Best argument for allowing ToB?

[Hiro Quester]

We'll be starting a new game in a few months. DM for game thinks ToB is "too overpowered". Wants to limit game to just core and a few other books, to limit OP.

I'm playing a Druid in a core-ish game right now. I and he know that some parts of core can be OP.

On a different thread many folks list "DM thinks ToB is OP" as a DM red flag. So many think this is a problematic attitude to have.

I like this DM and the rest of the group. Definitely want to play. And I've been working on a concept for a warblade/eternal blade that looks fun to play.

So rather than finding a different game, I'd like to talk to the DM about his reluctance.

What are the main reasons DMs are reluctant to allow it? Is it just unfamiliarity, and the difficulty of learning a new set of rules? Or are there genuine dangers or temptations it would be best to avoid?

What is the best way to explain that ToB isn't any more OP than some parts of core?

Any DMs out there who have changed your mind about ToB? What changed your mind?

[Venger]

On a different thread many folks list "DM thinks ToB is OP" as a DM red flag. So many think this is a problematic attitude to have.

I like this DM and the rest of the group. Definitely want to play. And I've been working on a concept for a warblade/eternal blade that looks fun to play.

So rather than finding a different game, I'd like to talk to the DM about his reluctance.

What are the main reasons DMs are reluctant to allow it? Is it just unfamiliarity, and the difficulty of learning a new set of rules? Or are there genuine dangers or temptations it would be best to avoid?

What is the best way to explain that ToB isn't any more OP than some parts of core?

Any DMs out there who have changed your mind about ToB? What changed your mind?

It is a red flag.

Since you say you like your gm, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's reluctant for reasons that make sense.

in my experience, good dms don't include it because they don't want to learn a "new set of rules," because that's what they think tob is.

if your gm understands how spells work, then there are no new mechanics for him to learn. tob classes cast spells, they're just much weaker.

if after that he says he heard someone on the internet say crusaders can do ni damage or something, you can explain that's not a baked in feature of the class and is a specific to build built as a joke. compare any given effect he asks if it's too powerful to stuff other classes get at that level and he'll see it's at best middling in power level.

main reason people should allow it is it lets melee have nice things/options, which is always good if everyone doesn't just want to play a caster.

[CIDE]

To second Venger the other classes such as a Wizard can do everything and anything ToB classes can do but better. It's really that simple. It's not anymore broken than a Warlock or Dragonfire Adept which kind of fill a similar niche. Even doing it with the same unlimited use abilities per day. Any argument about ToB being overpowered can be shot down. Arguments about ToB not fitting into his world (if a homebrew setting) or something like that are harder to contend with.

[Axel_690]

Best arguments for allowing ToB:

1. It's more fun for everyone.

2. It gives melee things to do other than "I hit him with my stick."

3. Anything a ToB class can do, a wizard or CoDzilla can do better.

DMs that ban ToB are generally new, see spellcasters as very powerful(they are), and see ToB as giving melee classes spells(it doesnt). What is does do is give melee characters better uses for thier actions in combat. It removes the need for the ability to move and full attack. With ToB you're no longer forced into lockdown fighter or ubercharger. All it does is make melee characters more viable.

[zergling.exe]

I think the biggest problem with ToB is invalidating other classes. Sure a fighter can easily become a warblade, and monks can be made swordsages with relative ease. But some other classes just can't work with what little is there and trying to play the non ToB version can make that character be overshadowed by the other, easier builds ToB allows.

Talk to the whole group about it. Not just the DM. If the whole group is against it, getting the DM to allow it can get the other players annoyed with you. On the other hand, the group may offer you support. If they do, try to avoid forcing it on the DM.

Keep in mind no one likes being told they're wrong.


Best arguments for allowing ToB:

1. It's more fun for everyone.

2. It gives melee things to do other than "I hit him with my stick."

3. Anything a ToB class can do, a wizard or CoDzilla can do better.

Counterarguments:

1: Some people experience choice paralysis. The increase in complexity of having to choose maneuvers can be off-putting to some, and when they see others out performing them with maneuvers they start having less fun. And you can't solve the problem by giving them maneuvers either, because then they can't decide what to do and still can't have fun.

2. So now you can hit them with the stick in a few predefined ways. How is that different than before?

3. Anything a ToB class can do, a wizard or CoDzilla can do worse. Depending on what the casters do, they can have a huge range of competency. ToB classes are much more static.

In short, think of how the group will be affected by adding ToB. Sure you might have more fun, but will everyone else?

[Khedrac]

If you are playing with friend (and it sounds like you are) then the best argument is 'trust'.

You say the DM acknowledges that primary casters can be overpowered, but is letting you play a druid. This presumably means that he (or she) trusts you not to abuse the potentials of the class. The same goes for any wizard/sorceror/cleric players.
Why then will he not trust you not to abuse the potentials of the Tome of Battle?

Seriously though, ToB tents to have a much higher optimisation floor that spellcasting, especially at lower levels; ToB (and MoI) are quite 'front loaded' with power so people who rarely play up near level 20 see them in comparison with level 1-3 wizards etc. and, for most players, they are quite a lot more powerful at those levels (or appear so).

Ask for the ToB stuff to be used, but with a constant feedback loop - use it in evaluation mode (i.e. continually asking 'does this work for us?'). This should allow the DM to tell you their concerns when you use some of the potentially more powerful options, and you to tailor your play to keep them happy too. As time goes on and you all become more familiar with the rules you will probably all be happier with them and just use them straight.

Note: I would not regard regular forum users as 'most players' - even if we are not strong optimisers we have read the threads and we generally are aware of the techniques that make casters powerful. Consider though how many new posters start with really simple questions and often basic rules misunderstandings - we are not the norm.

