What's the consensus on Tome of Battle [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Grod_The_Giant

2017-01-30, 10:45 AM

The classes are very fun, but have a comparatively high floor. A Crusader or Warblade will blow away an unoptomized Fighter or Barbarian in terms of options, mobility, survivability, and-- most noticeably-- damage. It's the damage part that scares people; seeing the fighter-type throw around piles of d6's is alarming, even if a full attack would do more total damage. They're also drastically better than... almost anyone else at low levels, when they're the only ones who can keep using their special abilities. (Magic of Incarnum classes, another phenomenal book, have a similar issue)

Then there are the people who complain about "weeaboo fightan magic" and how the initiators are "just spellcasters by another name." Don't listen to those people; following the 9-power-levels template is really the only thing they have in common, and a Warblade absolutely does not feel or look like a caster in play.

EDIT: I should note that I really like the book and the classes within, and highly recommend them.

Snowbluff

2017-01-30, 10:48 AM

Good good good

Grid, I would argue that spellcasters by another name is a compliment. After all, spell casters improve the variety of combat immensely. Wouldn't you agree? :3

Red Fel

2017-01-30, 10:58 AM

What's the generally consensus on the three classes from Tome of Battle? How well received, and fun and balanced, are the various stances and maneuvers in the book?

Personal opinion? Well-received by me, fun and solid (but not overpowered), engaging mechanics. As has been said, it gives martials nice things, which is welcomed.

In terms of consensus, though?

There's no general consensus. Opinions fall into roughly three groups:

1. "This is broken! Non-spellcasters shouldn't be able to do these things!" This group seems to be dwindling or moving on to other games.

2. "What's the Tomb of Battle?" This group never really played 3.5 and is growing with new people coming into roleplaying.

3.. "It's one of the best 3.5 expansions." Plenty of these folks around, as you can see in this thread.

This. There are people who dislike its "anime" flavor, or mistakenly think it to be overpowered. And admittedly, it suffers from some poor editing and a lack of errata. But overall, it's a fun and well-needed system that plays very well.

NomGarret

2017-01-30, 11:23 AM

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 11:48 AM

Feels like 4th Edition. If you liked 4e, you'll like ToB.

Definitely overpowered at low levels, but it gets better later.

zergling.exe

2017-01-30, 11:49 AM

Then there are the people who complain about "weeaboo fightan magic" and how the initiators are "just spellcasters by another name." Don't listen to those people; following the 9-power-levels template is really the only thing they have in common, and a Warblade absolutely does not feel or look like a caster in play.

To low op I would say it does look and feel like a caster in play, as most low op groups have caster's that play as blasters or otherwise in the same vicinity as ToB classes. So for most people crying about that, I'd sat it's more that the way they play the game, initiators and casters are the same things most of the time.

Flickerdart

2017-01-30, 11:51 AM

What's the generally consensus on the three classes from Tome of Battle? How well received, and fun and balanced, are the various stances and maneuvers in the book?
The Tome of Battle classes were designed to solve two problems, and solved them quite well.

The first was the "I full attack every turn" problem - a typical mundane character's schtick is based on a single optimized at-will strategy that is executed in the same way every round (charging, tripping, straight-up full attacks). Tome of Battle classes are able to do what casters have been doing since 2000 - move and make a level-appropriate attack in the same round, using unique and interesting moves.

The second was the "Ivory Tower" game design problem. It is difficult to build a martial character that can fight effectively, because their choices are all locked in. A player that's building a fighter needs to know basically all the feats in the game, and how they interact. If he made a mistake, he has to beg the DM to let him use the retraining rules, because he needs to completely replace his feats if he wants to qualify for level-appropriate abilities. Meanwhile, a wizard that picked bad spells can just go to the shops and buy a new spell of the highest level he can cast, or learn 2 as soon as he levels up.

At a table that knows the game well, ToB classes are great for making melee characters that are easy to build and fun to play, and helping new players get into the game's more complex mechanics. At a table that doesn't know the game well, ToB classes appear to be super-powerful, because they are solving problems the table hasn't yet recognized.

The Tome of Battle is actually a great first book to buy. Mechanics for basic play can be found in the SRD for free, but ignore all the classes in the Player's Handbook. Aside from "literally Gandalf" the Tome of Battle classes fill out every character archetype you could want.

Komatik

2017-01-30, 12:12 PM

It's pretty easy for those walking in skeptical to miss how the disciplines are divvied up, feeding into any "fighting magic" concerns. In practice, only one of the three classes has access to the overtly magicky disciplines, but if you read the chapters out of order and start with the disciplines, you start with a picture of someone roasting wererats with a cone of flame.

Devoted Spirit has many decidedly supernatural maneuvers, they just don't have the supernatural tag. The Warblade is the only class with a decidedly non-magical bent though you certainly can build "mundane" Swordsages and Crusaders.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-30, 12:23 PM

There didn't used to be a consensus until around the beginning of 5e's run. Most of the dissidents have moved onto that version of the game or PF without 3.X material. Which leaves the diehard 3.X fans (like myself) who generally seem to like ToB [/recent history].

Personally, I do like the book but not as much as some.

Optimization-wise, the base classes in the book are high-floor, low-ceiling. They do pretty much exactly what their write-up in the book says they do which is a refreshing change of pace for this edition.

Power-wise, they're not actually dramatically ahead of where a base-line martial is except at the lowest levels but they do -look- a lot more powerful because they have much more varied options than other martials. The catch is that a lot of those options amount to hit the thing in this way that's just a bit different from normal. As with most supplements; there are a few standout, unique effects that do poke their head up above the curve, however; white raven tactics, the 4 devoted spirit auras, devoted spirit's healing strikes and martial spirit stance, etc.

Flavor-wise, I really enjoy it. I'm a fighter IRL so the highly stylised martial arts tropes (both east and west) really appeal to me and the way they worked the fantasy D&D elements in is pretty cool.

I do understand where others are coming from with the "wuxia/ anime" feeling argument but it rings hollow to me. The western martial arts get pretty flowery in their language and old european and mediteranian folklore and mythology has a lot of the same kind of wild stuff. Western comics get absurdly over-the-top just like asian ones.

As to the magic by another name accusation; bollocks. The vast majority of the maneuvers look and feel like they're just way over-the-top versions of what other martials do (even though they're actually quite comparable by the numbers). Only one of the three base classes, the swordsage, gets access to explicitly supernatural maneuvers and even then it's only one discipline and less than half of a second of the six he chooses from while 2 of the remaining 3 are also completely non-magical in both feel and fact. Devoted spirit has a few maneuvers that probably ought to be supernatural but aren't, specifically; strike of righteous vitality and the 4 auras, and is otherwise fine in being as non-magical as it's labeled. It takes more than having your special actions being stratified into levels and divided into disciplines to be magic.

I guess that's about it. YMMV.

Flickerdart

2017-01-30, 12:28 PM

Flavor-wise, I really enjoy it. I'm a fighter IRL so the highly stylised martial arts tropes (both east and west) really appeal to me and the way they worked the fantasy D&D elements in is pretty cool.

Have you ever had the opportunity to end someone rightly?

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-30, 12:32 PM

Have you ever had the opportunity to end someone rightly?

I prefer my pommel do its job and keep the handle of my sword in place. :smalltongue:

Flickerdart

2017-01-30, 12:36 PM

I prefer my pommel do its job and keep the handle of my sword in place. :smalltongue:
That's why you should always carry a backup pommel!

Hecuba

2017-01-30, 12:41 PM

There are people who dislike its "anime" flavor, or mistakenly think it to be overpowered.
These, historically, have been the two most frequent complaints. By "anime," what they mean is something closer to "wuxia." Cardcaptor Sakura, for example, probably isn't best modeled with ToB.

Admittedly, if your balance point for overpowered is "weapons specialization fighter and skill focus rogue" then they will indeed be overpowered. If that's your balance point, 3.5 probably ins't the best game for you anyways, but ToB will make it seem worse.

These people have largely moved to 5th, as mentioned above: it's still worth noting though, because much of the ToB complaints you will see archived around the internet are implicitly complaints about the difference between people's perception of D&D and the emergent game-play of 3.5 (in which non-ToB martial characters were easily overshadowed).

ToB-dislike there is merely a symptom of larger discomfort with 3.5's emergent trends: if you find ToB overpowered, you likely will find 3.5 overpowered in general.

Aimeryan

2017-01-30, 12:50 PM

That's why you should always carry a backup pommel!

Also, I've heard, if you target the knee...

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-30, 12:55 PM

Also, I've heard, if you target the knee...

... you invoke the groans and nerd-rage of a thousand tired memes?

Flickerdart

2017-01-30, 12:59 PM

Also, I've heard, if you target the knee...

Nah, the correct way to end someone rightly is to toss the pommel at their helm, over their readied shield. The sudden impact may disorient them and allow you to close for a finishing blow, if you do it right. If you do it wrong, and they move their shield to deflect the pommel, that could still be an opportunity to strike with your lance. Naturally, your pommel should have as few threads as possible so that removing it is quick.

Aimeryan

2017-01-30, 01:10 PM

I wonder if they have banned pommels in the UK yet?

Psyren

2017-01-30, 01:12 PM

Poor editing / errata aside, it's a solid book. I personally think some of the maneuvers being extraordinary was an oversight, which is why I prefer Path of War overall, but ToB still paved the way.

GilesTheCleric

2017-01-30, 04:01 PM

Feels like 4th Edition. If you liked 4e, you'll like ToB.

Definitely overpowered at low levels, but it gets better later.

I don't think it's really all that much like 4e. Yes, it's the predecessor to AEDU, but the individual mechanics of each strike and boost seem pretty rooted in 3e to me. It doesn't push or pull folks all over the grid, doesn't force foes to attack you, doesn't have all sorts of funkily-shaped AoE melee attacks, and the amount of healing you can grant to other members is limited. 4e's systems are much more self-consistent, while ToB instead meshes well with other 3e mechanics, in my opinion. I think it works fine in a theatre-of-the-mind game in a way that 4e just can't.

Particle_Man

2017-01-30, 04:10 PM

Its a good book that gives nice things to martials. Ranged users are stil SoL tho.

Well there is that one prestige class that throws things in the book. ;)

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-30, 04:15 PM

Well there is that one prestige class that throws things in the book. ;)

In fairness, they count as melee attacks when he throws his weapon. Even on a ranged build, melee is better. :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel

2017-01-30, 05:06 PM

Well there is that one prestige class that throws things in the book. ;)

A number of maneuvers function with ranged combat though. Offensively only Dancing Mongoose, Raging Mongoose, Time Stands Still and some stances (Blood in the Water, Giant's Stance off the top of my head), but you can get a lot of utility and defense from counters, boosts, and so on as a ranged combatant. Even when building an Archer, if I'm playing a non-caster I'll probably use significant amounts of levels in ToB classes.

Which reminds me of another point in favour of ToB; ToB is the only scaling system aside from Ardent where multiclassing actually functions reasonably without PRCs in the whole 3.5. Which is kinda cool since 3.5 is essentially built around multiclassing and being locked into Theurge-classes if you want two types of casting or whatever is kinda lame and diminishes your options.

molten_dragon

2017-01-30, 06:10 PM

What's the generally consensus on the three classes from Tome of Battle? How well received, and fun and balanced, are the various stances and maneuvers in the book?

There seem to be two schools of thought on it. A modest majority of people like it, while recognizing that it has a few issues. I'm in this group. It adds a ton of new fun options to melee characters and combines well with a lot of already existing classes. But it's got a larger than normal share of poorly worded abilities. Then there's a decent-sized minority of players that absolutely hate it. Generally they either don't like the pseudo-casting abilities, don't like the flavor because it seems too much like anime, or think it's too overpowered.

rgrekejin

2017-01-30, 06:23 PM

I know I will always be in the minority on these boards on this issue, but I have never liked the Tome of Battle. It makes a noble effort to fix a problem that needed fixing , but the way it attempts to solve it leaves me cold:

"What's that you say? Mundane characters are way weaker than casters? How can we fix this? I know! Let's make the mundane characters casters too!"

And yes, before you all pile on, I've heard every argument there is about why Martial classes absolutely totally aren't casters despite looking exactly like them mechanically. I find none of them convincing. I've gone 12 rounds on this subject more times on these boards over the years than I have about V's gender. Which isn't to say the classes in ToB are bad - I think they're quite good mechanically, they can be a lot of fun to play, and they're very good at filling the roles they exist to fill (no one does cheesy 80's movie Kung-Fu better than a Swordsage, for instance). All I have to say is, if I had wanted to have a spell list, I would have been a Wizard.

GilesTheCleric

2017-01-30, 06:29 PM

All I have to say is, if I had wanted to have a spell list, I would have been a Wizard.

To be fair, martial classes are more like Sorcerers than Wizards.

Eldariel

2017-01-30, 06:47 PM

To be fair, martial classes are more like Sorcerers than Wizards.

