This whole "TWF ranger" thing needs to end anyway. I can't see any logical reason for ranger to focus on TWF more than any other melee class. Anyone knows why WoTC sticks with this?

Drizz't or Davy Crockett, I think.

Attilargh
2007-07-09, 07:35 AM
Drizz't or Davy Crockett, I think.
Just Drizzt. There is no need to put even more apostrophes into his name.

Draz74
2007-07-09, 12:50 PM
Drizzt, plus sometimes Aragorn. (Flaming brand in one hand vs. Nazgul on Weathertop, plus sometimes his elven dagger later in the story.)

CockroachTeaParty
2007-07-09, 01:34 PM
I recently acquired the ToB, and while I find the new classes fun and exciting, they in no way overshadow any of the casting classes, nor a well played rogue. That said, even after introducing many of my friends to the book, a few still prefer the standard fighter. And that's fine. If they're willing to play a sub-par class, that's their decision. Really, if any character feels overshadowed by another character, someone needs to reevaluate the way they are playing, whether that be the overshadower, the overshadowee, or the DM.

Matthew
2007-07-09, 09:44 PM
Drizzt, plus sometimes Aragorn. (Flaming brand in one hand vs. Nazgul on Weathertop, plus sometimes his elven dagger later in the story.)
It's pretty much just Drizzt. Two Weapon Fighting for Rangers was a relatively minor Second Edition innovation and a rule that Drizzt continued to break until The Complete Fighter's Handbook made using two Medium sized weapons legal.

Draz74
2007-07-09, 09:52 PM
Anyway, I think we can all agree that Drizzt is a dumb reason to have a TWF specialization for Rangers, seeing as his TWF style was more due to being a drow than being a ranger.

Matthew
2007-07-09, 09:59 PM
Oh yeah, it's dumb alright (Drizzt didn't even need it, since his uber Dexterity already cancelled out virtually all the penalties). I hate what they've done to Rangers in 3.x and the Fighting styles especially grate on me.

TheOOB
2007-07-09, 10:03 PM
I think the idea is that rangers are supposed to be fast and skilled rather then strong and brutish, and TWF represents that.

Matthew
2007-07-09, 10:11 PM
Does it? Not much you can do with Two Weapon Fighting with regards to speed... I think it's just that they took up an old idea and ran with it.

Stephen_E
2007-07-09, 11:57 PM
I think the idea is that rangers are supposed to be fast and skilled rather then strong and brutish, and TWF represents that.

While TWF sounds fast in fluff, in actual mechanics it requires a full attack, which makes it "slower" than 2HW combat.

Stephen

Breaon
2007-07-10, 01:54 AM
My question to you and the rogue are: If you envy these abilites, why the heck don't you just multiclass and take a few levels? Unless you are a wizard or something (the first command of wizardry: Thou shall not give up spell levels) I can't think of a class offhand that couldn't benefit from ToB.

An absolutely fun combination is Marshall (Mini's handbook) + Crusader. Throw in the leadership feat. A lot of complimentary abilities; mine's built to optimize for flanking and tactical repositioning.

Morty
2007-07-10, 02:54 AM
While TWF sounds fast in fluff, in actual mechanics it requires a full attack, which makes it "slower" than 2HW combat.

Stephen

Depends on how it's done.
And anyway, there are more ways to be fast and agile meleer than just TWF.

Artemician
2007-07-10, 03:35 AM
Two-Weapon Fighting as-is is horrible anyway. It's almost completely worthless, for a veritable amount of ways that I will not go into here. There needs to be a major overhaul of the TWF rules, including making it actually usable without the feat. You can Bull Rush, Sunder, Trip, all without Improved Bull Rush/Sunder/Trip, and I don't see how it should be any different from TWF. But that's going off point.

To make the Ranger into the "fast and agile" character archetype, it should ideally be merged into Scout. Or gain maneuvers. Both of which have been recommended by people on this board.

Kioran
2007-07-10, 06:49 AM
Making TWF require a Feat to work properly is okay in my humble opinion - Itīs not easy IRL to do properly. However, I donīt think it should cost more Feats to scale it - THF gets much more mileage out of itīs iterative attacks, and itīs simply unfair to demand Feats for being on par, without any other advantages to your name.
The Ranger shouldnīt have fixed combat styles - as I understood it, itīs a fighting Skillmonkey. Give it two Bonus Feats till lvl 8. Build your own Fighting style and go ahead.
Maneuvers should be restricted to a single class or left out alltogether. Instead, everyone should have the option to do more than just straight attacking in a fight. If you canīt full-Attack, you trip, pull down, haul nets or lash out at enemies instead of cursing excessively or using Rabid dire moose or whatever.
Maybe give an iterative second single attack at BAB 11, at a -10 penalty. Anything helps......

But ToB is a stopgap. It works within the system but doesnīt really fix the issue, makes Fighter-Classes more complicated and introduces sucky fluff to boot. Fix the mechanics, then you donīt have to loan spellcasting mechanics for the meatshield.

Am I the only one who actually enjoys playing the Meatshield once in a while?

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 07:03 AM
Playing the Meatshield is not tactically very effective, as there is very few ways to actually make the opponent hurt you instead of the tactically sound target. They'll just walk right past you, suck up the AoO (which will probably not be very effective if you've concentrated on surviving damage) and continue.

Unless you want to go Knight, of course. Or a trip-o-matic or other AoO-reliant battlefield control build, who will probably hate actually getting hit.

Artemician
2007-07-10, 09:19 AM
Making TWF require a Feat to work properly is okay in my humble opinion - Itīs not easy IRL to do properly. However, I donīt think it should cost more Feats to scale it - THF gets much more mileage out of itīs iterative attacks, and itīs simply unfair to demand Feats for being on par, without any other advantages to your name.
The Ranger shouldnīt have fixed combat styles - as I understood it, itīs a fighting Skillmonkey. Give it two Bonus Feats till lvl 8. Build your own Fighting style and go ahead.
Maneuvers should be restricted to a single class or left out alltogether. Instead, everyone should have the option to do more than just straight attacking in a fight. If you canīt full-Attack, you trip, pull down, haul nets or lash out at enemies instead of cursing excessively or using Rabid dire moose or whatever.
Maybe give an iterative second single attack at BAB 11, at a -10 penalty. Anything helps......

But ToB is a stopgap. It works within the system but doesnīt really fix the issue, makes Fighter-Classes more complicated and introduces sucky fluff to boot. Fix the mechanics, then you donīt have to loan spellcasting mechanics for the meatshield.

Am I the only one who actually enjoys playing the Meatshield once in a while?

Playing a meatshield is not particularly fun, effective, or realistic. I'll just leave it at there for now.

While ToB has its flaws (no stuff for ranged attackers, wierd(if easy to remove) fluff), it is the most effective solution right now. It make meleers more powerful and versatile, and more fun to play to boot (you don't end up being a one-trick pony, as well as being made redundant).

You say that fixing the combat mechanics will be a better solution. But the thing is, do you see any fixes for these mechanics anywhere, in any sort of unified form?

And as for fluff, it can very easily be changed. ToB looks very fluff-heavy, but the manuevers themselves do not have any setting-specific fluff whatsoever.

Matthew
2007-07-10, 09:27 AM
Sure, that Saga idea of dumping Full Round Attacks in favour of Damage Bonuses. That sounds like a great idea to me (with only a few reservations).

elliott20
2007-07-10, 09:54 AM
I like the ToB. It gives meleers options that were not provided to them before and it actually does so WELL.

I just wished they played well with the standard classes. To be honest, when I first heard of the book, I thought it wasn't a bunch of new classes but rather optional rules and optional feats that you can tack ontop of the standard melee classes.