Sorcerer with no daily casting limits, but instead various per-encounter limits, and the abilities essentially being mostly built around enhanced weapon attack rolls - and no such thing as tiered slots, meta effects or anything else. Really, the similarities are extremely superficial; both sides have tiered abilities learned by levels and that's about it.

rgrekejin

2017-01-30, 07:16 PM

Sorcerer with no daily casting limits, but instead various per-encounter limits, and the abilities essentially being mostly built around enhanced weapon attack rolls - and no such thing as tiered slots, meta effects or anything else. Really, the similarities are extremely superficial; both sides have tiered abilities learned by levels and that's about it.

I have this weird feeling of deja vu... (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?257068-Looking-for-a-complete-idiots-guide-to-ToB/page2)

Hawkstar

2017-01-30, 07:31 PM

The Tome of Battle is a poorly edited mess (Badly worded abilities, nonfunctional stance progression,, even the errata forgets what it's doing less than halfway through) that gets a lot of praise for giving D&D 3.5 something it desperately needed - Multiple options for actions per level for martial characters that aren't saddled with a -4 without feats (Which come way too rarely)

I know I will always be in the minority on these boards on this issue, but I have never liked the Tome of Battle. It makes a noble effort to fix a problem that needed fixing , but the way it attempts to solve it leaves me cold:

"What's that you say? Mundane characters are way weaker than casters? How can we fix this? I know! Let's make the mundane characters casters too!"

And yes, before you all pile on, I've heard every argument there is about why Martial classes absolutely totally aren't casters despite looking exactly like them mechanically. I find none of them convincing. I've gone 12 rounds on this subject more times on these boards over the years than I have about V's gender. Which isn't to say the classes in ToB are bad - I think they're quite good mechanically, they can be a lot of fun to play, and they're very good at filling the roles they exist to fill (no one does cheesy 80's movie Kung-Fu better than a Swordsage, for instance). All I have to say is, if I had wanted to have a spell list, I would have been a damn Wizard.
... do you not know that real-world martial arts have names for their specific maneuvers, and tiers of complexity/mastery?

Jormengand

2017-01-30, 08:09 PM

The fact that they're more similar to sorcerers than psions (who openly admit to being magic-by-another-name) or truenamers (ditto) or binders (ditto) are to sorcerers makes you wonder a little. More to the point, I like my mundanes mundane, with no supernatural fire attacks, extraordinary teleportation, extraordinary dispelling, extraordinary throwing twenty pounds of hammer through six people and having it return to your hand because apparently now you're freaking THOR or something. Plus the fact that you can run out of ability to pull off a specific cool sword move, while retaining your ability to pull off a different one is insane.

Tome of battle classes are brilliant gishes which don't quite use the standard magic system, like psychic warriors are*. But they're not the solution to the "All the mundane classes suck" problem.

*In fact, if you renamed power points to stamina points, I'd have a lot more truck with the intrinsic way the psychic warrior works, though you'd have to change the actual powers.

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 08:15 PM

The fact that they're more similar to sorcerers than psions
Whaaaaaat get outta here.

rgrekejin

2017-01-30, 08:19 PM

... do you not know that real-world martial arts have names for their specific maneuvers, and tiers of complexity/mastery?

Oh that's right, I'd forgotten, real-world martial arts. What's the one where you shoot fireballs out of your sword called again? And why is it that you can't do it multiple times without taking a quick six-second break to meditate, even though you can do other, similarly strenuous maneuvers?

Look, I get the point that you're trying to make, but even if that real-life hierarchy were the sort of system that the authors of the ToB were trying to model their tiers of maneuvers after (which I really don't think it was) the system they created does a very poor job of emulating it.

Hawkstar

2017-01-30, 08:32 PM

Oh that's right, I'd forgotten, real-world martial arts. What's the one where you shoot fireballs out of your sword called again? And why is it that you can't do it multiple times without taking a quick six-second break to meditate, even though you can do other, similarly strenuous maneuvers?

Look, I get the point that you're trying to make, but even if that real-life hierarchy were the sort of system that the authors of the ToB were trying to model their tiers of maneuvers after (which I really don't think it was) the system they created does a very poor job of emulating it.
Let's NOT use the explicitly supernatural maneuvers as an example. How about the mundane ones instead? and as far as the "6-second break" - Footwork, momentum, and positioning, which are all abstracted. It requires a physical reset and rebalance.

thoroughlyS

2017-01-30, 08:43 PM

More to the point, I like my mundanes mundane, with no supernatural fire attacks, extraordinary teleportation, extraordinary dispelling
That's like saying you like your wizards to be evokers, with no invisibility, or summoning, or shapeshifting. It is perfectly possible to build an initiator with only "mundane" abilities. And this way, the people who want to build Dhalsim can have their fun too.

extraordinary throwing twenty pounds of hammer through six people and having it return to your hand because apparently now you're freaking THOR or something.
You're not Thor, you're Captain America. You are so well-versed in the arts of chuckin' your stuff that you can make it ricochet perfectly. Because you spent the same amount of time doing that that a wizard takes to learn spellcasting.

Plus the fact that you can run out of ability to pull off a specific cool sword move, while retaining your ability to pull off a different one is insane.

And why is it that you can't do it multiple times without taking a quick six-second break to meditate, even though you can do other, similarly strenuous maneuvers?
Have you ever done multiple roundhouse kicks in a row? Each one gets less effective (barring specifically training to do that), from a combination of factors (e.g. getting winded, losing the appropriate footing, leaving yourself open).

Nifft

2017-01-30, 08:50 PM

My group had a really good time with the ToB classes & rules.

I highly recommend them to anyone who wants Fighter-types to have nice things.

Zanos

2017-01-30, 08:54 PM

I think it's a good book. I don't think it's the best book.

It has problems with floor. Baseline initiators are going to be more powerful than most bruiser monsters at a similar CR, which is going to scare less experienced DM. Another problem is that initiators do a LOT more damage than most martial, especially when the "I full attack, but with more damage and to hit" maneuvers come online. Giving martials more tactical options is great, and low level maneuvers do a lot of that. Giving martials a bucketful of damage? Not so much.

Cosi

2017-01-30, 09:07 PM

Tome of Battle extends the portion of the game where martial characters can do things that matter to about the point where the game starts breaking down without extensive house rules or gentleman's agreements. It has some stuff that is very poorly defined (iron heart surge) and some stuff that doesn't make much sense (stance progression), but is probably worth using.

GilesTheCleric

2017-01-30, 10:09 PM

I guess if we're going with anecdotes, I'll agree with all the folks that have enjoyed having it in their games. In my games, I appreciate that not only does it bridge C/MD a little bit, but it's better roleplaying. My games are 50%+ social encounters, and ToB allows for players to be able to do flavourful things with their abilities. For example, last session, the players were on a raft, and most of them jumped into the river. Rather than just swimming back, one player (a swordsage) teleported back onto the raft. It was a fun, unique moment that sparked some good RP interactions, helping the characters bond.

Would I have let a fighter do the same thing if they had a bunch of ranks in swim or acrobatics? Sure, but most GMs probably don't rule that skills can achieve superhuman results. I do, because it's fun. These are heroes; they should be heroic. And ToB is fun, too. It makes for great heroes.

Aetis

2017-01-30, 10:41 PM

Komatik

2017-01-30, 10:42 PM

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 10:48 PM

Yeah, that's kind of the problem with it, if you're trying to be a melee combatant, it's kind of just blatantly the best thing you can be doing by a sizeable margin? Which is really awkward.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-30, 10:52 PM

I didn't really think martial characters needed a buff, but eh, I still love my weaboo fightan magic book.

One complaint I do have is that as soon as the Tome of Battle is allowed on the table, it is pretty much impossible to optimize a martial character without it.

And then you end up seeing warblades literally everywhere. That shopkeeper? A warblade. The blacksmith? A warblade.

The group of bandits you are tracking down? All warblades. The town mayor and his super attractive daughter? Both warblades.

AND EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM HAS IRON HEART SURGE. :smallsigh:

Meh. I've never subscribed to this particular line of thought.

Numbers-wise, martial adepts and more standard martial characters are pretty comparable and if you "just gotta" then martial scripts and the crown of the white raven style items are things and so are the martial study/stance feats.

What really happened is that ToB made decent martials a simple package deal and players stopped looking at how to build good martials because their favorite martial adept was just easier.

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 10:53 PM

Easier and also better.

Cosi

2017-01-30, 10:58 PM

Yeah, that's kind of the problem with it, if you're trying to be a melee combatant, it's kind of just blatantly the best thing you can be doing by a sizeable margin? Which is really awkward.

Well, no, that's still "be a caster that uses self buffs and Persistent Spell". The fact that Tome of Battle outclasses something that was already outclassed doesn't seem important to me.

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 11:00 PM

Well, no, that's still "be a caster that uses self buffs and Persistent Spell". The fact that Tome of Battle outclasses something that was already outclassed doesn't seem important to me.
Dipping ToB makes you better at that too.

Tiri

2017-01-30, 11:03 PM

Dipping ToB makes you better at that too.

I think that depends on the buffs in question.

Troacctid

2017-01-30, 11:04 PM

Well, generally, it probably does, most of the time.

J-H

2017-01-30, 11:20 PM

I know this is probably rank heresy, but....

I rarely learn Iron Heart Surge. When I do take it, I rarely ready it. It takes a standard action to initiate, which means it blows an entire round. All of my D&D is play by post, and I have yet to ever have a character blinded, paralyzed, Held, or otherwise completely disabled to the point that IHS would be my best solution.

I'm sure at some point I'll want IHS, but if I only need it 1% of the time...I'm not going to take it.

Doctor Awkward

2017-01-30, 11:23 PM

The premise of Tome of Battles was to give martial classes more relevance at high levels of play. It notes the huge discrepancy between magic characters and mundane characters, and instead of taking steps to nerf casters, it buffs mundanes, in what I otherwise refer to as the "solution of optimal fun". Couched in these terms it is one of the best books ever printed for martial characters in 3.5.

Practically, it suffers from poor editing in a few places, as well as a clunky prerequisite system and maneuver swapping mechanic that makes planning a build out in advance a huge pain in the ass. I still struggle a little sometimes when making NPC's with more than 4 initiator levels. This isn't even addressing the severe lack of ****'s given by Wizards of the Coast regarding the products released towards the end of the 3.5 line, as they were pouring the majority of their resources into 4th Edition in an effort to suck the greatest amount of money from their customer base. To this day, the official errata (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) for this book switches to the Complete Arcane errata halfway through. There is also one stupidly broken and overpowered feature in the Ruby Knight Vindicator, that allows a cleric to trade his turn attempts for extra swift actions.

However, most of the "unclear" text is only of consequence if you ignore obvious intent. Iron Heart Surge is one of the big one's people complain about the most, even though it's rather apparant that the author specifically had the condition summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) in mind when deciding what an "effect" was.

Many of the complaints that I have come across claiming the book is overpowered generally have some basis in a lack of overall system knowledge. For example, a 1st level Goliath Warblade with a large greatsword in Punishing Stance is swinging for 4d6+Str damage per attack, all day. This exactly the same amount of dice thrown by any 1st level medium sized Rogue with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat anytime he gets a full Sneak attack. The Warblade has exactly two first level maneuvers that can add more damage on top of this: Charging Minotaur (which requires you to charge) and Steel Wind (which only works on multiple opponents). So considering the racial requirements involved in order to make the warblade come out ahead here, it's something that is only slightly more powerful when made with specific intent to be so. I remember another discussion I was in where someone complained about the Ring of Fire maneuver, in which a Swordsage could take a double move and, provided he makes a closed loop, cause a firey explosion for many d6's of damage. At level 13 when this maneuver becomes available, assuming he somehow buffs his movement rate to 50 ft. per round, he can create a circumference of 100 feet. Or a 15 ft. explosion for 12d6 of damage, with a round to recharge in between. Meanwhile, a 12th level sorcerer who took fireball could toss out six to eight of those spells that cover a 20 ft. radius in 10d6 of fire damage every round from much farther away, or use the much longer range chain lightning (and that's without leaving core). In the end, the Swordsage would still be in the same boat as the warlock. The whole "unlimited uses per day" thing is really only starts to approach overpowered on an unrealistically long adventuring day. Furthermore, if the sorcerer really wanted he could take Arcane Strike and cast Tenser's Transformation to perform better than the Swordsage in melee combat. Granting abilities like these to the people who swing pointy sticks around really only tilts the battlefield slightly in their direction.

Another common complaint I've read is that the book renders all other martial classes obsolete, which is simply not true. A strength-based barbarian is still a credible threat at low levels, as is a rogue. Paladin's are still the kings of mounted combat, and even a properly built Dungeon Crasher Fighter can keep pace until about level 6 or 7, when maneuvers clearly start to pull ahead. The thing that a lot of players don't understand about the poor fighters and monks is that these were always horridly under-powered classes that required special consideration from DM's to even be relevant when played in the same game as a cleric or druid. The fact that initiator system introduced in Tome of Battle is so dip friendly is what keeps the other melee classes relevant, as anyone can take a couple levels in any three of these classes at any point in their build and receive excellent benefits for it.