(i.e. you burn a feat to take a discipine, and then you can burn skill points or something to gain more maneuvers or some such)

But as is now? The implementation is not really THAT bad. Sure, the fluff can be improved. But to be honest, that's so much easier to do than trying to keep track of all the rules/mechanical changes we've made to make a fighter playable at higher levels.

Kioran
2007-07-10, 04:52 PM
Playing a meatshield is not particularly fun, effective, or realistic. I'll just leave it at there for now.

While ToB has its flaws (no stuff for ranged attackers, wierd(if easy to remove) fluff), it is the most effective solution right now. It make meleers more powerful and versatile, and more fun to play to boot (you don't end up being a one-trick pony, as well as being made redundant).

You say that fixing the combat mechanics will be a better solution. But the thing is, do you see any fixes for these mechanics anywhere, in any sort of unified form?

And as for fluff, it can very easily be changed. ToB looks very fluff-heavy, but the manuevers themselves do not have any setting-specific fluff whatsoever.

I think playing a meatshield in the classical sense is just fine for some of us. Problem is, at least 85% of all enemies can ignore almost all attempts at doing that, besides the Fighters going down way to easily against the right kind of save-or-suck or save-or-die.
I agree with you that if offers some additional options right now, with little alternatives. I also agree that it makes an acceptable stopgap for those who cannot live with being underpowered(or have GMs who freely further foster that impression).

It is, however, a bad basis for the next iteration of D&D. If fourth Edition uses ToB as the basis for itīs melee system, we are well and truly f****d. In the essence, a ToB char is little more than a blaster-caster who uses his Attack bonus as DC for his close-range Damage. Some have some nifty things to bypass DR or armor or overcome damage and weakening. But in the essence, ToB classes are casters. Maybe not Vancian, maybe more like warlocks with some additional fast self-buffing, but they are casters. Rare is the ToB-char that fights with his HD(which is basically what the Fighter does) instead of his maneuvers and stances.
The problem I see is that Fighters cannot even go toe-to-toe with most foes on their level beyond 10. I agree a Fighter shouldnīt be able to down that Balor, but he should be able to survive a few rounds against him and deal damge instead of usually, like most martial characters, being grappled out of the way.
Fighting chars donīt need against stances that. They either need ways to fight more cleverly(restricting/controlling enemy mobility, denying them actions and such). And that shouldnīt be bound by limited uses per day/fight/whatever. It should simply be what they do.
Any Character should, if he threatens the square, have the option of suppressing a Spellcaster. Not totally shutting him down but forcing an opposed check instead of these ridiculous fixed DCs any caster worth his salt beats at lvl 5+ anyway. A Character or Monster should be able to do something against flyers or restrict mobility in general - being hit for sufficient damage should force a Fortitude Save or stop someone in his tracks.
And any character or Monster should be able to do that, simply based on its HD, with Fighters doing it better.

Making these things like spells on a list, effectively exceptions, isnīt sufficient. Things like "thicket of blades" shouldnīt be unique, they should be the result of the right specialization in Skills or Feats. And instead of "You have the eyes of the angry squirrel and no one escapes your wrath" there should be, again, the option of monsters and other Characters countering these tactics with their opposed checks. Hell, the odds could favor one side, but absolutes are evil in this case.

As for fluff: Of course you can modify it, but I donīt see how modifying fluff is more difficult or significant than twinking the rules, at least if applied consistently and well......

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-10, 05:45 PM
Right, meatshielding may be fun, but it can't be effective.

You do realize that pretty much every ToB offensive maneuver entails an attack roll, or in some cases an attack-roll equivalent skill check? Saving throws come up against secondary effects or splash damage, but all the 'spells' are still about hitting people. (Desert wind is often an exception, but this is intentional. Desert wind is a swordsage only discipline, and contains outright spells.)

Also, the things you're asking for sound like things already implemented...Trip, for instance. As for spellcasters, the answer is don't be a slacker and count on AoO, because they won't give it to you. Ready an action to hit them if they cast or move.

You can also trip fliers, if they let you get a shot at them (and use limbs to fly). But the fact that they don't let you get a shot at them is really more the problem there.

Thicket of blades is available by feats. Martial Study (any Devoted Spirit maneuver) + Martial Stance at initiator level 5+. And non-initiator classes (or hit dice) count toward initiator level at half-rate, so a level 10 fighter can get it.

Modifying fluff vs. inventing rules: create a small amount of material with guidance and no balance implications, or create a huge amount of material that has to be balanced, and will never be as well-tested as official material because several orders of magnitude less people care. Um, I see a difference...

Jannex
2007-07-10, 05:56 PM
I think playing a meatshield in the classical sense is just fine for some of us. Problem is, at least 85% of all enemies can ignore almost all attempts at doing that, besides the Fighters going down way to easily against the right kind of save-or-suck or save-or-die.
I agree with you that if offers some additional options right now, with little alternatives. I also agree that it makes an acceptable stopgap for those who cannot live with being underpowered(or have GMs who freely further foster that impression).

It is, however, a bad basis for the next iteration of D&D. If fourth Edition uses ToB as the basis for itīs melee system, we are well and truly f****d. In the essence, a ToB char is little more than a blaster-caster who uses his Attack bonus as DC for his close-range Damage. Some have some nifty things to bypass DR or armor or overcome damage and weakening. But in the essence, ToB classes are casters. Maybe not Vancian, maybe more like warlocks with some additional fast self-buffing, but they are casters. Rare is the ToB-char that fights with his HD(which is basically what the Fighter does) instead of his maneuvers and stances.
The problem I see is that Fighters cannot even go toe-to-toe with most foes on their level beyond 10. I agree a Fighter shouldnīt be able to down that Balor, but he should be able to survive a few rounds against him and deal damge instead of usually, like most martial characters, being grappled out of the way.
Fighting chars donīt need against stances that. They either need ways to fight more cleverly(restricting/controlling enemy mobility, denying them actions and such). And that shouldnīt be bound by limited uses per day/fight/whatever. It should simply be what they do.
Any Character should, if he threatens the square, have the option of suppressing a Spellcaster. Not totally shutting him down but forcing an opposed check instead of these ridiculous fixed DCs any caster worth his salt beats at lvl 5+ anyway. A Character or Monster should be able to do something against flyers or restrict mobility in general - being hit for sufficient damage should force a Fortitude Save or stop someone in his tracks.
And any character or Monster should be able to do that, simply based on its HD, with Fighters doing it better.

Making these things like spells on a list, effectively exceptions, isnīt sufficient. Things like "thicket of blades" shouldnīt be unique, they should be the result of the right specialization in Skills or Feats. And instead of "You have the eyes of the angry squirrel and no one escapes your wrath" there should be, again, the option of monsters and other Characters countering these tactics with their opposed checks. Hell, the odds could favor one side, but absolutes are evil in this case.

As for fluff: Of course you can modify it, but I donīt see how modifying fluff is more difficult or significant than twinking the rules, at least if applied consistently and well......

I think a lot of the problems you're talking about are endemic to the combat system, and how things like Hit Points are abstracted. If D&D allowed for wound penalties and called shots, I think that would go a long way toward fixing many of the problems you're identifying. But that essentially requires a ground-up revamp of a lot of the fundamentals of the combat system, and brings us closer to the "gritty and realistic" end of the spectrum, and that may not be a direction that many people want to see D&D take.

Matthew
2007-07-10, 06:21 PM
It could do, but it doesn't have to. Tweaking D&D into a more 'gritty' style of play isn't too hard. Keeping it that way after Level 5 is considerably harder, but not really necessary. Mostly, it's just a matter of perspective.

Kioran
2007-07-11, 01:02 AM
I think a lot of the problems you're talking about are endemic to the combat system, and how things like Hit Points are abstracted. If D&D allowed for wound penalties and called shots, I think that would go a long way toward fixing many of the problems you're identifying. But that essentially requires a ground-up revamp of a lot of the fundamentals of the combat system, and brings us closer to the "gritty and realistic" end of the spectrum, and that may not be a direction that many people want to see D&D take.

I agree with you. The combat system needs a revamp, but that doesnīt necessesary make it less heroic. Some of the easiest solutions just have one drawback - they force more die rolls and slow down combat, which is normally to be avoided (Iīve designed two entire homebrew system, and the first of them was much to cumbersome. That was bad.).
I still think a Fortitude save for being hit during movement or in flight is totally worth it, with the Damage as DC - suddenly the Caster needs to worry about the arrow fire he has exposed himself to. Suddenly you canīt simply run past that Fighter in your way - youīd need to be able to take the punishment and tough it out. But Yeah, maybe Itīd be better to start with the basics and make as little assumptions as necessesary aboout the rules. Maybe I should attempt that revamp somewhere in the futureafter my exams).

As for Ulz(sorry for any cases of mistaken identity):

No, tripping as-is is fine, but it doesnīt nearly give you the control you need, apart from being ridiculous as the only means to stop someone. I canīt imagine, neither from a realistic nor a cinematic viewpoint, that combats with 50% of the participants being prone most of the time are likel or cool or whatever. Apart from most of the more dangerous foes simply not letting you, you know.
And that shutting down a caster should require a Standard action is outright ridiculous. It does, in the current system, but thatīs not nearly the way it should be, since the mage is playing your game when heīs in melee with you. You paying your standard action and so your chance to attack just to have a chance to shut the wizard down? hell no. That way, he probably still wins. Thereīs nothing slouchy about actually attacking on your turn instead of waiting for the caster to 5-foot step out of the range of your prepared action.
According to you, itīs perfectly fine for a Fighter in the immediate vicinity of the mage to go down from a maximized scorching ray in round 2, with the mage barely scratched. Thatīs how it is today.


In fact, your beloved ToB also offers only one solution to this, and youīll have to wait for it till lvl 13 - high level Diamond mind/Iron Heart strikes with tremendous damage bonuses, in the hopes you can drop that caster with your first attack. But both parties rolling one dice to decide the entire combat and the fate of their char is neither heroic nor fun in the long run.

And whatīs that with "Itīs available thorugh Feats at lvl 10"? It is, and I know, BUT IT`S NOT A MATTER OF SPECIALIZATION OR DOMETHING YOU CAN DO WITH A HD. Itīs a stance, and as such not available to all and not in any way to be counteracted. Absolutes suck in combat and are bad style. Unavoidables are not the style of D&D. Thatīs like rolling dice for your skill rank increases or Feats. It might work for certain systems, but it violates the spirit of third edition since you cannot even work towards your build or reliably increase your proficiency in your area of expertise.
All actions in combat(apart from rare exceptions, which should have remained rare [f***ing new spells]) grant defenses. Attack roll vs. AC, Saves vs. DC and so on. It should be the same with battlefield control.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-11, 03:30 AM
I fear from the capitals that you're getting upset here...or maybe sleep-deprived...sorry. I'm having fun studying the texts and coming up with anti-mage techniques.

And for the record, I don't worship, have complete knowledge of, or especially like ToB...I just don't think it deserves this.


I still think a Fortitude save for being hit during movement or in flight is totally worth it, with the Damage as DC - suddenly the Caster needs to worry about the arrow fire he has exposed himself to. Suddenly you canīt simply run past that Fighter in your way - youīd need to be able to take the punishment and tough it out.
I think that's an awful concept and a hugely mis-balanced mechanic. At high levels, a readied bow-shot or especially damage spell could deny almost anyone the ability to move at all...saves don't grow fast enough for that. Also, the problem you target is wrong. The fighter has a fine way of stopping you running past, if you provoke an AoO. But instead, you run around his threat range. That's the core problem with the meat-shield...works somewhat in a 15-foot corridor, or more with reach weapons and enlargement. Doesn't work at all well out under the sun, unless you have reach to 10 feet past the squishies.

No, tripping as-is is fine, but it doesnīt nearly give you the control you need, apart from being ridiculous as the only means to stop someone. I canīt imagine, neither from a realistic nor a cinematic viewpoint, that combats with 50% of the participants being prone most of the time are likel or cool or whatever. Apart from most of the more dangerous foes simply not letting you, you know.
Well, this is about controlling quick little pests, against whom a trip seems the perfect response, and mages, against whom any sort of physical insult is appropriate.

Dragons...Dragons roast you alive. Sorry, but you are little man with little stick, they are huge, fast, magical, and strong enough they'd barely notice your weight if you somehow managed to reach them. Which you don't, because they strafe at 60ft or higher. If you want to hurt mister dragon, in his optimal open-air environment...try a bow. It won't be as bad (I have no idea if it works well enough, but knocking it out of the air with anything less than a catapult is just silly). Ditto for other fast and flying ranged attackers. Slow flying, you get a fly spell and charge them.

Thereīs nothing slouchy about actually attacking on your turn instead of waiting for the caster to 5-foot step out of the range of your prepared action.
Well...you have a point, since they just 5-foot step rather than trying to cast inside your reach in that case. But do note that they get hit for stepping...the readied action has priority. At least, nothing unless you have the thicket, so that you can take a trip AoO when they try to step away, and have your ready action be only when they cast (or just bet on killing them with the AoO...there are ways to be pretty sure...)

Incidentally, if the fighter didn't already move before readying the action they can ready an action to take a 5-foot step and hit the mage. The things one learns re-reading the PHB:smallsmile:. Or if they take a reach weapon or an ability that allows reach (like another ToB stance...) the whole ready thing works fine. (actually, then the mage takes a little ToB to get more distance out of 5-foot steps...but that's a lot less likely)

The semi-debilitating point is that they can't do this after a charge or double move. I guess you have to get close to shut a mage down.

According to you, itīs perfectly fine for a Fighter in the immediate vicinity of the mage to go down from a maximized scorching ray in round 2, with the mage barely scratched. Thatīs how it is today.
Well, provided that the scorching ray is actually some SoD that targets the will save, since fighters have enough HP to eat a maximized Scorching Ray at level 9, when it can first be cast. And also at 11, where it deals a terrifying 72 damage (on three successful +5+dex ranged touch attacks...those do fail sometimes)... It's a problem, but the problem is that you can kill the fighter in one spell. Not, I would say, that the fighter can't stop you from getting off a spell at close range without working very hard.

Actually, Thicket does nothing about this, because they can cast defensively within the Thicket of Blades. Unless you ready, as above...

Disrupting Blow (Diam 5) would work, except the will save could easily fail. Dazing Strike (Iron 5) would work very nicely (denying any action on a fort save). There are a few Stone Dragon strikes that deny the enemy the ability to move, or take away their move or standard action next round. That'll do to a lesser degree also...or you could just trip them (with improved trip, so it hurts). Then you eat their spell, either accepting the damage (thats what HP are for, you know) or using an appropriate maneuver to pass the save, then kill them dead with a full attack.

Of course, what they actually do is Dimension Door defensively out of the room, then Teleport to safety far, far away from the scary man. This works easily because there is, for some reason, no problem I can find with casting defensively while prone. I don't know if I buy that bit.