Doctor Despair

2017-01-31, 12:32 AM

InvisibleBison

2017-01-31, 12:50 AM

Oooh, ooh, since we're talking about it, can we revive the Iron Heart Surge vs Death debate again? That one's always fun to watch. With the demographic of people commenting, surely someone has the less-popular position? That questionable cheese definitely elevates ToB's use :p Though, in the end, at it's best. it kinda just emulates Hide Life

I don't see what's to debate. Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) creatures are unconscious (because they're treated as having -10 HP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks), which is always less than the amount of nonlethal damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#nonlethalDamage) they've taken). Unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious) creatures are helpless. Helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless) creatures are treated as having a Dexterity score of 0. A creature with a Dexterity score of 0 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged) is paralyzed. A paralyzed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) creature cannot move or act. Initiating Iron Heart Surge requires a standard action, and initiating any maneuver requires the initiator to be able to move. Thus, being dead prohibits one from initiating Iron Heart Surge.

Ignimortis

2017-01-31, 12:54 AM

It's one of the best books of 3.5, on par with PHB II and the Complete X series for giving players options in how they want to play. See my signature ;)

Doctor Despair

2017-01-31, 01:26 AM

A previous thread on the shenanigans, for the uninitiated (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480655-Taking-actions-after-character-death)

EisenKreutzer

2017-01-31, 01:58 AM

Together with Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle was one of the coolest books released for 3.5. From a purely flavour perspective, it is one of my favourite 3.5 books. I'm a huge fan of the wuxia aesthetic, and ToB delivers that in spades.

Mechanically, the book brings a lot to the table and is a very valuable book to own. The new classes are diverse and interesting, and in terms of balance falls in between the woefully underbalanced martials and the overly powerful casters. If you substitute the fighters, rangers, rogues and paladins for warblades, swordsages and crusaders the gap between spellcasters and martial characters will not feel as huge in the mid game.

The book has issues, though, primarily in the form of vague mechanics and poor rules language. A few maneuvers could also have used some more playtesting and an actual errata.

Even so, it remains a valuable and fun expansion to the 3.5 system. Just keep in mind that fighters and other martials will feel pretty lackluster compared to the ToB classes, even if they can be optimized to outperform them.

eggynack

2017-01-31, 03:24 AM

I don't see what's to debate. Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) creatures are unconscious (because they're treated as having -10 HP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#deathAttacks), which is always less than the amount of nonlethal damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#nonlethalDamage) they've taken). Unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious) creatures are helpless. Helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless) creatures are treated as having a Dexterity score of 0. A creature with a Dexterity score of 0 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged) is paralyzed. A paralyzed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) creature cannot move or act. Initiating Iron Heart Surge requires a standard action, and initiating any maneuver requires the initiator to be able to move. Thus, being dead prohibits one from initiating Iron Heart Surge.
Even so, you can still IHS away the condition of mortality, or IHS away someone else's death because said death is imposing upon you the condition of sadness.

Troacctid

2017-01-31, 03:50 AM

Even so, you can still IHS away the condition of mortality
Mortality has a duration. Do you really want that duration to end early?

IHS away someone else's death because said death is imposing upon you the condition of sadness.
That would just end the sadness condition on you.

eggynack

2017-01-31, 04:04 AM

Mortality has a duration. Do you really want that duration to end early?
Yeah, that's tricky. The issue is that most methods of eliminating the fact of your eventual death have both being dead and being immortal as outcomes. The easy fix, I think, is, "I'm ending the condition of not being immortal." A more complicated one would be, "I'm ending the condition of my death occurring some point after five minutes before my conception." Any start point between your conception and now could theoretically retroactively kill you, but dying before you're conceived is probably not a thing. I dunno on the second one. Feels like there's too much in the general form to exploit. The first one seems more rock solid though. There's a way to do this in an unambiguous way, I haveta think. It always just comes down to the semantic construction of it.

That would just end the sadness condition on you.
Fair. In that case, we can say that death is the condition, just not your condition, and it's affecting you through the medium of sadness.

Krazzman

2017-01-31, 04:32 AM

I personally believe that it is the best idea WotC had in a long time.

The first time I (finally) could use it my DM was wary of it until he saw it actually in play. I played a Warblade, my wife went Cleric/Crusader/RKV (albeit only reaching RKV1 then we had to drop the campaign). Compared to a fighter build for the same thing I did with the Warblade there wasn't much difference. At first level I could either deal 1d6 more damage, or attack 2 kobolds for at least 8 damage (they had 5) or deal another extra 1d6 damage, that as well as having 2 more HP and skillpoints wouldn't have made that much difference. That changed around level 3. The DM was perfectly fine with him after he really saw what I was doing (Spiked Chain tripping).
This was in a game where a non-glaive, non-claw Warlock with one sudden metamagic feat was deemed strong.

As such in my experience the only thing ToB does is giving a more balanced and better nuanced way of building martials that can do other stuff than just their one-trick-pony maneuver of dealing 80gazillion damage with a charge. Going for things like concentrating hard enough to block a mind affecting spell or dodging that fireball. Being connected to the earth enough that solid rock becomes as soft as paper or just getting extra damage on a hit.

Particle_Man

2017-01-31, 12:14 PM

Together with Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle was one of the coolest books released for 3.5. From a purely flavour perspective, it is one of my favourite 3.5 books. I'm a huge fan of the wuxia aesthetic, and ToB delivers that in spades.

Now you are making me wonder about a campaign that only has crusaders, incarnates, swordsages, totemists and warblades as base character classes. I'd have liked to include soulborns, but, well . . . :smallsmile:

Flickerdart

2017-01-31, 12:20 PM

Now you are making me wonder about a campaign that only has crusaders, incarnates, swordsages, totemists and warblades as base character classes. I'd have liked to include soulborns, but, well . . . :smallsmile:

I ran a campaign where core classes were banned, and it was basically this plus psionics. It works quite well.

Komatik

2017-01-31, 03:06 PM

Now you are making me wonder about a campaign that only has crusaders, incarnates, swordsages, totemists and warblades as base character classes. I'd have liked to include soulborns, but, well . . . :smallsmile:

There is a class called Soulborn? I mean, I've noticed an odd amount of blank space in my copy of MoI, but...

Red Fel

2017-01-31, 03:10 PM

There is a class called Soulborn? I mean, I've noticed an odd amount of blank space in my copy of MoI, but...

Don't kid yourself. Soulborn is an urban legend.

I mean, can you imagine that? A meldshaping class on the already-weak Paladin-style chassis, with an utterly stunted soulmeld progression and no other real class features to speak of? It would be absurd, even by the standards of some of the poorly-edited late-3.5 materials.

Soulborns? I don't think they exist.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-01-31, 03:17 PM

Flickerdart

2017-01-31, 03:24 PM

Don't kid yourself. Soulborn is an urban legend.

I mean, can you imagine that? A meldshaping class on the already-weak Paladin-style chassis, with an utterly stunted soulmeld progression and no other real class features to speak of? It would be absurd, even by the standards of some of the poorly-edited late-3.5 materials.

Soulborns? I don't think they exist.
At first I thought that soulborn would have more class features than paladins, since the tail end of a paladin's progression is just Smite Evil and remove disease. But oh lordy lord, it's even worse!

No ability to detect opposition, no Divine Grace, only one immunity instead of two, no turning, no mount (the paladin's only powerful class feature), no remove disease, and no bonus to allies. In exchange you get three bonus feats, and the ability to grant your one immunity (as a standard action, for a few rounds, only a couple of times a day).

Morty

2017-01-31, 03:44 PM

Yeah, that's kind of the problem with it, if you're trying to be a melee combatant, it's kind of just blatantly the best thing you can be doing by a sizeable margin? Which is really awkward.

That's not a problem with ToB as much as it is with old-style martial classes being dreadful, though. Then again, it doesn't really matter which set of classes is to blame from the perspective of a gaming table.

ToB is as good as you can get for martial classes in 3rd edition D&D. It has problems, but those problems are more or less insurmountable in 3e's chassis. If you want to keep up, you need spells, or something that functions like them, even if it's not actual magic.

The "blade magic" aesthetic is unfortunate, but it's not like they could just declare earlier martial classes to be awful and release a book that fixes them... even though it would be entirely correct on both counts.

Zanos

2017-01-31, 03:47 PM

I didn't really think martial characters needed a buff, but eh, I still love my weaboo fightan magic book.

One complaint I do have is that as soon as the Tome of Battle is allowed on the table, it is pretty much impossible to optimize a martial character without it.

And then you end up seeing warblades literally everywhere. That shopkeeper? A warblade. The blacksmith? A warblade.

The group of bandits you are tracking down? All warblades. The town mayor and his super attractive daughter? Both warblades.

AND EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM HAS IRON HEART SURGE. :smallsigh:
Those characters should probably have been Warriors to begin with. For my part I still keep Fighters around but they're sort of an NPC class plus. Sort of trained folks are warrior, decent(but commonly) trained folks are fighters, and people who are extremely dedicated are initiators.

So it's sort of a half-step between an NPC class and a full class.

Cosi

2017-01-31, 04:11 PM

ToB is as good as you can get for martial classes in 3rd edition D&D. It has problems, but those problems are more or less insurmountable in 3e's chassis. If you want to keep up, you need spells, or something that functions like them, even if it's not actual magic.

Eh, not really. Martials have two primary problems in 3e:

1. They suck. Unless you optimize to a much greater degree than the rest of the party, martial characters fall behind by 10th level.
2. They don't do anything outside combat. Casters get fabricate or raise dead or whatever, but maritals get ... skills.

Those are mechanically solvable. It's possible that a mechanical solution to them breaks people's conceptualization of martials, but if a concept precludes "being level appropriate at high levels" and "having non-combat abilities", I'm inclined to say the game shouldn't include it.

Tome of Battle solves 1 for a while, though not forever. 9th level manuevers are basically a joke next to 9th level spells. mountain tombstone strike deals 2d6 CON damage, which will usually fail to kill a regular human. wail of the banshee is an AoE save-or-die. mountain tombstone strike should have turned your whole hit into CON damage or something.

Tome of Battle doesn't really do anything to solve 2. You could totally imagine solutions to 2 that worked within the context of Tome of Battle. You could have a Stone Dragon strike that made a wall of stone effect or a Shadow Hand stance that let you control zombies, but the book doesn't actually do that.

There's also the issue that Tome of Battle simply has less stuff than casters do, but I'm not as convinced as most people here seem to be that versatility is as valuable as power.

Flickerdart

2017-01-31, 04:14 PM

Those characters should probably have been Warriors to begin with. For my part I still keep Fighters around but they're sort of an NPC class plus. Sort of trained folks are warrior, decent(but commonly) trained folks are fighters, and people who are extremely dedicated are initiators.

So it's sort of a half-step between an NPC class and a full class.

That's how I see an NPC progressing in life - retraining into useful classes rather than multiclassing up. "Commoner 1/Warrior 1" would be an inane combination of classes, but a Commoner 1 getting through basic training becomes a Warrior 1, then graduates to a Fighter 1 once he has gained experience in battle, and perhaps Warblade 1+ if he's going to be a level-having sort of fellow.

Eldariel

2017-01-31, 04:44 PM

Tome of Battle doesn't really do anything to solve 2. You could totally imagine solutions to 2 that worked within the context of Tome of Battle. You could have a Stone Dragon strike that made a wall of stone effect or a Shadow Hand stance that let you control zombies, but the book doesn't actually do that.

Well, it's not as if it does nothing. It doesn't do as much as it could but like, getting to ignore any hardness (Mountain Hammer), getting Scent (Hunter's Sense) for e.g. tracking, giving bonuses vs. Fear (Bolstering Voice), Leaping Dragon Stance/Balancing in the Air, etc. There are things offer some limited out-of-combat utility over a non-ToB martial. Certainly nowhere near as much as spells though.

Morty

2017-01-31, 04:57 PM

Eh, not really. Martials have two primary problems in 3e:

1. They suck. Unless you optimize to a much greater degree than the rest of the party, martial characters fall behind by 10th level.
2. They don't do anything outside combat. Casters get fabricate or raise dead or whatever, but maritals get ... skills.

Those are mechanically solvable. It's possible that a mechanical solution to them breaks people's conceptualization of martials, but if a concept precludes "being level appropriate at high levels" and "having non-combat abilities", I'm inclined to say the game shouldn't include it.

Tome of Battle solves 1 for a while, though not forever. 9th level manuevers are basically a joke next to 9th level spells. mountain tombstone strike deals 2d6 CON damage, which will usually fail to kill a regular human. wail of the banshee is an AoE save-or-die. mountain tombstone strike should have turned your whole hit into CON damage or something.

Tome of Battle doesn't really do anything to solve 2. You could totally imagine solutions to 2 that worked within the context of Tome of Battle. You could have a Stone Dragon strike that made a wall of stone effect or a Shadow Hand stance that let you control zombies, but the book doesn't actually do that.

There's also the issue that Tome of Battle simply has less stuff than casters do, but I'm not as convinced as most people here seem to be that versatility is as valuable as power.

No one's arguing that. My point is that I don't think warriors and skill specialists can be made relevant in 3e as it is without giving them discrete abilities that function a lot like spells. That's how the magic system and skill system are built, with the former trumping the latter more often than not.