In fact, your beloved ToB also offers only one solution to this, and youīll have to wait for it till lvl 13 - high level Diamond mind/Iron Heart strikes with tremendous damage bonuses, in the hopes you can drop that caster with your first attack. But both parties rolling one dice to decide the entire combat and the fate of their char is neither heroic nor fun in the long run.
Firstly, there are plenty of charge-builds that will, on a hit, annihilate the wizard (or a dragon, for that matter) anyway. That doesn't take ToB, though ToB permits the like in more ways than you recognize. (It doesn't take anything like 100 damage to drop a wizard until very high levels. Nowhere close. They have less HP than fighters, especially in the lower and less unbalanced ability ranges)

Another good answer is grappling, until freedom of movement breaks it completely (that's clearly a design flaw, I'd say). Or improved trip works nicely, see above at length.

And whatīs that with "Itīs available thorugh Feats at lvl 10"? It is, and I know, BUT IT`S NOT A MATTER OF SPECIALIZATION OR DOMETHING YOU CAN DO WITH A HD. Itīs a stance, and as such not available to all and not in any way to be counteracted.
Um. It's a feat, and thus is available to all who want to buy it and is obtained through hit dice. Most feats are. It can't be counteracted. Er, not as such...what do you want? Either you get AoO or you don't...do you want to roll a die to see if you get to roll a die? That seems redundant. If you want to reduce it's effect, buff your AC or take Mobility for a more specific counter, so the AoO doesn't hit.

I would agree that there was a problem if it said 'taking a 5 foot step from a square threatened by Mister ToB causes you to be hit by a melee attack'. But it doesn't.

Kioran
2007-07-11, 06:33 AM
I fear from the capitals that you're getting upset here...or maybe sleep-deprived...sorry. I'm having fun studying the texts and coming up with anti-mage techniques.

And for the record, I don't worship, have complete knowledge of, or especially like ToB...I just don't think it deserves this.


I think that's an awful concept and a hugely mis-balanced mechanic. At high levels, a readied bow-shot or especially damage spell could deny almost anyone the ability to move at all...saves don't grow fast enough for that. Also, the problem you target is wrong. The fighter has a fine way of stopping you running past, if you provoke an AoO. But instead, you run around his threat range. That's the core problem with the meat-shield...works somewhat in a 15-foot corridor, or more with reach weapons and enlargement. Doesn't work at all well out under the sun, unless you have reach to 10 feet past the squishies.

Well, this is about controlling quick little pests, against whom a trip seems the perfect response, and mages, against whom any sort of physical insult is appropriate.

Dragons...Dragons roast you alive. Sorry, but you are little man with little stick, they are huge, fast, magical, and strong enough they'd barely notice your weight if you somehow managed to reach them. Which you don't, because they strafe at 60ft or higher. If you want to hurt mister dragon, in his optimal open-air environment...try a bow. It won't be as bad (I have no idea if it works well enough, but knocking it out of the air with anything less than a catapult is just silly). Ditto for other fast and flying ranged attackers. Slow flying, you get a fly spell and charge them.

Well...you have a point, since they just 5-foot step rather than trying to cast inside your reach in that case. But do note that they get hit for stepping...the readied action has priority. At least, nothing unless you have the thicket, so that you can take a trip AoO when they try to step away, and have your ready action be only when they cast (or just bet on killing them with the AoO...there are ways to be pretty sure...)

Incidentally, if the fighter didn't already move before readying the action they can ready an action to take a 5-foot step and hit the mage. The things one learns re-reading the PHB:smallsmile:. Or if they take a reach weapon or an ability that allows reach (like another ToB stance...) the whole ready thing works fine. (actually, then the mage takes a little ToB to get more distance out of 5-foot steps...but that's a lot less likely)

The semi-debilitating point is that they can't do this after a charge or double move. I guess you have to get close to shut a mage down.

Well, provided that the scorching ray is actually some SoD that targets the will save, since fighters have enough HP to eat a maximized Scorching Ray at level 9, when it can first be cast. And also at 11, where it deals a terrifying 72 damage (on three successful +5+dex ranged touch attacks...those do fail sometimes)... It's a problem, but the problem is that you can kill the fighter in one spell. Not, I would say, that the fighter can't stop you from getting off a spell at close range without working very hard.

Actually, Thicket does nothing about this, because they can cast defensively within the Thicket of Blades. Unless you ready, as above...

Disrupting Blow (Diam 5) would work, except the will save could easily fail. Dazing Strike (Iron 5) would work very nicely (denying any action on a fort save). There are a few Stone Dragon strikes that deny the enemy the ability to move, or take away their move or standard action next round. That'll do to a lesser degree also...or you could just trip them (with improved trip, so it hurts). Then you eat their spell, either accepting the damage (thats what HP are for, you know) or using an appropriate maneuver to pass the save, then kill them dead with a full attack.

Of course, what they actually do is Dimension Door defensively out of the room, then Teleport to safety far, far away from the scary man. This works easily because there is, for some reason, no problem I can find with casting defensively while prone. I don't know if I buy that bit.

Firstly, there are plenty of charge-builds that will, on a hit, annihilate the wizard (or a dragon, for that matter) anyway. That doesn't take ToB, though ToB permits the like in more ways than you recognize. (It doesn't take anything like 100 damage to drop a wizard until very high levels. Nowhere close. They have less HP than fighters, especially in the lower and less unbalanced ability ranges)

Another good answer is grappling, until freedom of movement breaks it completely (that's clearly a design flaw, I'd say). Or improved trip works nicely, see above at length.

Um. It's a feat, and thus is available to all who want to buy it and is obtained through hit dice. Most feats are. It can't be counteracted. Er, not as such...what do you want? Either you get AoO or you don't...do you want to roll a die to see if you get to roll a die? That seems redundant. If you want to reduce it's effect, buff your AC or take Mobility for a more specific counter, so the AoO doesn't hit.

I would agree that there was a problem if it said 'taking a 5 foot step from a square threatened by Mister ToB causes you to be hit by a melee attack'. But it doesn't.

First of: the maneuver is only available at lvl 10+, which is to late. Also,monsters or classes without loads of Feats wonīt be able to get it. Making an expensive exception in the rules necessesary to what was plannes as an integral part of the game isnīt right.
Also, an AoO at full BAB against anything but a Monk or martial class/melee Monster is almost a guaranteed hit. Tumble was invented to give your rogues and monks the option of passing you harmlessly, and is disabled as well, greatly harming mobility in fights(for PCs, since Monsters usually donīt tumble). On the other hand, the current system lets these rogues and monks ignore an arbitrarily high number of interposed defenders. Opposed checks could make this a little more dynamic again.

As for Monsters running around you: Usually impossible or very hard to do. If you stand 15ft. distance in front of your Wizard buddy and the opponent is at least 15 ft. away (out of your range) he must take at least a double move action to get around you or pass thorugh your threatened area(do the math yourself if you want). If he takes the double move, he is incapable of attacking for the round(unless you bring in ToB or even more unsavory things like hustle) and you get the drop on him. That you cannot defend 360° is one other thing, but usually you could at least delay attacks on your friend. That is, if your attacks were actually capable of stopping anything.

I agree that Damage=DC is to harsh in Hindsight. But why not making something like DC = 10 + Damage/5, with something like a size modifier giving larger creatures a barger chance to barge through? Damage hurts, and it should be able to stop you in your tracks.
Knocking someone prone and following through is a nice upgrade, but it shouldnīt be the only option. In the current system you are almost invulnerable as long as you fly. Those few paltry hits from a bow? Donīt make me laugh. And yes, a legendary Archer should be able to shoot a Dragon out of the Sky on a lucky hit. A Fearsome Barbarian should be able to chop powerfully into the dragonīs legs, bringing him down to size. Nobody should be a neglectable threat to a Dragon < ECL+5.
If your Wizard can SoD the Dragon into oblivion, your Fighter should be able to go toe-to-toe with the dragon. The Dragon will most likely be able to make the save to barge thorugh, but he can never be sure......These are legendary Fighters, they should be able to do at least that much.

And no, for me any my games Leap Attack and Frenzied Berzerker + Shock Trooper cheese doesnīt exist. Any red-cloud(disintegrating anything they hit into a fine red gory spray) doesnīt exist as such. Though, if you had an opportunity to their charge cold, it might be worth it. Such things are not legitimate options, theyīre design flaws.


That said, ToB chars are casters, and thatīs what i dislike most. It makes your P&P more like WoW or simliars, with special abilities to activate. How much work would it make to rework ToB fluff into "Blademage" or "Magesword", with magical weapon attacks? Almost none. Itīs easier than taking the supernatural out. The mechanics are caster anyways. They even have spell(oh sorry, Initiator) levels for crying out loud.

This shouldnīt be the basics of your combat system. If you do that, you need to give that to NPC Classes too or abolish them alltogether.

And your caster in melee? He has con 14 and doesnīt need a magic weapon, so he has another +4 on Con thorugh ab-booster. And improved Toughness. That gives him (4 + 8d4 + 45 HP = 69 HP). Before he casts false life and such. At lvl 15 he is easily above 100, especially if you have larger Point-buys.
I agree the scorching ray doesnīt cut it though. You have banned that piece-a-crap Evocation anyway(who hasnīt? That said, Iīm a large fan of Evocation, which is another sad thing, with Conjuration outdamaging Evoc. at low to mid levels thanks to broken Orbs). Try something else, like "Dominate Person" or "baleful Polymorph". Or "resilent Sphere" if you were stupid enough to actually keep Evoc. Or Enervation. Heīll survive it, but deals a lot less damage next round.......
As it stands, you have only even odds, even in melee with a caster at mid lvl or beyond. That just ainīt right. You should at least be able to beat him at your own game, which you arenīt.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-11, 10:31 AM
That said, ToB chars are casters, and thatīs what i dislike most. It makes your P&P more like WoW or simliars, with special abilities to activate. How much work would it make to rework ToB fluff into "Blademage" or "Magesword", with magical weapon attacks? Almost none. Itīs easier than taking the supernatural out. The mechanics are caster anyways. They even have spell(oh sorry, Initiator) levels for crying out loud.

This shouldnīt be the basics of your combat system. If you do that, you need to give that to NPC Classes too or abolish them alltogether.

And why shouldn't it? The PCs are heroes, not everyday joes. As heroes, they do heroic and epic things, not mundane combat.

The PCs are the guys who walk onto a battlefield, join the outnumbered losing side, and singlehandedly turn the tide of battle in their favor. This is epic fantasy, and that's how it works.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-11, 10:58 AM
First of: the maneuver is only available at lvl 10+, which is to late. Also,monsters or classes without loads of Feats wonīt be able to get it. Making an expensive exception in the rules necessesary to what was plannes as an integral part of the game isnīt right.
Two feats isn't terribly costly. Also, I think I outlined ways in which it is not necessary (though some kind of reach-nonreach combo capability is needed if you don't have Thicket of Blades), and how the real stars of the antimage show are some way to actually make a will save if you have to and the readied action attack. It also is available before level 10 for anyone with levels in a ToB class. A warblade can get it at level 5.

Weren't you just protesting the fighter's difficulty in controlling their immediate vicinity? If you can't get AoO on someone, you can't control them very well.

Also, an AoO at full BAB against anything but a Monk or martial class/melee Monster is almost a guaranteed hit. Tumble was invented to give your rogues and monks the option of passing you harmlessly, and is disabled as well, greatly harming mobility in fights(for PCs, since Monsters usually donīt tumble). On the other hand, the current system lets these rogues and monks ignore an arbitrarily high number of interposed defenders. Opposed checks could make this a little more dynamic again.
Tumble, until you can make a DC 25 check, gains you little compared to simply running around. You move at half-speed, so it's about the same effective distance.

Also, I question your autohit. Are you sure you're taking realistic ACs into account? Let alone the effect of mirror image (or even displacement) on that. Anyone can have an AC over 20 by a medium-low level, thanks to Greater Mage Armor, msc. other buffs, and the wizard's beloved mithril buckler.

As for Monsters running around you: Usually impossible or very hard to do. If you stand 15ft. distance in front of your Wizard buddy and the opponent is at least 15 ft. away (out of your range) he must take at least a double move action to get around you or pass thorugh your threatened area(do the math yourself if you want). If he takes the double move, he is incapable of attacking for the round(unless you bring in ToB or even more unsavory things like hustle) and you get the drop on him. That you cannot defend 360° is one other thing, but usually you could at least delay attacks on your friend. That is, if your attacks were actually capable of stopping anything.
You are right...unless of course the enemy has 50 ft. base speed. Or has, say, expeditious retreat on it. Or is flying overhead, or is two enemies outflanking you. Or you're a more typical character and don't use a reach weapon, making you easy to move around.

Curious: What is this unsavory hustle? Normal combat movement is at the 'hustle' movement rate... (Oh, do you mean the psionic power?)

I agree that Damage=DC is to harsh in Hindsight. But why not making something like DC = 10 + Damage/5, with something like a size modifier giving larger creatures a barger chance to barge through? Damage hurts, and it should be able to stop you in your tracks.
'Damage hurts' is not entirely clear in it's own right. There's more than enough dancing around just what a hit point is that damage doesn't actually have to hurt at all, let alone linearly with number of points of damage. I should think a whip would be good at hurting. A whip does 1d3 non-lethal. Less than a sap.

Also, leading sources on pain (that is, BoVD) suggest that outright agony usually causes penalties to attack rolls (and maybe checks), and possible ability damage, not loss of movement.

Knocking someone prone and following through is a nice upgrade, but it shouldnīt be the only option. In the current system you are almost invulnerable as long as you fly. Those few paltry hits from a bow? Donīt make me laugh. And yes, a legendary Archer should be able to shoot a Dragon out of the Sky on a lucky hit. A Fearsome Barbarian should be able to chop powerfully into the dragonīs legs, bringing him down to size. Nobody should be a neglectable threat to a Dragon < ECL+5.
I seem to recall a fighter around here someplace that killed a balor in 1.5 rounds with a bow. I assume doing the same to a dragon is within the scope of modification. So I'm pretty sure you can shoot down a dragon as it is, even with a less obsessive focus.

But no, in D&D with hitpoints, a fighter should not be able to take the dragon out of the sky with a lucky shot. I don't think you want that to be possible. Because if it it, it's equally possible that it can happen to you...and don't you just love having a level 15 character killed with one arrow? Or did you mean that flying creatures should be designed to, when moderately injured, finish themselves off by crashing into the ground? Plunging from 500 feet because somebody punched half a dozen non-vital holes in you is not a survival trait...

In what 'cinematic' or 'heroic' source do you get people knocking dragons out of the sky to fight on the ground? Yes, you get dragons fighting it out with swordsmen or lancers sometimes...this is because 'cinematic' and 'idiotic' should be cross-referenced in the dictionary. Protagonists are permitted to be smarter than bread mold, if necessary. Dragons are rarely protagonists. If you want to fight something ranged and fast, you use a ranged weapon, and it doesn't let you use anything else. It's basic logic...

I don't really agree that there should be another way of stopping someone from getting by besides laying them out unconscious or tripping them. But if you want one, how about Stand Still (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill)? Actually, does something a fair bit like what you suggest except not applicable to some of the places it really shouldn't be.