That said, it's true ToB doesn't do much in terms of non-combat utility. I'm not sure if it could have done that without swelling the book's size, though.

Also, trying to match the power and versatility of the core spellcasting classes is a fool's errand and would turn the game into a rather silly rocket tag (more than it already is). The level ToB is aiming at, where non-magical classes can feel relevant and competent, is a much more realistic goal.

Doctor Despair

2017-01-31, 05:27 PM

That's how I see an NPC progressing in life - retraining into useful classes rather than multiclassing up. "Commoner 1/Warrior 1" would be an inane combination of classes, but a Commoner 1 getting through basic training becomes a Warrior 1, then graduates to a Fighter 1 once he has gained experience in battle, and perhaps Warblade 1+ if he's going to be a level-having sort of fellow.

I like that idea, since many guards would only be training in the barracks and would very, very rarely see real combat, so XP gain might be small or nonexistent.

Particle_Man

2017-01-31, 06:27 PM

I had heard that someone did quite well with combining the abilities of Soulborn and the psionic Soul Knife into one class. Maybe that can save them both. I mean, flavour wise they both have something going for them.

I did also have in the back of my mind an idea of a CE soulborn sitting in a room, surrounded by frustrated shadows trying (and failing) to damage his strength score. :smallsmile:

I also had thought that being immune to fatigue would have some uses for a LE soulborn/barbarian, if only one could overcome the alignment restrictions (barbarian can be lawful and use rage, LE soulborn is, well, LE).

Getting back to the OP, I should say that my favourite class is crusader (so at least I am not one of the Iron Heart Surge legion). I like its particular randomly granted maneuvers mechanic (I used cards for those when playing one)

Cosi

2017-02-01, 01:43 PM

Well, it's not as if it does nothing. It doesn't do as much as it could but like, getting to ignore any hardness (Mountain Hammer), getting Scent (Hunter's Sense) for e.g. tracking, giving bonuses vs. Fear (Bolstering Voice), Leaping Dragon Stance/Balancing in the Air, etc. There are things offer some limited out-of-combat utility over a non-ToB martial. Certainly nowhere near as much as spells though.

It's not like pre-ToB classes got literally nothing though. They had like, animal companions and lay on hands. Basically the only thing ToB brought that pushed the top end of martial utility abilities was balancing in the air, which is a 5th level caster ability you get at 15th. That's a thing, but it's not super impressive.

No one's arguing that. My point is that I don't think warriors and skill specialists can be made relevant in 3e as it is without giving them discrete abilities that function a lot like spells. That's how the magic system and skill system are built, with the former trumping the latter more often than not.

It depends on what you mean by "like spells". Are maneuvers "like spells" because they come from a bunch of schools and there are nine levels of them, or are they not "like spells" because they don't have daily limits and can't be countered? Obviously, any abilities you give martials that are good are going to be "like spells" in one respect (they are good), but I don't know what you really mean.

That said, it's true ToB doesn't do much in terms of non-combat utility. I'm not sure if it could have done that without swelling the book's size, though.

Maneuvers are super wordy. Take, for example, Burning Brand:

BURNING BRAND
Desert Wind (Boost) [Fire]
Level: Swordsage 2
Initiation Action: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: End of turn
Your weapon transforms into a roaring gout
of fl ame. As you swing your burning blade,
it stretches out beyond your normal reach
to scorch your foes.
When you initiate this maneuver, your
weapon turns into a burning brand
for the rest of your turn. The brand
increases your reach by 5 feet, and your
melee attacks made with the brand deal
fi re damage equal to your normal melee
damage. You still gain all the normal
benefi ts from a high Strength score,
feats, and other effects that increase
your melee damage. For example, an
attack with a longsword that normally
deals 1d8+4 points of slashing damage
would instead deal 1d8+4 points of fi re
damage. You otherwise attack with
your weapon as normal.
This maneuver is a supernatural
ability.

You could easily cut that down a bunch. The level and the discipline can be merged into one line, all the stuff that is the default for a boost can be ignored for the "boost" tag, and the text can drop the example. Compare:

Burning Brand
Desert Wind 2 (Boost) [Fire]
Duration: 1 Round

Your weapon stretches into
an elongated whip of fire.

Your reach increases by 5ft, and
your melee attacks deal fire
damage instead of whatever
damage they would normally deal.

That's maybe a third to a half as long, and has all the same information. Do that for all the maneuvers, and you can add four new schools, plus some new maneuvers that animate your shadow or whatever.

Trim the fat from the rest of the book and you can do even more.

Also, trying to match the power and versatility of the core spellcasting classes is a fool's errand and would turn the game into a rather silly rocket tag (more than it already is). The level ToB is aiming at, where non-magical classes can feel relevant and competent, is a much more realistic goal.

If some people are going to be allowed to play Rocket Launcher Tag, I don't see how excluding other people from it would help the game.

That's how I see an NPC progressing in life - retraining into useful classes rather than multiclassing up. "Commoner 1/Warrior 1" would be an inane combination of classes, but a Commoner 1 getting through basic training becomes a Warrior 1, then graduates to a Fighter 1 once he has gained experience in battle, and perhaps Warblade 1+ if he's going to be a level-having sort of fellow.

IMHO, there should just not be a Commoner class. If you don't have any skills or training worth noting, you can live with a Humanoid hit die instead of a class level. If you get trained as a warrior, you can trade in your hit die for a Warrior level (or a Fighter or Warblade level if it's good training). Ditto with Expert for skills and Adept for magic.

Particle_Man

2017-02-01, 01:57 PM

If some people are going to be allowed to play Rocket Launcher Tag, I don't see how excluding other people from it would help the game.

Well there is a whole discussion about Tiers and the like. Not everyone plays at the Tier 1 level, so there is room for people that like Martials at lower Tiers (but not the lowest Tiers).

Particle_Man

2017-02-01, 02:02 PM

Troacctid

2017-02-01, 02:29 PM

Yeah, that's tricky. The issue is that most methods of eliminating the fact of your eventual death have both being dead and being immortal as outcomes. The easy fix, I think, is, "I'm ending the condition of not being immortal." A more complicated one would be, "I'm ending the condition of my death occurring some point after five minutes before my conception." Any start point between your conception and now could theoretically retroactively kill you, but dying before you're conceived is probably not a thing. I dunno on the second one. Feels like there's too much in the general form to exploit. The first one seems more rock solid though. There's a way to do this in an unambiguous way, I haveta think. It always just comes down to the semantic construction of it.
Now you're talking about instantaneous effects. Iron Heart Surge can't do anything against anything that doesn't have a duration.

Fair. In that case, we can say that death is the condition, just not your condition, and it's affecting you through the medium of sadness.
Iron Heart Surge doesn't end the source of the condition affecting you. It ends the condition affecting you. Which in this case is sadness. By analogy, anyway, since sadness isn't a real condition. A better example is a creature with light blindness who is dazzled by bright light. Iron Heart Surge ends the duration early and removes the dazzled condition. It doesn't extinguish the light source.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 02:36 PM

Now you're talking about instantaneous effects. Iron Heart Surge can't do anything against anything that doesn't have a duration.
You're under the condition of not being immortal from your birth, because that's the point where there's a you for that condition to be on, until your death, because that's the point after which you can't really die. That stretch of time represents a duration.

Iron Heart Surge doesn't end the source of the condition affecting you. It ends the condition affecting you. Which in this case is sadness. By analogy, anyway, since sadness isn't a real condition. A better example is a creature with light blindness who is dazzled by bright light. Iron Heart Surge ends the duration early and removes the dazzled condition. It doesn't extinguish the light source.
It says you select a condition. I select the death that is on this creature. It's a condition, more clearly so than most, actually, and it's affecting me, because I'm sad. This might be one of the clearer cut ones I've seen, really.

Troacctid

2017-02-01, 03:04 PM

You're under the condition of not being immortal from your birth, because that's the point where there's a you for that condition to be on, until your death, because that's the point after which you can't really die. That stretch of time represents a duration.
That's not really how durations work in 3.5e. Instantaneous effects are a thing. And you're also assuming the absence of a condition is a condition, which is kind of like saying barefoot is a type of shoe.

It says you select a condition. I select the death that is on this creature. It's a condition, more clearly so than most, actually, and it's affecting me, because I'm sad. This might be one of the clearer cut ones I've seen, really.
If you were affected by the condition, you'd be dead. The rules are quite clear on that point. You can't be affected by the Dead condition without the condition actually being applied to you.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 03:19 PM

That's not really how durations work in 3.5e. Instantaneous effects are a thing. And you're also assuming the absence of a condition is a condition, which is kind of like saying barefoot is a type of shoe.
It's not how durations work in a spell sense, but things that aren't spells have durations in a real sense. And while barefoot is definitionally not a sort of shoe, a lack of immortality is not definitionally not a condition.

If you were affected by the condition, you'd be dead. The rules are quite clear on that point. You can't be affected by the Dead condition without the condition actually being applied to you.
How are the rules clear on that point? Condition isn't even really a well defined rules object, so having this one quality of a condition defined seems odd.

Cosi

2017-02-01, 03:20 PM

Well there is a whole discussion about Tiers and the like. Not everyone plays at the Tier 1 level, so there is room for people that like Martials at lower Tiers (but not the lowest Tiers).

If you want different play paradigms, use different levels for them. Otherwise you end up with either a bunch of redundant work (e.g. having both Paladins and Crusaders) or some concepts not covered (e.g. the lack of a Fighter type on par with full casters).

Troacctid

2017-02-01, 05:43 PM

How are the rules clear on that point? Condition isn't even really a well defined rules object, so having this one quality of a condition defined seems odd.
Conditions that affect you are applied to you. (RC 34.) So if you are affected by the dead condition, it is applied to you.

RC 34–35 also lists all the conditions.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 05:56 PM

Conditions that affect you are applied to you. (RC 34.) So if you are affected by the dead condition, it is applied to you.

RC 34–35 also lists all the conditions.
That really doesn't serve as a broad definition for what the conditions are, or how they operate, though. More critically, it's not a definition for what conditions are in the context of iron heart surge. After all, IHS asks that you, "Select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you." This means that spells are themselves conditions, while the use of that list would exclude those explicit conditions. While "dead" is a condition in these explicit list terms, we can also easily consider it in the broader context of "IHS conditions", where there exists no such rule governing their use.

Arbane

2017-02-01, 06:20 PM

More to the point, I like my mundanes mundane, with no supernatural fire attacks, extraordinary teleportation, extraordinary dispelling, extraordinary throwing twenty pounds of hammer through six people and having it return to your hand because apparently now you're freaking THOR or something.

How about 'no extraordinary not dying when you fall off a cliff'? Because high-level D&D fighty-types are not going to be overly-bothered by that, and it's every bit as physics-breaking as most ToB stuff.

[color=white]And nobody's forcing you to use it, if you'd rather fighters suck the way God and Gygax intended.[/white]

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-01, 06:26 PM

Which reminds me of another point in favour of ToB; ToB is the only scaling system aside from Ardent where multiclassing actually functions reasonably without PRCs in the whole 3.5. Which is kinda cool since 3.5 is essentially built around multiclassing and being locked into Theurge-classes if you want two types of casting or whatever is kinda lame and diminishes your options.
Magic of Incarnum does that too. Even better, really-- two or three levels and a feat or two will last you your whole career.

Now you are making me wonder about a campaign that only has crusaders, incarnates, swordsages, totemists and warblades as base character classes. I'd have liked to include soulborns, but, well . . . :smallsmile:
Throw in Binders, Warlocks, and Dragonfire Adepts and you've got a deal.

Just throwing this out there; simplicity isn't always a bad thing...
Eh, you still have to deal with a full "spell" list and shuffling essentia around and all that junk.

It's not like pre-ToB classes got literally nothing though. They had like, animal companions and lay on hands. Basically the only thing ToB brought that pushed the top end of martial utility abilities was balancing in the air, which is a 5th level caster ability you get at 15th. That's a thing, but it's not super impressive.
The biggest things that ToB brought to the table were variety and floor. Initiators have more options at any one point in a fight than any other sort of non-caster, and they function at a high level of competence without needing excessive optimization chops. That's also sort of the problem with

If some people are going to be allowed to play Rocket Launcher Tag, I don't see how excluding other people from it would help the game.
by the way; if you really published a book that tried, in one discrete unit, to give martial classes high-tier Wizard level powers, people would scream "overpowered" to the high heavens. ToB was bad enough. If you wanted to do that, you'd have to do it sneakily, by hiding the exploits behind feat/spell/book-diving combos-- make it so you could optimize into overpoweredness, but doing so required a similar amount of effort to doing so with spells.

IMHO, there should just not be a Commoner class. If you don't have any skills or training worth noting, you can live with a Humanoid hit die instead of a class level. If you get trained as a warrior, you can trade in your hit die for a Warrior level (or a Fighter or Warblade level if it's good training). Ditto with Expert for skills and Adept for magic.
Agreed here.

Arbane

2017-02-01, 06:34 PM

by the way; if you really published a book that tried, in one discrete unit, to give martial classes high-tier Wizard level powers, people would scream "overpowered" to the high heavens. ToB was bad enough. If you wanted to do that, you'd have to do it sneakily, by hiding the exploits behind feat/spell/book-diving combos-- make it so you could optimize into overpoweredness, but doing so required a similar amount of effort to doing so with spells.