Note that applying that to the standard flying rules, most flying creatures can be put into a death plunge by 'Stand Still'ing them with a greatsword. Yep, we loose a lot of birds that way alright...:smallconfused:

That said, ToB chars are casters, and thatīs what i dislike most. It makes your P&P more like WoW or simliars, with special abilities to activate. How much work would it make to rework ToB fluff into "Blademage" or "Magesword", with magical weapon attacks? Almost none. Itīs easier than taking the supernatural out. The mechanics are caster anyways. They even have spell(oh sorry, Initiator) levels for crying out loud.
Ah, like how PHB combatants have BaB? And it goes from 1 to 20? Practically Wizards! They even try not to lose any 'attacker levels' when multiclassing!

You would have to rework it much, much more. There are 3 schools with openly magical (and tagged as supernatural) tricks in them...and they contain non-magic maneuvers also. Most of the maneuvers appear magical only in the sense that you won't accept a large list of techniques you learn, rather than a tiny list of techniques any sucker can use (though perhaps not well), as being non-magical. There are shared elements between the maneuver system and the spell system, making it easier to determine when you can learn a given maneuver and what an appropriate save DC is in a familiar manner. This does not mean that the effects the systems produce are similar.

I mean, just look at this magecraft:
-I hold my sword overhead for more powerful blows, weakening my defense!
-I concentrate on guarding myself against one enemy, making myself more vulnerable to others!
...that's a couple of 1st level stances there. I don't think I could invent magic fluff for that that wouldn't be idiotic.

They do refer to Swordsages with terms quite close to Blademage...because Swordsages can produce lots of arcane-like effects. Unlike the warblade, they have definite mystic elements. It's one of the ToB elements I refuse to tolerate...

This shouldnīt be the basics of your combat system. If you do that, you nneed to give that to NPC Classes too or abolish them alltogether.
You mean like they needed bonus feats, rage, and smite? Since those are the core combat features of the three PHB fighting classes...after BaB, at least, which is still central to absolutely everything.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 11:07 AM
Hustle = Psionic power. Gives you an extra move action.

Swift action casting. Actually, it reminds me of quicksilver motion, which shows a bit of manuver power.

Kioran
2007-07-11, 01:03 PM
Two feats isn't terribly costly. Also, I think I outlined ways in which it is not necessary (though some kind of reach-nonreach combo capability is needed if you don't have Thicket of Blades), and how the real stars of the antimage show are some way to actually make a will save if you have to and the readied action attack. It also is available before level 10 for anyone with levels in a ToB class. A warblade can get it at level 5.

Weren't you just protesting the fighter's difficulty in controlling their immediate vicinity? If you can't get AoO on someone, you can't control them very well.

Tumble, until you can make a DC 25 check, gains you little compared to simply running around. You move at half-speed, so it's about the same effective distance.

Also, I question your autohit. Are you sure you're taking realistic ACs into account? Let alone the effect of mirror image (or even displacement) on that. Anyone can have an AC over 20 by a medium-low level, thanks to Greater Mage Armor, msc. other buffs, and the wizard's beloved mithril buckler.

You are right...unless of course the enemy has 50 ft. base speed. Or has, say, expeditious retreat on it. Or is flying overhead, or is two enemies outflanking you. Or you're a more typical character and don't use a reach weapon, making you easy to move around.

Curious: What is this unsavory hustle? Normal combat movement is at the 'hustle' movement rate... (Oh, do you mean the psionic power?)

'Damage hurts' is not entirely clear in it's own right. There's more than enough dancing around just what a hit point is that damage doesn't actually have to hurt at all, let alone linearly with number of points of damage. I should think a whip would be good at hurting. A whip does 1d3 non-lethal. Less than a sap.

Also, leading sources on pain (that is, BoVD) suggest that outright agony usually causes penalties to attack rolls (and maybe checks), and possible ability damage, not loss of movement.

I seem to recall a fighter around here someplace that killed a balor in 1.5 rounds with a bow. I assume doing the same to a dragon is within the scope of modification. So I'm pretty sure you can shoot down a dragon as it is, even with a less obsessive focus.

But no, in D&D with hitpoints, a fighter should not be able to take the dragon out of the sky with a lucky shot. I don't think you want that to be possible. Because if it it, it's equally possible that it can happen to you...and don't you just love having a level 15 character killed with one arrow? Or did you mean that flying creatures should be designed to, when moderately injured, finish themselves off by crashing into the ground? Plunging from 500 feet because somebody punched half a dozen non-vital holes in you is not a survival trait...

In what 'cinematic' or 'heroic' source do you get people knocking dragons out of the sky to fight on the ground? Yes, you get dragons fighting it out with swordsmen or lancers sometimes...this is because 'cinematic' and 'idiotic' should be cross-referenced in the dictionary. Protagonists are permitted to be smarter than bread mold, if necessary. Dragons are rarely protagonists. If you want to fight something ranged and fast, you use a ranged weapon, and it doesn't let you use anything else. It's basic logic...

I don't really agree that there should be another way of stopping someone from getting by besides laying them out unconscious or tripping them. But if you want one, how about Stand Still (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#standStill)? Actually, does something a fair bit like what you suggest except not applicable to some of the places it really shouldn't be.

Note that applying that to the standard flying rules, most flying creatures can be put into a death plunge by 'Stand Still'ing them with a greatsword. Yep, we loose a lot of birds that way alright...:smallconfused:

Ah, like how PHB combatants have BaB? And it goes from 1 to 20? Practically Wizards! They even try not to lose any 'attacker levels' when multiclassing!

You would have to rework it much, much more. There are 3 schools with openly magical (and tagged as supernatural) tricks in them...and they contain non-magic maneuvers also. Most of the maneuvers appear magical only in the sense that you won't accept a large list of techniques you learn, rather than a tiny list of techniques any sucker can use (though perhaps not well), as being non-magical. There are shared elements between the maneuver system and the spell system, making it easier to determine when you can learn a given maneuver and what an appropriate save DC is in a familiar manner. This does not mean that the effects the systems produce are similar.

I mean, just look at this magecraft:
-I hold my sword overhead for more powerful blows, weakening my defense!
-I concentrate on guarding myself against one enemy, making myself more vulnerable to others!
...that's a couple of 1st level stances there. I don't think I could invent magic fluff for that that wouldn't be idiotic.

They do refer to Swordsages with terms quite close to Blademage...because Swordsages can produce lots of arcane-like effects. Unlike the warblade, they have definite mystic elements. It's one of the ToB elements I refuse to tolerate...

You mean like they needed bonus feats, rage, and smite? Since those are the core combat features of the three PHB fighting classes...after BaB, at least, which is still central to absolutely everything.

Two Feats is, for anyone not playing a Fighter, for example Paladins, harsh. You get only 7 or 8, and using two to assume a function you should alreay be capable off is brutal, especially if most builds you cite for damage Output could well use these Feats somewhere else to acquire gouda.

And yes, even with an AC of 22 at lvl 5 (+3 Dex, +6 Greater MA, +1 size, + 2 animated buckler), which exceeds WBL and requires good ability scores, possibly a halfling, a full BAB Fighter will hit 50% of the time(having +4 Strength(Gauntlets of Ogre Power anyone? Orc?), +5 BAB, +1 Weapon Focus and a +1 Weapon, for a bonus of +11). Please note that this is the time at which the mage has the highest AC benefit. The Fighters chances actually get better with growing lvls, and this one requires a buff which is costly at that lvl. Your AoO will hit more often than not against unoptimized builds. Thatīs bad news for Rogues, who most likely have worse AC (+4 Armor, +4 Dex, +1 Ring of Pro/Am of Nat A, for an AC of 19, 21 with GMA). And buffing half the party with spells from your highest slots lets your caster cringe.

As for ToB and supernatural: That is easy. Giving abilities a supernatural fluff is not difficult, especially with higher lvl stuff. But since you asked so nicely: My take on punishing stance(has bogus fluff anyway, like many of īem. Sometimes gives the impression of the authors not even having fought with wooden swords in their free time):

"Tapping the inner fire, you channel your lifeforce into your Swordarm, infusing the weapon with dangerous power. The energy burning through your veins weakens your bodies reflexes for survival in an exhilariating, headlong rush"

With Iron Heart and Diamond Mind being minor magicks channeling your own lifeforce(or soulfire or whatever) and thus not being susceptible to Antimagic fields. Itīs not that difficult. Itīs easier then reworking the game mechanics, something which cannot be said for all fluff alterations.

As for heroism aand campaigns: I think I have to prepare something longer and more elaborate for that one.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-11, 01:38 PM
As for ToB and supernatural: That is easy. Giving abilities a supernatural fluff is not difficult, especially with higher lvl stuff. But since you asked so nicely: My take on punishing stance(has bogus fluff anyway, like many of īem. Sometimes gives the impression of the authors not even having fought with wooden swords in their free time):

"Tapping the inner fire, you channel your lifeforce into your Swordarm, infusing the weapon with dangerous power. The energy burning through your veins weakens your bodies reflexes for survival in an exhilariating, headlong rush"

With Iron Heart and Diamond Mind being minor magicks channeling your own lifeforce(or soulfire or whatever) and thus not being susceptible to Antimagic fields. Itīs not that difficult. Itīs easier then reworking the game mechanics, something which cannot be said for all fluff alterations.

Actually, that also sounds like power attack combined with shock trooper, rage, or Rolibar's gambit/Karmic strike. If you use this method, 90% of all feats or class abilities are supernatural, so I don't quite see how this argument really proves anything.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-11, 03:29 PM
Two guys flanking a mage with polearms and Stand Still can make a good safe zone for the wizard, assuming humanoid opponents. Or one with a spike chain.

Kioran
2007-07-11, 04:00 PM
And why shouldn't it? The PCs are heroes, not everyday joes. As heroes, they do heroic and epic things, not mundane combat.

The PCs are the guys who walk onto a battlefield, join the outnumbered losing side, and singlehandedly turn the tide of battle in their favor. This is epic fantasy, and that's how it works.

Okay. Iīll now try something a little more experimental. Under both of these Spoiler tags is a short text/story with a battle scene. Enjoy. If you or any reader has a problem with some textual violence Iīd advise not opening the Spoilers.

The steely gray dawn greeted Arlanīs tired eyes from the east. Behind him, dirty, tattered banners streamed in the wind behind him, and a veritable forest of pikes and swords, only 50 fifty paces ahead. The duchy of Weldenreth wasnīt playing.
He grimaced, and looked back over his shoulders. Behind him, Yarra smiled. "So this is the face of glory. With a dirty beard" she said. Her smile grew wider, a little more feral, revealing some teeth.
Arlan turned around, facing the enemy on the slopes of hill below him. With a fast, yet unrefined motion he drew his sword, a vicious tool, looking more like an oversized cutlass than a fencers sword. He looked down, drew a deep breath. With an audible, frightening roar he threw himself forward, his men only a few steps behind. And moments later, Weldenrethīs third battalion moved forward like a wall of steel. Arlan drew his shield up to his face, his eyes barely visible behind the rim, his sword a little behind his head, and launched himself recklessly into their ranks.
"Yaaaahh!" he shouted, a spear ripping a gash on his right side, above the ribs. He swung his sword swinging down in a powerful horizontal arc, biting deep into the helm of a swordman, felling the man behind it. A furious tug freed it,just as another spear was thrust forward, the shield barely deflecting the weapon away from his face.
Around him, others joined the fray, in flashes of silver and crimson. Spittle flew from the corner of his mouth as his head whipped around, his sword lunging for his attacker, plunging it into the ribcage.
The wounded and dying were beginning to accumulate, with the small strip between the two forces being littered with bodies still writhing or still. Banners were trampled underfoot, comrades or weapons in the confusion. A man who had lost his helm and had a nasty gash on his forehead stumbled into Arlanīs field of vision from the right, assailing those before him with his heavy, two handed hammer.
And suddenly, the ranks a little to the right of him parted, and a stout but powerful man, with his armor shining in the sun, emerged, wearing a huge sword wreathed in flames. Under his wrath, Arlanīs comrades fell like so much blades of grass. With a curse, Arlan turned to face the dangerous newcomer, just as the hammerman before him was cut down in a single, powerful motion.
He snarled, launching into a series of furious blows, which were seemingly easily parried or batted aside, and very soon, his opponent was driving him back, with the Weldenrethlerīs courage spurred to new heights by the prowess of their champion. Arlan breath came ragged, and blood seeped from the wound in his side, a dull ache above and below the ribs. A little motion on the eddge of his vision caught his eye, and he found new resolve. He launched himself forward once again, steel meeting steel in a symphony of violence. His sword scored a glancing hit, with his opponent cursing, but lunging forward.
It was then that Yarraīs blade found itīs mark, and a dagger sild between the plates on the Champions back. He reeled, then threw back his elbow with animal ferocity, catching the Half-Elf straight in the temple. Yarra crumpled, skidding across the ground and coming to a halt in a crumpled heap. The greatswords blade came forward once again, pressing Arlan back, scoring hits on his brow, chest and right leg. Arlan will almost crumbled, and blood ran freely down his face. Now or never.....he shifted the grip of his sword in his hands and deflected another blow with his shield, turning the blade aside. Arlan lept forward and stabbed down with his sword...and struck true, burying the blade two handspans deep.
The Weldenrether Champion sunk down to his knees, while Arlan let of a triumphant howl. Thatīs when a javelin caught him in the right shoulder. Stil, he made a faltering step forward, shotuing in defiance, reaching for the shortsword on his belt.
The enemy broke and ran. With a smile on his lips, Arlan sank to his knees. he looked upwards into the sky. Rain was beginning to fall, cool on his skin, but he couldnīt even hear it anymore. He pitched over, and the ground came up to meet him. Blackness........

Hours later, Yarra was looking at his heavily bandaged, still unconscious form on the wagon beside her. Now, it was back to the monastery, perhaps to find some respite. The battle was won, but not the war. Not nearly..