I'm having a really hard time trying to imagine fighty-type abilities as ridiculously overpowered as, say, level 6 spells beyond 'hit a lot of dudes at once' or 'hit a dude so hard they just die'.

Strigon

2017-02-01, 06:35 PM

How about 'no extraordinary not dying when you fall off a cliff'? Because high-level D&D fighty-types are not going to be overly-bothered by that, and it's every bit as physics-breaking as most ToB stuff.

[color=white]And nobody's forcing you to use it, if you'd rather fighters suck the way God and Gygax intended.[/white]

See, there's a significant difference between having someone be very tough, and having someone perform (not)magic. Having someone punch through stone walls a foot thick, or wrestle a dragon, or go swimming in lava, are all things humans can normally do, just turned up to 11. Conversely, nobody can give do anything remotely like teleporting, or casting fireballs.
Now, if you're fine with mundanes doing that, that's fine. But don't pretend it's the same thing as being very tough - it just isn't.

Jormengand

2017-02-01, 07:00 PM

How about 'no extraordinary not dying when you fall off a cliff'? Because high-level D&D fighty-types are not going to be overly-bothered by that, and it's every bit as physics-breaking as most ToB stuff.

Real people survive high-altitude falls anyway some of the time. Also, there is a difference between suspending your disbelief to allow people to survive unlikely falls, and hanging your disbelief by the neck until dead by allowing them to freaking teleport.

Cosi

2017-02-01, 07:34 PM

The biggest things that ToB brought to the table were variety and floor. Initiators have more options at any one point in a fight than any other sort of non-caster, and they function at a high level of competence without needing excessive optimization chops.

I think you missed the thread of the conversation there. That post was discussing specifically non-combat abilities, which ToB provides a pretty marginal improvement to.

by the way; if you really published a book that tried, in one discrete unit, to give martial classes high-tier Wizard level powers, people would scream "overpowered" to the high heavens. ToB was bad enough.

I think there's a contradiction here. If doing anything at all already looses the "Fighters have to suck" people, why bother to appease those people at all? How many people would have rejected a version of ToB with an 8th level Shadow Hand stance that let you animate your shadow as a simulacrum of yourself, but accepted ToB as it appeared?

If you wanted to do that, you'd have to do it sneakily, by hiding the exploits behind feat/spell/book-diving combos-- make it so you could optimize into overpoweredness, but doing so required a similar amount of effort to doing so with spells.

That seems way more likely to result in the game breaking into tiny pieces or not do anything at all. I do not trust anyone (let alone D&D designers) to make "voltron things from half a dozen books together" work as a way of getting a character to any particular power level. That's just begging for something to get changed last minute and make the whole system either useless or broken.

See, there's a significant difference between having someone be very tough, and having someone perform (not)magic. Having someone punch through stone walls a foot thick, or wrestle a dragon, or go swimming in lava, are all things humans can normally do, just turned up to 11. Conversely, nobody can give do anything remotely like teleporting, or casting fireballs.
Now, if you're fine with mundanes doing that, that's fine. But don't pretend it's the same thing as being very tough - it just isn't.

I can create heat and force. Certainly not at anywhere near the levels needed to create a fireball, but I can totally do that. Scaling those abilities up to the level of fireball doesn't strike me as any more impossible that scaling my strength and bone density up high enough that I can punch through solid stone walls.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-01, 07:51 PM

Eh, you still have to deal with a full "spell" list and shuffling essentia around and all that junk.

The full list fit in a handy, 1-page table that largely describes how a soulborn will be using his soulmelds and he gets far fewer per day than his compatriot classes. It's not as simple as, say, a barbarian but it's definitely simpler than an incarnate or totemist.

Hell, maybe I just have a thing for underpowered classes. I like the fighter, monk, soulknife, and hexblade too. :smalltongue:

Doctor Awkward

2017-02-01, 08:01 PM

That really doesn't serve as a broad definition for what the conditions are, or how they operate, though. More critically, it's not a definition for what conditions are in the context of iron heart surge. After all, IHS asks that you, "Select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you." This means that spells are themselves conditions, while the use of that list would exclude those explicit conditions. While "dead" is a condition in these explicit list terms, we can also easily consider it in the broader context of "IHS conditions", where there exists no such rule governing their use.

Since Iron Heart Surge explicitly only functions on "conditions" that have a duration of 1 round or longer, does it not follow that it doesn't function on anything that does not explicitly have a duration specified somewhere?

I mean, if you want to be rules pedantic, at least go all the way.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 08:11 PM

Since Iron Heart Surge explicitly only functions on "conditions" that have a duration of 1 round or longer, does it not follow that it doesn't function on anything that does not explicitly have a duration specified somewhere?

I mean, if you want to be rules pedantic, at least go all the way.
The text doesn't specify that the duration must be explicitly listed. Only that it, y'know, exists. Duration is mostly just defined with regards to spells anyway, as I recall, and IHS is definitely not spell specific any more than it is this list of conditions over here specific.

Edit: For example, frightful presence on true dragons says it does its thing for 4d6 rounds, but it never specifically calls that out as a duration, despite the fact that we're working with extra unambiguous conditions here. And, if we don't have something explicitly called out as a duration, I don't know why it'd be more meaningful than a time limit applied by reality in general.

tedcahill2

2017-02-01, 08:14 PM

martixy

2017-02-01, 08:43 PM

So I've heard a number of you say that the ToB classes start stronger than other base classes. How quickly do they level off? I'm working on ideas for an E6 campaign and was thinking of getting rid of most fighter types, except ToB classes. How to they fair against casters at level 6? Pretty evenly?

Quite good I would imagine. They've received most of their core abilities by this point and have a fair selection of maneuvers and 2 tiers of stances to choose from. Most of the mainstay maneuvers are available - Iron Heart surge, Thicket of blades, mountain hammer, white raven tactics, shadow jaunt, blood in the water, moment of perfect mind, etc.

And judging by the amount of people gushing over the book, you'd say it was the 4th core rulebook, lowered from the heavens by Gygax himself. To be fair, it actually is that good.

In my experience, the only ones who have banned ToB is DMs with some vague notion of "core only" balance. Usually the same people who hatchet psionics as well.

Flickerdart

2017-02-01, 08:51 PM

So I've heard a number of you say that the ToB classes start stronger than other base classes. How quickly do they level off? I'm working on ideas for an E6 campaign and was thinking of getting rid of most fighter types, except ToB classes. How to they fair against casters at level 6? Pretty evenly?
By level 6, a conventional melee type has probably assembled their first combo (think Ubercharge or Dungeoncrash fighter, or Barbarian/Swift Hunter), so they're going to outdo a Tome of Battle character when it comes to straight-up damage. They can also start picking up Martial Study/Martial Stance and get some of the versatility that a ToB character brings to the table.

On the other hand, feats are feats, and your warblade of crusader can assemble the ubercharge package just as easily as the fighter, only it will take longer.

And judging by the amount of people gushing over the book, you'd say it was the 4th core rulebook, lowered from the heavens by Gygax himself. To be fair, it actually is that good.

The ToB is probably the opposite of anything Gygax would have written. You forget exactly how spiteful and antagonistic of a DM that guy was. Warriors getting high-level appropriate abilities was not in the cards - their superpower was having hit points at level 1, and "swings a sword all day".

Doctor Awkward

2017-02-01, 09:02 PM

The text doesn't specify that the duration must be explicitly listed. Only that it, y'know, exists. Duration is mostly just defined with regards to spells anyway, as I recall, and IHS is definitely not spell specific any more than it is this list of conditions over here specific.

Edit: For example, frightful presence on true dragons says it does its thing for 4d6 rounds, but it never specifically calls that out as a duration, despite the fact that we're working with extra unambiguous conditions here. And, if we don't have something explicitly called out as a duration, I don't know why it'd be more meaningful than a time limit applied by reality in general.

Remember, this argument currently has nothing to do with reality or common sense. It has to do with the rules as written. Iron Heart Surge functions only on things that are affecting you and have a defined duration of 1 or more rounds somewhere in their description. You can't simply infer the existence of something that is not explicitly listed. That's not how the rules work. If it has no listed duration, then you can't Surge it away.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-01, 09:12 PM

So I've heard a number of you say that the ToB classes start stronger than other base classes. How quickly do they level off? I'm working on ideas for an E6 campaign and was thinking of getting rid of most fighter types, except ToB classes. How to they fair against casters at level 6? Pretty evenly?

Certainly by level 6, as Flickerdart has noted, but it varies by class a little. For all that people -love- to crap on it, a fighter will bounce back and forth until you hit the point where you don't know what to next do with a fighter. A barbarian stands right next to them if you know just a couple ACF's. Most of the rest of the pure martial classes don't match up 'till 6 and beyond. The partial casters (ranger, paladin, and hexblade) lag until 4 and then surge ahead because spells are just that damn good.

For E6, you might want to steer your players away from centering around swashbuckler, either version of samurai, knight, etc but otherwise I doubt it'll be a problem.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 09:19 PM

Remember, this argument currently has nothing to do with reality or common sense. It has to do with the rules as written. Iron Heart Surge functions only on things that are affecting you and have a defined duration of 1 or more rounds somewhere in their description. You can't simply infer the existence of something that is not explicitly listed. That's not how the rules work. If it has no listed duration, then you can't Surge it away.
Exactly. It only has to do with the rules as written. And the rules as written say nothing about a defined or listed or explicit duration. It just says duration. And as duration is not a game defined term (for anything besides spells specifically), we, as is so often the case with IHS, default to standard English. Which allows in just about anything. You can't just infer the existence of this extra text that clearly defines duration, in this or a broader sense, within the ability we're working with.

Edit: I don't even think the spell thing tries to define duration. It just defines what the duration entry thing means in the context of spells, from what I can tell.

Psyren

2017-02-01, 09:25 PM

Doctor Awkward

2017-02-01, 09:50 PM

Exactly. It only has to do with the rules as written. And the rules as written say nothing about a defined or listed or explicit duration. It just says duration. And as duration is not a game defined term (for anything besides spells specifically), we, as is so often the case with IHS, default to standard English. Which allows in just about anything. You can't just infer the existence of this extra text that clearly defines duration, in this or a broader sense, within the ability we're working with.

Edit: I don't even think the spell thing tries to define duration. It just defines what the duration entry thing means in the context of spells, from what I can tell.

Duration most certainly is a defined game term. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)

And the Iron Heart Surge ability itself contextually defines "duration" for the purposes of the maneuver: a spell, effect or other condition lasts 1 or more rounds.

-Anything that is the result of a spell will always list a duration in the spell's description, be it rounds, minutes, or permanent. All of these (except instantaneous) are 1 or more rounds.
-Negative levels last 24 hours until you have to roll to see if they become permanent. 24 hours is 14,400 rounds, which is 1 or more.

If a thing is affecting you that you wish to end, but it does specify a duration of 1 or more rounds, then it does not fall under the purview of Iron Heart Surge.

eggynack

2017-02-01, 09:57 PM

Duration most certainly is a defined game term. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)
That's what I was referring to. And it's kinda meaningless. All this text tells you is what it means when a spell entry has the word duration in it, followed by some information. We're not dealing with, "A spell's duration," or at least not when it comes to the non-spell aspects, so it's irrelevant text here.

And the Iron Heart Surge ability itself contextually defines "duration" for the purposes of the maneuver: a spell, effect or other condition lasts 1 or more rounds.
Okay, cool. My lack of immortality lasts one or more rounds, so it fits into that contextual definition.

-Anything that is the result of a spell will always list a duration in the spell's description, be it rounds, minutes, or permanent. All of these (except instantaneous) are 1 or more rounds.
Sure.

-Negative levels last 24 hours until you have to roll to see if they become permanent. 24 hours is 14,400 rounds, which is 1 or more.
That also works, sure.

If a thing is affecting you that you wish to end, but it does specify a duration of 1 or more rounds, then it does not fall under the purview of Iron Heart Surge.
Not true. You are, again, making up text. Nothing anywhere says that anything in the effect, condition, or spell needs to specify a duration of one or more rounds. The only requirement on the duration is that it needs to exist. It doesn't have to be stated anywhere.

Jopustopin

2017-02-01, 10:11 PM

And judging by the amount of people gushing over the book, you'd say it was the 4th core rulebook, lowered from the heavens by Gygax himself.

Pretty much my signature in a quote.

Doctor Awkward

2017-02-01, 10:25 PM

Not true. You are, again, making up text. Nothing anywhere says that anything in the effect, condition, or spell needs to specify a duration of one or more rounds. The only requirement on the duration is that it needs to exist. It doesn't have to be stated anywhere.

It's right there in the plain text of the Iron Heart Surge maneuver.

When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.

If the thing you select does not specify a duration of 1 or more rounds, then it is ineligible for Iron Heart Surge. It is you, my good sir, who are inferring that if a thing exists then must have a duration, and extending this to include abstract concepts. The rules don't work that way. If something has a duration of 1 or more rounds, it will be listed somewhere in the description. If it is not listed, then it does not have a duration.

...No, of course it doesn't make any logical sense. This isn't about making sense. I am simply using the same level of rules pedantry that must be applied in order to argue that "mortality" is a condition that can be ended. I could make the same argument to say that "The world exists in a state of injustice, and I directly suffer because of it. Therefore, I will use Iron Heart Surge to end all injustice, and bring about eternal world peace."

eggynack

2017-02-01, 10:35 PM

It's right there in the plain text of the Iron Heart Surge maneuver.

If the thing you select does not specify a duration of 1 or more rounds, then it is ineligible for Iron Heart Surge. It is you, my good sir, who are inferring that if a thing exists then must have a duration, and extending this to include abstract concepts. The rules don't work that way. If something has a duration of 1 or more rounds, it will be listed somewhere in the description. If it is not listed, then it does not have a duration.

...No, of course it doesn't make any logical sense. This isn't about making sense. I am simply using the same level of rules pedantry that must be applied in order to argue that "mortality" is a condition that can be ended. I could make the same argument to say that "The world exists in a state of injustice, and I directly suffer because of it. Therefore, I will use Iron Heart Surge to end all injustice, and bring about eternal world peace."
I don't see where the rules say they work that way, that the only qualities a thing can have are those explicitly listed in the description. The reality is, this is not a game defined term in this context, which means we must use the English definition of the term (because what definition would we use otherwise?), which means that all a thing needs to do in order to have that quality is fit that term definition. I think you've pedantic'd your way past how the rules of the game actually operate here.

Arbane

2017-02-01, 11:03 PM

To be fair, he also gave them Leadership as a class feature and nearly unbeatable saving throws. It wasn't much but it was something.

Also a LOT of magic swords in the random treasure tables (not useful for anyone but fighters) and better bonuses from high strength and constitution than any other class.

Strigon

2017-02-01, 11:24 PM

I can create heat and force. Certainly not at anywhere near the levels needed to create a fireball, but I can totally do that. Scaling those abilities up to the level of fireball doesn't strike me as any more impossible that scaling my strength and bone density up high enough that I can punch through solid stone walls.

But you can't control them, much less direct them.
You have the ability to punch through things. If we scale that up directly, you can punch through tougher things.
You have the ability to survive a fall without dying. If we scale that up directly, you can survive higher drops.
Now, I don't know about you personally, but most humans cannot heat up a spot 20 feet away directly. Scaling that up, you cannot create a fireball.
Likewise, you cannot teleport even a micrometer. Scaling that up, you still cannot teleport 30 feet.

The very, very best you could say is that you radiate heat, so scaling that up could be made to say you cause fireball-like damage centred around yourself. But in truth, even that isn't the same thing, because while humans can work to become tougher and stronger, they can't work to increase their resting core body temperature.

Doctor Awkward

2017-02-01, 11:50 PM

I don't see where the rules say they work that way, that the only qualities a thing can have are those explicitly listed in the description. The reality is, this is not a game defined term in this context, which means we must use the English definition of the term (because what definition would we use otherwise?), which means that all a thing needs to do in order to have that quality is fit that term definition. I think you've pedantic'd your way past how the rules of the game actually operate here.

Rules Compendium pg 5, "A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity... An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific)."

More to the point, D&D 3.5 is an exception-based rules system. The rules define a set of general truths, and exceptions to them are pointed out as needed. It's the reason a human doesn't have 157 arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say he doesn't. They were structured in such a way as to tell you what is, not what isn't.

The only time this isn't the case is under DM Adjudication:
"It’s not always true, but you often can do or at least try something the rules fail to directly forbid, as long as the DM thinks doing so is reasonable."

When dealing strictly with RAW, you do not have a DM. And all you have to go by are the printed rules. And as is nearly always the case, the rules will tell you if a given thing exists. If they don't, then it doesn't.

eggynack

2017-02-02, 12:08 AM

Rules Compendium pg 5, "A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity... An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific)."

More to the point, D&D 3.5 is an exception-based rules system. The rules define a set of general truths, and exceptions to them are pointed out as needed. It's the reason a human doesn't have 157 arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say he doesn't. They were structured in such a way as to tell you what is, not what isn't.

The only time this isn't the case is under DM Adjudication:
"It’s not always true, but you often can do or at least try something the rules fail to directly forbid, as long as the DM thinks doing so is reasonable."

When dealing strictly with RAW, you do not have a DM. And all you have to go by are the printed rules. And as is nearly always the case, the rules will tell you if a given thing exists. If they don't, then it doesn't.
But we do have printed rules here. We know that certain things in the game world have duration, by the English defined and thus game defined meaning, because they are stated to end or otherwise must end. So, for example, there is no duration line in the race human. However, we can see, perfectly within the rules, that they have a lifespan, and this lifespan fits the game's definition of duration, so perfectly by the rules the human's life has a duration, one that can be ended by iron heart surge (by identifying your life as a condition).

Other things require more thought, but they follow from what is defined in the game combined with formal logic. The game states that, unless stated otherwise, that the general physical laws of our world carry through into the prime material unless stated otherwise (not in the mood to find my citation on that, but I think it's a planar thing). Thus, we can identify first that the planet you're on must go around some variety of star, or other heat source, such that it can sustain life, all from the rules as they exist. We also know, again from the physical laws as they exist in our world, that said star will eventually reach some terminal state where it has run out of energy. Thus, we can identify that the star will end, so going by our established duration rule, we know the star has duration. And it ain't ending in five seconds, so we know said duration is one or more rounds. So, if we can establish it as a condition, we can iron heart surge it.

All of this is the rules as they exist in text, and the logical implications of those rules. The combination of those two creates the formal no DM textual reading that we call RAW. The rules dictate that things without explicit duration can still have implicit duration, because the rules don't define explicit duration in a general sense, which means we use the standard language definition, and by that definition implicit durations exist. It's as simple as that. Citing the fact that rules exist within the game and are used by the game does not spontaneously erase logic.

Agrippa

2017-02-02, 12:43 AM

The ToB is probably the opposite of anything Gygax would have written. You forget exactly how spiteful and antagonistic of a DM that guy was. Warriors getting high-level appropriate abilities was not in the cards - their superpower was having hit points at level 1, and "swings a sword all day".

That and the ability to make an attack against a number of weak enemies (read as enemies with 1d8-1 or fewer hit points) equal to your fighter level every round, in addition to your normal attack allotment. That's not really much when you think about it. To try to be fair, Gygax never really thought much about giving anyone appropriate high-level abilities. He didn't expect many people to want to go beyond 9th or 10th level, so 11th level and up were really just after thoughts. 6th level spells and up alone are proof of this. Especially pre-3rd edition.

Telok

2017-02-02, 12:47 AM

Also a LOT of magic swords in the random treasure tables (not useful for anyone but fighters) and better bonuses from high strength and constitution than any other class.

True, 76 - 86 was swords and 87 - 00 was other weapons. Plus they could use all the weapons pretty well and hp inflation wasn't anywhere near as bad (famously Lolth has 16 HD which equals 66 hp).

Efrate

2017-02-02, 01:05 AM

Just randomly, doesn't MoP have something about objective directional gravity that changes every few rounds on certain planes? So you could IHS that.

On topic ToB is great. IHS, WRT, and RKV have many issues with abuse and such, but in general the consensuses (since there are 2 I think) are

1. Martials get nice things! Neat!

2. Weeabo fighting magic is bad! Martials cannot get nice things! (I blame the text for using the term "Blade magic" for a decent bit of this.)

You want martials to have nice things? Use ToB.

You want to maintain that only tier 1/2/maybe 3 classes get to do pretty much anything outside of combat, or in combat in a way that isn't move basic attack end, or requires a ton of feats and prereqs or carries a pretty stiff penalty? Leave it alone, along with most other stuff, just run core only so there are only a few classes that get to do anything most of the time. Pretend that fighter and monk have any relevance outside of bags of HP in front of your casters, which your caster can summon better bags that are equally disposable.

No I'm not biased.

Necroticplague

2017-02-02, 06:22 AM

(I blame the text for using the term "Blade magic" for a decent bit of this.)

I always considered a fairly odd choice of name, especially considering the chapter named that literally has "Many of the maneuvers of the various martial discilplines aren't magic at all...." as literally the second sentence in that chapter.

Elkad

2017-02-02, 07:51 AM

To be fair, he also gave them Leadership as a class feature and nearly unbeatable saving throws. It wasn't much but it was something.

And an XP table that was 2/3rds the cost of a M-U(Wizard), and half the cost of a Druid.

Morphic tide

2017-02-02, 08:16 AM

And an XP table that was 2/3rds the cost of a M-U(Wizard), and half the cost of a Druid.

... 1st edition had variable XP for level up?

Eldariel

2017-02-02, 09:00 AM

... 1st edition had variable XP for level up?

Even AD&D 2e has different leveling speeds for different classes. Standardized levels are a 3.X invention (obviously required for 3e style multiclassing).

J-H

2017-02-02, 09:31 AM

Yes, and as long as you're not really supporting multi-classing much it works well! Part of the issue with D&D 3.5 is that a 15th level mundane fighter, rogue, ranger, etc. doesn't compare well to a 15th-level wizard with 8th level spells or a 15th-level druid shapeshifted into a Dire Crocodile while spellcasting. With variable XP, you're instead comparing an 18th level rogue, a 15th level fighter, a 11th-level wizard, and a 10th-level druid. (these are not exact numbers)

If you want supreme magical power, your 9th level spells (wizard) or 7ths (cleric/druid) come online at around 3 million XP, and the fighters and rogues are still a half dozen levels ahead.

The spellcasters still have some advantages, but the rogue and fighter will have a substantial relative boost on their saves, skill point distribution, HP, etc.
I'd have to DM it out to be sure, and optimization would be part of it, but "18th level rogue vs 10th level druid" is probably a pretty fair fight with equal WBL.

eggynack

2017-02-02, 09:50 AM

Yes, and as long as you're not really supporting multi-classing much it works well!
I dunno that I strictly buy the first part of this. We're taking as given that we know the power level of classes well enough that we can properly assign an XP progression, right? And this XP progression is typically some straightforward multiplier applied to the best XP progression, which is on the worst class. So, just have some baseline XP progression chart, which specifically operates on the difference from level to level rather than on absolute XP totals, and give each class that aforementioned fractional multiplier that determines how long it takes them to complete a level. The penalty for taking on a class is on the back end, so there's a bit of up front imbalance, but that should even itself out well enough, and you can always have players determine their next class on each level up to change where the XP cost goes.

Repeated dipping could theoretically be a balance issue, but we know that in this system at least such dipping is generally reserved to lower tier classes anyway. And there's always ways to discourage dipping if you really want to. Making each class, or certain classes, have a higher multiplier on the first level, for example. Better solution would be just making classes not super front loaded. I mean, our stated goal would be supporting multi-classing, so it shouldn't be disincentivized, but there's no reason continuing in a single class shouldn't be simultaneously incentivized through cool higher level class features.

Only real problem is prestige classes, because we all know how hard those classes are to evaluate in terms of power level. I think there are plausible workarounds, but the fact that prestige classes have variable utility makes it tricky as hell. And prestige classes should have variable utility. It's good that they're not just locked to one class, or given purely universal benefits, in all cases. One thing I'm thinking is that some prestige classes would have their own unique multipliers, for cases where you're getting a largely independent progression (just about any class with its own casting), and others would have multipliers that act on the existing multiplier (classes that progress casting). Other than that, pegging the prestige classes to their relatively high end uses seems like the way to go.

So, yeah, seems workable. Not sure if it's a system I actually like, but it seems to operate pretty sensibly, and it's an alright balancing system. There are so many PrC's though. Maybe if we can settle on a better and more comprehensive tier system for those, it could work out. The +2 tier thing is so weird when a lot of those classes are meant for tier one casters. We forum folk should probably get around to that at some point anyway.

Flickerdart

2017-02-02, 11:07 AM

Or you can just give the classes that would normally get quick XP progression more stuff earlier. There's not a lot of difference between a fighter that levels twice as fast as a wizard, and a fighter that levels just as fast as a wizard, but gets feats and bonuses to hit, HP, saves, and skills that effectively keep him ahead.

Particle_Man

2017-02-02, 01:05 PM

The full list fit in a handy, 1-page table that largely describes how a soulborn will be using his soulmelds and he gets far fewer per day than his compatriot classes. It's not as simple as, say, a barbarian but it's definitely simpler than an incarnate or totemist.

Hell, maybe I just have a thing for underpowered classes. I like the fighter, monk, soulknife, and hexblade too. :smalltongue:

I don't see that as a problem, so long as you are in a party where the characters are all in the same tier and the DM is prepared to run the campaign at that tier.

Particle_Man

2017-02-02, 01:14 PM

I always considered a fairly odd choice of name, especially considering the chapter named that literally has "Many of the maneuvers of the various martial discilplines aren't magic at all...." as literally the second sentence in that chapter.

I believe that there was an earlier version of ToB that later got reworked into the form that we see.
Maybe this is an example of what might have been in place before it got published?