His feet pounded the ground beneath him. A brimstone wind assaulted Ferrisī nose, and the ashy clouds hung low, drinking almost all of the light. Before him was the dread army of Nolgoroth, despoilers of the land which raped the lands and left naught but barren wastes and ashes in the fields. But not today. A few hours after dawn, white horses came from the south, bearing their riders, the champions of the queen in this attempt to rid the land of evil.
Ferris had arrived, in the company of Erdol, the courtīs mage, in an affort to rally the failing troops. He surveyed the battlegrounds before him with an analytical eye, saw the inhuman hordes shifting in the distance, but finally closing in on them.
"This is the day. The anvil, on which the sword of or land will be made or broken. They will come. We will meet them. We wonīt fear, we wonīt falter. Weīll hold the line. For the queeen!!!". With hoarse shouts from their throats, the army rushed forward like a silver tide, Ferris at itīs apex. The hordes of Nolgoroth rushed forward as well, greed and bloodlust flashing in their eyes. Ferris wasnīt fazed. Like a knife through hot butter he plunged through their ranks, batting the first lines aside, his waraxe like a flood of quicksilver, washing the enemy soldiers aside, throwing broken bodies left and right, while Erdol unleashed the skyīs wrath upon them.
He smiled. Tall, leathery fiends reached out for him with their claws. Handily dodging the first one, he dispatched him with a neat swipe, sending the head spinning to the ground. A claw scored him, but he grimaced and retaliated, taking of the Demons arm, pressing forward and leaving the other screaming behind him. Today, the commander was his.
A tall, giant fiend, with powerful arms and claws. Malign intelligence shone in the eyes, and a clawed hand, nearly as thick as a tree, rushed for his head. Ferris barely avoided the blow, trying to press forward, slashing at the exposed inner side of the arm. Mercilessly, the giant fiend began pounding his fists into the ground or the masses around Ferris, shattering demons and defenders of the crown alike, undescriminate in their carnage.
The air was driven out of his lungs be a fierce blow, leaving him dazed, stars dancing before his eyes, just barely perceiving the impeding doom as the Demonīs fist rushed forward again, to smash him into the ground, when suddenly, a beam of harmful energy struck his assailant in the chest, crackling and leaching of the Glabrezuīs strength. In the last instant, Ferris rolled aside, the impact of the demonic claws hurling up a cloud of dust. With a strength born more of his will than his damaged body, he swung the axe again, cutting into the legs of the abomination, bringing it to itīs knees. He saw his chance, and leapt up, disemboweling the vile Fiend. Even while he dropped back to the ground, an inhuman howl came from the dying Monster throat. It was done.

The day was made, the first of the champions of Nolgoroth slain.

The scale of both encounters is vastly different - yet I donīt think the participants in either story are more heroic than the others. While one may pale in comparison with the other, both are still stories which will be told even to the grandchildren of the witnesses.
If you disagree with this, fine, but I for one think heroism isnīt depending on power level and weakening NPCs/Monsters too much in comparison actually cheapens the victories......

Kioran
2007-07-11, 04:10 PM
Actually, that also sounds like power attack combined with shock trooper, rage, or Rolibar's gambit/Karmic strike. If you use this method, 90% of all feats or class abilities are supernatural, so I don't quite see how this argument really proves anything.

Shock trooper only works on a charge, Robilarīs Gambit is a kind of counter, as is Karmic strike, so these donīt apply - they donīt do additional damage. But yes, you could possibly apply this to some other combination of attacks. The point made is that both fluff and mechanics of the ToB range much closer to caster mechanics than Core-Fighters fluff and mechanics do.
Of course you can bend any fluff (Someone once suggested playing your Blaster-caster as a knifethrower, which is theoretically possible if you bend the fluff far enough, as the mechanics could represent it), but to me mechanics and fluff are always related. In fact, I think that relation as imposed by me is vital to my RP and understanding. And using caster mechanics(limited uses per a certain amount of time, Initiator lvls) suggest this being much closer to magic than normal fighting.
Of course you can say these are the result of extraordinary training and concentration, but Iīd say Skill checks represent such a thing much better than limites uses. ToB uses mechanics which, in my humble opinion, do not fit the Fighter fluff, and maybe only because no one can become a self-trained Fighter anymoe without straining credibility, because Martial adepts in their current fluff are highly trained specialists.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-11, 04:31 PM
I still think ToB is really good for running a fantasy anime game- better than BESM, because BESM only functions if you houserule the bejeezus out of it. ToB can be used to run a Record of Lodoss War or Slayers campaign. Outside an anime-style game, or other game were the line between magic and steel is blended, you would have to pull out entire disciplines. As to Tob being spellcasting, I don't agree there. Except in the case of sword-sage, which really is a martial spellcaster. I don't think that s a bad thing.

Attilargh
2007-07-11, 04:35 PM
ToB can be used to run a Record of Lotus War or Slayers campaign.
For the Record, it's Lodoss War.

Matthew
2007-07-11, 09:31 PM
As for Matthew:

No, tripping as-is is fine, but it doesnīt nearly give you the control you need, apart from being ridiculous as the only means to stop someone. I canīt imagine, neither from a realistic nor a cinematic viewpoint, that combats with 50% of the participants being prone most of the time are likel or cool or whatever. Apart from most of the more dangerous foes simply not letting you, you know.
And that shutting down a caster should require a Standard action is outright ridiculous. It does, in the current system, but thatīs not nearly the way it should be, since the mage is playing your game when heīs in melee with you. You paying your standard action and so your chance to attack just to have a chance to shut the wizard down? hell no. That way, he probably still wins. Thereīs nothing slouchy about actually attacking on your turn instead of waiting for the caster to 5-foot step out of the range of your prepared action.
According to you, itīs perfectly fine for a Fighter in the immediate vicinity of the mage to go down from a maximized scorching ray in round 2, with the mage barely scratched. Thatīs how it is today.


In fact, your beloved ToB also offers only one solution to this, and youīll have to wait for it till lvl 13 - high level Diamond mind/Iron Heart strikes with tremendous damage bonuses, in the hopes you can drop that caster with your first attack. But both parties rolling one dice to decide the entire combat and the fate of their char is neither heroic nor fun in the long run.

And whatīs that with "Itīs available thorugh Feats at lvl 10"? It is, and I know, BUT IT`S NOT A MATTER OF SPECIALIZATION OR DOMETHING YOU CAN DO WITH A HD. Itīs a stance, and as such not available to all and not in any way to be counteracted. Absolutes suck in combat and are bad style. Unavoidables are not the style of D&D. Thatīs like rolling dice for your skill rank increases or Feats. It might work for certain systems, but it violates the spirit of third edition since you cannot even work towards your build or reliably increase your proficiency in your area of expertise.
All actions in combat(apart from rare exceptions, which should have remained rare [f***ing new spells]) grant defenses. Attack roll vs. AC, Saves vs. DC and so on. It should be the same with battlefield control.

Hmmn. I just noticed this and I have to say - Veh? Why is this targeted at me? I don't even like Tome of Battle...

Stephen_E
2007-07-11, 09:38 PM
Hmmn. I just noticed this and I have to say - Veh? Why is this targeted at me? I don't even like Tome of Battle...

Because he was tired and irritable resulting in a temporary loss of plot and/or incorrect targeting of diatribe.

Or,

He peirced your disguise and correctly identified you as the evil BBEG that is behind all that is bad about DnD. Aha, everyone attack Matthew. As the BBEG he's worth lots of XP if we defeat him.:smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

Stephen

Matthew
2007-07-11, 09:41 PM
"Uh, oh..." *Retreats to the lowest level of his Dungeon.*

Kioran
2007-07-12, 02:24 AM
Hmmn. I just noticed this and I have to say - Veh? Why is this targeted at me? I don't even like Tome of Battle...

Sorry. I mistook you for another poster. Should edit my post to reflect that :smallfrown:

AllisterH
2007-07-15, 05:42 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0437.html

Why would someone that hits things with a stick be as powerful as someone who reshapes reality and tells the laws of physics to shut up and play dead? Wizards should be more powerful than melee-ers. It's a fantasy convention.

I've seen this mentioned a couple of times before but this doesn't have to be true.

Exhibit A: Slayers
Slayers is perhaps one of the highest magical works of fiction of all time. (Giga-Slave FTW). Lina Inverse herself regularly gets talked about as someone who could easily solo Voldemort and would make Sauron scream for his mommy.

Yet in the novels, manga and anime, it is explicitly mentioned that a high level fighter will pretty much stomp Lina into the ground. In the manga, she always admits grudgingly that unless she gets the drop on Gourry, in a straight one on one fight, the smart money is people on the level of Gourry/Zangulus.

Magic can be both powerful and yet balanced with melee...

Leon
2007-07-18, 02:49 AM
"fighting with brains."

Gets messy fast