I also think that in an earlier version it was possible to "specialize" in one of the nine paths as opposed to each class selecting from a group of them (I mean, historically in the flavour text, it seems that Renshar did some travelling to learn from each of nine schools - this implies that in the past the nine schools were separate, perhaps even insular, so that a warblade might only know iron heart maneuvers.

Another thought is that there are some maneuvers associated with metals and stone (iron, stone, diamond) and some not. I wonder if in an earlier incarnation they all were associated with metal or stone? Anyhow, that is just speculation on my part.

Oh, the one thing I would not recommend from ToB is the legacy weapons. But that is because I don't recommend legacy weapons without some house ruling (at the very least take out the penalties!)

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-02, 01:24 PM

I think this thread demonstrates that there isn't really a consensus on ToB.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-02, 01:59 PM

I think this thread demonstrates that there isn't really a consensus on ToB.

Um... No?

Most of the responses have been somewhere between generally and overwhelmingly positive with only one or two dissenters. It's not unanimous (and never will be) but the consensus is a generally positive one.

The tired IHS debate is mostly just two posters. On that matter; the RAW there is inscrutably, horrifically ambiguous. Ask your DM and move on.

Zanos

2017-02-02, 02:01 PM

digiman619

2017-02-02, 02:24 PM

But is there a consensus on whether or not there's a consensus? :smalltongue:

Yeah, despite not thinking ToB is perfect, and it's far from it, I still run pretty much all my games with it included. It's a good book, it's just not The Good Book.

If you want The Good Book, you'd need Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Ages. Yes, this really exists. (http://greenroninstore.com/products/testament-roleplaying-in-the-biblical-era-pdf)

Flickerdart

2017-02-02, 02:28 PM

If you want The Good Book, you'd need Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Ages. Yes, this really exists. (http://greenroninstore.com/products/testament-roleplaying-in-the-biblical-era-pdf)

I'm glad you wrote what the title was, because that awful bevel makes it very hard to read.

eggynack

2017-02-02, 06:23 PM

The tired IHS debate is mostly just two posters.
Sure. I don't really mark the book down cause of it though, so my argument over this crazy detail doesn't detract from consensus power.

On that matter; the RAW there is inscrutably, horrifically ambiguous.
The RAW is bad, for certain. I think I've established though, over the course of dozens of pages and piles of threads, that the overall arbitrary thing destruction is a legal maneuver, even if we may disagree over how some particular instances of thing destruction operate. And a lot of that just comes down to some relatively basic semantic argument, basic compared to semantic argument lying at the core of the ability, anyway. Asking your DM remains reasonable though, as the RAW operation of the ability, while not as ambiguous as you're indicating in my opinion, is at the very least really stupid.

EisenKreutzer

2017-02-02, 06:32 PM

If you want The Good Book, you'd need Testament: Roleplaying in the Biblical Ages. Yes, this really exists. (http://greenroninstore.com/products/testament-roleplaying-in-the-biblical-era-pdf)

Is that the one where you quote scripture to cast spells?

Particle_Man

2017-02-02, 06:44 PM

Testament is a d20 game. I don't think quoting scripture is a part of casting spells.

There are some interesting community rules in it, actually.

Also, it give domains for the Judeo-Christian God. Not stats, though, so you can't have pc's going "Yeah, I totally killed God for the xp dude!"

Judge was a cool prestige class, IIRC (a lot closer to Judge Dredd than you might suppose!).

It also allows one to play other peoples besides the Israelites, like Egyptians (and there was a web expansion for Hittites).

rgrekejin

2017-02-03, 10:34 AM

Most of the responses have been somewhere between generally and overwhelmingly positive with only one or two dissenters. It's not unanimous (and never will be) but the consensus is a generally positive one.

And even among us dissenters, we generally seem to agree that it's a pretty good sourcebook and that the classes in it are interesting and deserve to exist. We just disagree about whether or not the ToB classes are a good way to represent certain character concepts.

Lormador

2017-02-03, 06:37 PM

I love ToB, and so do most of my players. It does exactly what we wanted melee to do, and it's remarkably well-balanced barring a few minor exceptions. We generally play levels 1-9 and only rarely higher than that, so I can comment on all the stuff that applies below that level.

A DM who picks up ToB to use it should first work out a clear policy on the following questions.

1) What exactly does Iron Heart Surge do? Surely it can't put out the sun, etc.

2) Do you want White Raven Tactics to be legal, and if so, should it be amended?

3) Can you use maneuvers while raging? Diamond Mind maneuvers?

#3 is usually less important, but #1 and #2 will definitely come up. Those are the best level 3 maneuvers, with pretty easy prereqs and a very splashable way to get them.

Rijan_Sai

2017-02-03, 07:02 PM

Is that the one where you quote scripture to cast spells?

That would be DragonRaid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonRaid). Actually kind of a fun game*! (Also, my introduction to the 8- and 10-sided dice!)

*Admittedly, it has been many, many years since I've played it, so my notion of "fun" may be skewed slightly nostalgic...

...
...
...
OH! On topic, the matter of the Unofficial TOB Errata came up earlier (like, in the second or third post...)
See my sig for all your Errata needs!!

Nifft

2017-02-04, 09:57 AM

I didn't really think martial characters needed a buff, but eh, I still love my weaboo fightan magic book.

One complaint I do have is that as soon as the Tome of Battle is allowed on the table, it is pretty much impossible to optimize a martial character without it.

And then you end up seeing warblades literally everywhere. That shopkeeper? A warblade. The blacksmith? A warblade.

The group of bandits you are tracking down? All warblades. The town mayor and his super attractive daughter? Both warblades.

AND EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM HAS IRON HEART SURGE. :smallsigh: Nah, they're NPCs, so they use NPC class levels.

Like Fighter.

Is that the one where you quote scripture to cast spells? Now I want to see a ToB variant where you have to quote anime to use Maneuvers.

===

But seriously, in terms of consensus, the major complaint seems to be flavor.

When I've used ToB, we were generally playing either Medieval Standard™ D&D or Eberron-inspired Renaissance-ish D&D, none of which had any anime in it (though we did have some adolescent aberrant ninja turtles at one point), and we didn't find the ToB flavor to be dissonant with any of our games.

Cosi

2017-02-04, 11:39 AM

But you can't control them, much less direct them.

I can create force at a distance by blowing on things. That doesn't heat things up, but that's just because of how the relative temperature of air in my lungs compares to the atmosphere and whatever cooling is going on from air movement.

The very, very best you could say is that you radiate heat, so scaling that up could be made to say you cause fireball-like damage centred around yourself. But in truth, even that isn't the same thing, because while humans can work to become tougher and stronger, they can't work to increase their resting core body temperature.

You can't invoke "humans can't do this." Humans can't train enough to punch through walls, even if they can train to punch harder.

Or you can just give the classes that would normally get quick XP progression more stuff earlier. There's not a lot of difference between a fighter that levels twice as fast as a wizard, and a fighter that levels just as fast as a wizard, but gets feats and bonuses to hit, HP, saves, and skills that effectively keep him ahead.

Yeah if you can figure out how to balance different XP curves, you can just balance classes for the same XP curve. Which is simpler, and allows you to eliminate XP because it causes misaligned incentives (for example, XP per encounter tells you to kill everything in the castle you are trying to sneak through).

2) Do you want White Raven Tactics to be legal, and if so, should it be amended?

Is white raven tactics doing more to win an encounter at 5th level than stinking cloud is? I mean, it scales better at 15th level than stinking cloud does, but 8th level maneuvers are kind of sucky (the 8th level Desert Wind strike deals 10d6 damage in a cone, which would have been marginal as a 5th level maneuver), so that's probably a good thing.

Rerednaw

2017-02-04, 12:54 PM

I have always allowed it in my games.
It is a slight power boost early, keeps martials viable longer, and provides for extra options for out of combat utility.

As for IHS...my general rule of thumb is: okay takes a standard so you have to be able to take an action and it removes a condition that a spell can i.e., blinded, deafened, poisoned, level loss, slowed, not things like the sun, hit point loss and so forth. Never had an issue with it after the grounds rules were laid out.

Regarding the 'muggles vs. super powered' debate. I like big darn cinematic heroes. If your idea of epic fantasy is "two guys with sticks beating on each other in the backyard" that's great, everyone has a right to have their own type of campaign. I grew up with Conan, Gor, John Carter (ERB books not the films) and I the love larger than life feel in my games. I am surrounded by mundane reality for free, for my escapism I prefer more.

Malroth

2017-02-04, 05:15 PM

It's good at medium and High levels but It's extremely overpowered below lv 5 at a low or medium op table.

Lormador

2017-02-04, 08:07 PM

@Cosi re: WRT vs. Stinking Cloud at 5th level:
WRT isn't doing more than Stinking Cloud to win an encounter at 5th level: it's doing exactly as much as Stinking Cloud because that WRT targets the party caster who releases the Cloud, assuming that's what's needed.

Of course it's not simply a free extra action because all it does is move the initiative order. If the caster was next anyway, it does nothing. If the caster was just ahead of the martial adept and no other actors intervene in that initiative range, it really is a free extra round of actions.

The problems with WRT don't come out so much at ECL 5th, but more around ECL 10+ when it becomes very possible for every party member to get this maneuver. All that's needed is any Devoted Spirit maneuver-granting item and a Heroics spell (for the Martial Study feat). WRT-spamming will remain a valid tactic forever afterward, even into the epic levels.

And in case it might seem ok for the party to be spamming WRT on each other and taking loads of consecutive turns, square them off against a group of enemies that do the same thing. It won't be a good time at the table.

danielxcutter

2017-02-04, 08:27 PM

Cosi

2017-02-04, 11:29 PM

WRT isn't doing more than Stinking Cloud to win an encounter at 5th level: it's doing exactly as much as Stinking Cloud because that WRT targets the party caster who releases the Cloud, assuming that's what's needed.

That's just not true though. The caster still has to spend his spell slot to actually cast stinking cloud. It is perhaps an extra action, but I'm not at all convinced at 5th level party has a meaningful number of encounters where their Wizard needs to cast stinking cloud twice.

The problems with WRT don't come out so much at ECL 5th, but more around ECL 10+ when it becomes very possible for every party member to get this maneuver. All that's needed is any Devoted Spirit maneuver-granting item and a Heroics spell (for the Martial Study feat). WRT-spamming will remain a valid tactic forever afterward, even into the epic levels.

Everyone blowing an item for a 1/encounter extra action trick doesn't seem that game breaking to me an ECL 10+. People have arcane fusion and DMM: Quicken and all sorts of other action economy tricks that work more than once an encounter at that point. Even if you're worried, it seems pretty clear that the maneuver isn't the problem. The problem is letting the whole party get it. Just say it can't come out of items or Martial Study, and you're good.

The recursive thing is potentially annoying, but to get it to infinite you need (IIRC) either Idiot Crusader tricks or some additional high end action economy tricks. Neither case seems really compellingly white raven tactics' fault to me.

Efrate

2017-02-05, 03:04 AM

Hurnn

2017-02-05, 03:29 AM

What's the generally consensus on the three classes from Tome of Battle? How well received, and fun and balanced, are the various stances and maneuvers in the book?

I like it mostly my 3 complaints are: no errata poorly worded abilities (iron heart surge being the biggest offender.), white raven can be a bit overwhelming, and last they could have thrown a bone to the bad PHB classes and given them something in the book and just chose to let them keep sucking.

Morty

2017-02-05, 10:16 AM

What could they have given the PHB classes in Tome of Battle, exactly? Overpowered ACFs? Feats to gain them access to maneuvers?

Tiri

2017-02-05, 11:32 AM

What could they have given the PHB classes in Tome of Battle, exactly? Overpowered ACFs? Feats to gain them access to maneuvers?

Well, they gave them one of those things.

ayvango

2017-02-05, 12:25 PM

I mostly encourage Tome of Battle. It gives nice character options.

Someone say that it resembles 4th edition too much. But for me it more resembles Complete Arcana. It contains warlock class that grants bunch of spell-like abilities that could be used freely each turn. There is already way to throw large number of d6 into battle without even staying in the mid of it. The warlock has poor support across the books although and Tome of Battle gives much better support for kind of melee warlocks.

Concerns about overpowered martial artists have little base. There are only 3 overpowered classes and all of them was introduced in the PHB: cleric, druid and wizard. They could strike tirelessly every round producing more damage than a warlock since there are spells that allows you free attacks each round while caster is under effect of the spell. Such spells usually has round/level duration, but you should heard about the Persistent Spell metamagic. Casters pay with poor stats, but there is always ways to attain natural form, polymorph and swap ability stats. Divine power and Tensor Transformation could give full BAB, so even in melee spellcaster could outbeat fighters. Martial artists does not change power balance much. And the best way to throw many dices in melee is still three full attacks per round as Telflammar Shadow Lord could do.

Martial maneuvers gives martial characters many options and choices that should be done every round. Without it fighter would repeat the same attack routing indefinitely. Behavior suited more for a 2 Int creature than a human. There is a backstory behind fighters existence. Mages creates infrastructure and magically improves combat ability of allies and fighter is a good choice for carry baffs. The rules differ: there is a little difference in combat ability between fighters and mages because there are number of personal buffs for mages. Fighters has extra feats but mages has heroics spell. There was lesser breach between classes back in the core, but every subsequent book gave mages more power and options than for fighters. And even if updates managed to keep the original purpose of fighters there is still lack of fun to play doll for a mage that dresses and buffs and sends to fight his enemies.

Tob of Battle rules are generally well suited for a game. Divine Impetus class feature of Ruby Knight Vindicator could be patched easily: you could trade turning attempt for swift action only once per round. Well, infinite wish loop also requires some patching despite being in core.

But there are two essential drawbacks. First is the story. World is full of fighters and how could there be any fighters in a world where warblades exists? Tome of Battle invalidates all existing modules in a way. But they has a little sense anyway. Why ever common workers would exists in where unseen crafter, wall of iron and fabricate exists? Every time I play modules I suspends my disbelief (willingly lose will save) and tries not to thing about economics and how it should be completely reworked from medieval setting in magic presence. e.g. magic allows to build unprecedented computers. Many spells with triggers are as intelligent as humans and could recognize complex conditions without effort. On the other side spells works flawlessly just like computers without human factor and you could bind different spells and triggers to achieve complex logic. The war should has different face, since magic affects reconnaissance, logistics, operation and destruction means itself. So I just pretend that my character is the first that has notices many potentials of magic, and all other world keep going in traditional way without second thinking. Actually it is what heroes meant to be: someone who builds its own way. So martial classes could be seen in the same point of view: new way of blending magic in martial arts.

The second drawback is that Tome of Battle is too good for multiclassing. Every single build would become better with at least little incorporation from Tome of Battle. Entire prestige classes, or levels or two of dips into base classes, or just couple feats. So If you decided to add Tome of Battle to a company it means that all players should learn it. If martial artist were incapsulated in the same way as warlocks, they would done less harm to the game.

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-05, 12:39 PM

I like it mostly my 3 complaints are: no errata poorly worded abilities (iron heart surge being the biggest offender.), white raven can be a bit overwhelming, and last they could have thrown a bone to the bad PHB classes and given them something in the book and just chose to let them keep sucking.

What could they have given the PHB classes in Tome of Battle, exactly? Overpowered ACFs? Feats to gain them access to maneuvers?

Well, they gave them one of those things.

Tiri alluded to it, now I'm stating it explicitly; martial study and martial stance give the PHB crew (and others like them) access to maneuvers directly. They're even fighter bonus feats, FFS. Beyond that, anyone can use martial scripts and the 9 crown of the white raven devices to access maneuvers without using feats.

In -both- of the above cases, the non-initiator classes get -more- value out of these options than do martial adepts since gaining access to maneuvers at all is a better relative gain than simply getting one or two extras.

For example: a common complaint about monks is that they can't use their improved speed and flurry at the same time. Martial study (sudden leap), martial stance (leaping dragon stance); now you can open every combat with a pounce equivalent from -much- further away than most martials. Whether that's an optimal use of resources isn't the point I'm trying to make (it's not) but it -undeniably- improves a monk and comes from Tome of Battle, nevermind superior unarmed strike and snap-kick.

The initiators are -not- the only thing in the damn book.

Cosi

2017-02-05, 12:57 PM

Isn't it just time stands still, eternal blade 10 ability, and WRT as a warblade and you go infinite? Or at least until your initiative equals 0 depending on how your Dm rules it. Its a late blooming trick but its there without too many hoops IIRC. AFB right not so I cannot check it exactly.

I don't think that works. Island in Time (the Eternal Blade capstone) is 1/encounter double your turn, so I don't really know how that lets you go infinite. time stands still doesn't grant you any extra chances to use white raven tactics, it just makes you full attack twice.

To go infinite with a Warblade using white raven tactics you need two swift actions a round (one to recover maneuvers, one to use white raven tactics). Getting extra swift actions is pretty hard. The only sources I can think off of the top of my head are the Ruby Knight Vindicator's Divine Impetus (which is capped by your turn attempts) and a couple of high level monster abilities (the Chronotyryn's Dual Actions or Thoon Elder Brain's Dual Action). So barring shapechange, you only go infinite if you can convince the DM to let you play a Chronotyryn Warblade.

What could they have given the PHB classes in Tome of Battle, exactly? Overpowered ACFs? Feats to gain them access to maneuvers?

I mean, overpowered ACFs seems pretty obvious. If you cut out the sections explaining what a Crusader does in the world (maybe they crusade?), you can throw in a bunch of things that are like "give the Paladin Devoted Spirit, it refreshes when they smite something" or "give the Ranger Tiger Claw, it refreshes when they hit a favored enemy". Hell, if you write enough of those you can put in a rant about how the original martial adepts had one school like those guys, and the Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade represent the students of Reshar who have learned several arts.

Morty

2017-02-05, 04:49 PM

Well, they gave them one of those things.

Indeed they did, and I can't really picture anything more.

I mean, overpowered ACFs seems pretty obvious. If you cut out the sections explaining what a Crusader does in the world (maybe they crusade?), you can throw in a bunch of things that are like "give the Paladin Devoted Spirit, it refreshes when they smite something" or "give the Ranger Tiger Claw, it refreshes when they hit a favored enemy". Hell, if you write enough of those you can put in a rant about how the original martial adepts had one school like those guys, and the Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade represent the students of Reshar who have learned several arts.

I suppose I could see something like that. Hard to say if they could have got away with it. It'd feel too much like a straight upgrade to the base classes, while ToB as a whole masquerades as an alternate power source that's totally equal to the core warrior classes, honest. Then again, Truenamer is a thing that was released, so the approval process by the end of 3.5's run can't have been that strict.

Cosi

2017-02-05, 05:33 PM

I suppose I could see something like that. Hard to say if they could have got away with it. It'd feel too much like a straight upgrade to the base classes, while ToB as a whole masquerades as an alternate power source that's totally equal to the core warrior classes, honest. Then again, Truenamer is a thing that was released, so the approval process by the end of 3.5's run can't have been that strict.

It depends what you mean by "gotten away with it".

If you mean "would have been allowed to print it", I don't think anyone would have cared. 4e was already in development, and I very much doubt anyone would have stopped to worry about a game they were planning to replace in a year or two.

If you mean "would have been accepted by players", I don't think the marginal player is that sensitive to power adjustments. The people who think Fighters are supposed to suck would have been up in arms regardless, and the people who don't wouldn't have cared very much unless it was actually broken. The only problem class for something like this is the Fighter, because it just doesn't have any crap class features to trade away (like the Paladin's Spellcasting or the Rogue's Trap Sense).

Hurnn

2017-02-05, 06:28 PM

What could they have given the PHB classes in Tome of Battle, exactly? Overpowered ACFs? Feats to gain them access to maneuvers?

Direct access to maneuvers, limited martial maneuver progression, decent acf's, anything to make rogue, fighter, and monk relevant and or competitive past 6th level.

Nifft

2017-02-05, 06:35 PM

Direct access to maneuvers, limited martial maneuver progression, decent acf's, anything to make rogue, fighter, and monk relevant and or competitive past 6th level.

Also: better refresh options for other classes.

Flickerdart

2017-02-05, 06:41 PM

Direct access to maneuvers, limited martial maneuver progression, decent acf's, anything to make rogue, fighter, and monk relevant and or competitive past 6th level.

That's the kind of thing that invites direct comparison between classes, and leads people to go "omg this book is overpowered, look what a fighter can get if he trades away just 5 bonus feats, the feats are way weaker than this stuff he gets" or something like that. Non-initiator classes already give 1/2 IL, and that's the right balance to strike between interacting with old material and avoiding balance concerns between well-known classes.

Cosi

2017-02-05, 06:45 PM

That's the kind of thing that invites direct comparison between classes, and leads people to go "omg this book is overpowered, look what a fighter can get if he trades away just 5 bonus feats, the feats are way weaker than this stuff he gets" or something like that. Non-initiator classes already give 1/2 IL, and that's the right balance to strike between interacting with old material and avoiding balance concerns between well-known classes.

I don't think the people who understand the game well enough to see that giving up five bonus feats in exchange for full Iron Heart progression is a super good deal are terribly concerned about obsoleting the Fighter. Those people know the Fighter is terrible, and would mostly like it to be less terrible.

Morphic tide

2017-02-05, 06:53 PM

Direct access to maneuvers, limited martial maneuver progression, decent acf's, anything to make rogue, fighter, and monk relevant and or competitive past 6th level.

I could see Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Rogue getting ToB variant classes.

One of Fighter's things that cripples them is that they must specialize. ToB gives something worth specializing in. Choosing one school of maneuvers from a list, then getting half progression of maneuvers and sizable bonuses with maneuvers. Make them able to specialize in one school to an extent that lets them stay useful into higher levels than existing Fighter AFCs, then make sure not to disable the other good Fighter AFCs so it can mix with them. Basically, Fighter would be "master of one" in a way that makes them actually useful.

Rogue has two things ToB classes don't have baseline: Magical trap disabling and Sneak Attack. Trap Sense isn't needed, skill points can be reduced and the skill list can be altered. There's one or two ToB schools that Rogue really likes, both being possible Swordsage focuses. So, a Rogue ToB AFC could focus on extreme assassination power, the ability to deal huge burst damage in various ways. Essentially, you sacrifice skill monkey status for the ability to deal large damage bursts. Oh, and an ability to use Maneuvers at range, because the lack of ranged martial power is disgusting.

Monk has a lot to trade away. Like, you can basically just turn Monk into a more specialized Swordsage without much issue. You can make Monk into almost anything vaguely martial arts related without issue because they have so many things to trade. Essentially, Monk would become a specializing Unarmed Swordsage that has a few extra tricks, trading out the most dysfunctional abilities and ones of rare usefulness to grab Maneuvers in place of them.

Paladin can get Devoted Spirit and White Raven maneuvers by trading out the often-useless casting, the special mount and related skills and then getting access to stuff to apply Paladin things to their Maneuvers. Like being able to trigger Lay on Hands whenever a maneuver gives self healing, or getting to stack Smite onto any given Strike maneuver. Basically get rid of one situationally useful thing and some useless stuff for access to good things and synergy with your other helpful things.

druid zook

2017-03-08, 01:59 PM

I really like the ToB and allow it's use in my games. I've had DMs who hated it, and even banned it after seeing a gestalt elan warblade/egoist weilding a greathorn minotaur hammer smash everything in his dungeon.

I would like to see more base and prestige classes, and more disciplines. There are some things that need to be fixed, and there's no epic progression rules. My gestalt dwarf cleric/crusader had 2 levels of warblade, and who doesn't want uncanny dodge? ToB is great for cherry picking and multi-classing. Don't be hating!

AslanCross

2017-03-08, 04:20 PM

Tome of Battle was lots of fun. It gave good character options for martial characters that weren't necessarily gamebreaking. The only problem was that there were some poorly edited elements that were treated as gamebreaking bugs by some critics. Iron Heart Surge, for example. There were also some options that would be outright gamebreaking if not handled correctly (Arcane Swordsage).

The errata for the book was never finished, and since ToB came out toward the end of 3.5, they never bothered.

The criticism I don't agree with is "I don't want martial arts in my Western fantasy" which totally misses the point that HEMA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_European_martial_arts)is a thing. True, the book does explicitly say that its more supernatural elements (Shadow Hand and Diamond Mind) are more Asian in origin, as opposed to the explicitly nonmagical Iron Heart, but I don't think that it makes the book a poor option.

Pathfinder's Path of War is an excellent adaptation thereof. It also fits with Pathfinder's "fix" of 3.5's dead levels problem, so you get something new at practically every level. The power level is somewhat higher, but you don't have any poor wording like Iron Heart Surge as far as I could tell.

Dagroth

2017-03-10, 12:01 AM

Malroth

2017-03-10, 02:48 AM

I'd imagine 80% of what made that character problematic came from Egoist.

danielxcutter

2017-03-10, 02:55 AM

I'd imagine 80% of what made that character problematic came from Egoist.

And the remaining 20% part is from the maneuvers... being used on a Metamorphed character chassis. ToB is quite powerful in the right hands(as in, even more powerful than is obvious), but the base stats that Metamorphosis grants cranks it up to eleven and then wrenches the dial off.

Gnaeus

2017-03-10, 02:30 PM

Tome of Battle was lots of fun. It gave good character options for martial characters that weren't necessarily gamebreaking. The only problem was that there were some poorly edited elements that were treated as gamebreaking bugs by some critics. Iron Heart Surge, for example. There were also some options that would be outright gamebreaking if not handled correctly (Arcane Swordsage).

Pathfinder's Path of War is an excellent adaptation thereof. It also fits with Pathfinder's "fix" of 3.5's dead levels problem, so you get something new at practically every level. The power level is somewhat higher, but you don't have any poor wording like Iron Heart Surge as far as I could tell.

We never found IHS that hard to deal with. I can see it being an issue in league play. But our house rule was....
If you can imagine Loki casting (effect in question) as a spell on the Hulk, and Hulk shouting "Raaa! Hulk strongest there is!" and breaking free, Iron Heart Surge works. It's not good technical rules language, but it's worked to our satisfaction every time it's come up.