Also, I would disagree with the position that it isn't a new system to learn. Yes the maneuvers are effectively spells, but the mechanism for controlling one's use of them is a new system, or worse, it is three new systems. They are not big systems, but they are new.
(Actually case in point - Crusaders, if the crusader chooses not to use a maneuver every round and thus runs out of new ones to draw, are they forced to re-shuffle and only draw 2 to start with again, or can they wait, holding their current readied set until the time is right? My initial reading of the rules is it is actually the former, but I am far from sure.)

[Rebel7284]

At very low levels, Warblades and Crusaders do tend to overshadow unoptimized Fighters/Rangers/Barbarians. After all, when you are limited to one attack anyway, initiating a maneuver to improve that one attack looks amazing. Sure the barbarian can become just as powerful by taking spiritual lion totem, wolf totem and whirling frenzy, but that requires knowing the system well, while it's difficult to mess up on maneuver selection.

At later levels, you have more options, which is also threatening to some DMs who are used to only casters having options (you can disarm someone without having to spend a feat on it! You can force a save vs. daze at mid levels!) as opposed to full attacking every turn.

Ultimately, I think that for all but the lowest optimization groups playing at the lowest levels, these fears are unfounded.

[Dagroth]

There is a noticeable power level for ToB classes at lower character levels. If your games rarely get over level 7, ToB characters are usually the Kings of the Battlefield. Yes, even over Druids. :smallbiggrin:
A sufficiently well built CoDZilla or well-built Wizard with the right selection of spells is moving in.

If you're playing in the Level 7-12 range, casters are taking over if they want to. Even semi-competent casters are starting to do stuff that leaves non-casters in the dust. Highly specialized melee builds are also hitting their stride and competing well with ToB characters... at least in their specialty.

Level 13+, it can almost seem like the only reason you're contributing to combat is because the casters are letting you. Not to mention how difficult it is to get things done without a caster. ToB characters are still relevant, but rarely important.

Note that this is all assuming you're in a mostly combat game. If you're in a mystery/politics/etc. game... well, at least the ToB classes generally get more skill points than PHB melee classes do. :smallfrown:

[OldTrees1]

The best argument for allowing ToB involves addressing the DM's concerns. Respecting their concerns is the best path forward even if the destination ends up not being the one you aimed for.



Personally I don't like how ToB's mechanics theme martial adepts as less competent swordsmen than Fighter. Of course I am speaking about the unreadied state a maneuver can be in. Strictly speaking martial adepts are stronger but that does not remove the theming inherent in the mechanics. I still allow ToB because I can recognize my distaste as a personal one that can be limited to just my character (or NPCs).



Others might rightly recognize that ToB has a higher optimization floor. Generally if you give a player a stronger class, they tend to make stronger characters. If the DM is happy with the current optimization level, they might rightly be reluctant to incite power creep. Here I would address the concern by first recognizing it and then highlight the beneficial side effects of the change. Yes characters might tend to get slightly stronger, however most of that strength will be in increased options rather than increased power. This does mean work for the DM adjusting the encounters. However the greater breadth of each character allows the DM greater flexibility to create even more interesting/engaging encounters.


Identify the reason
Demonstrate your recognition of the reason
Show the silver lining or provide useful counter evidence
Accept either resulting verdict

[Metahuman1]

Build some Tome of Battle characters. Now, build some clerics/druids/wizards/sorcerers who crush them, effortlessly, in RAW AND RAI fashion, with the allowed sorcerers. Build them so each one can do it in multiple different ways so that if you cut off one avenue others are still open.

Now, ask the DM go sit down with you one or two times so you can show him side by side comparisons in test runs/encounter's and such.


Show the Sorcerer spamming save-or-loose spells, the wizard invalidating entire encounters with item crafting, the cleric summoning creatures that allow him to not need anything the rest of a party could offer, the druid wildshaing and bringing up his animal companion and the two of them taking over the fighters job better then he could pray to do on his own.


And show him the Tome of Battle classes being better then the fighter/ranger/paladin/barbarian/monk and with the exception of the need for trap finding and access to UMD as a class skill, the rogue. But way, way worse then and easier to deal with than those casters.

then get on Youtube, and show him some video's form Blood and Iron HEMA, Skallagrim, Scholagladiatora and The Metatron about HEMA and how it works in practice, and tell him "Tome of Battle basically just moves this reality over to a fantasy setting effectively."

[Douglas]

It depends on your group's optimization level. In a low-op group, ToB really is overpowered. Not because it has more powerful options, but because it has so few crappy options. A non-optimized core character is typically going to be weaker than a non-optimized ToB character, just because there's a certain level of power that's a lot harder to underachieve with ToB.

If your group's optimization level is below that power level, then accept the DM's verdict and go play something weaker. If your group routinely meets or exceeds that level, then the practical demonstrations already suggested are probably your best bet, though they may be quite a bit of work.

[Hiro Quester]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies and useful advice, everyone.

I confess I was not thinking about the optimization floor in terms of power. At lower levels a ToB martial type can outshine others.

We usually play all the way to 20 in our campaigns. So not being too powerful at lower levels is a concern. I think I can be responsible about that (as I did by restricting my actions and spells as a Druid). But so is still being viable at higher levels. A warblade/crusader/eternal blade or a swordsage looks more likely to be able to contribute well at higher levels, compared with a barbarian or fighter.

Honestly, I usually play casters because I like having options, being versatile. The ToB enabling a versatile martial type who can contribute in different ways to many different types of encounter, is what induces me to try playing a martial type.

I will talk, and listen, about this with him soon. Thanks again.

Further advice is always appreciated, though.

[WeaselGuy]

With regards to remaining viable at higher levels, look into the Ruby Knight Vindicator or Jade Phoenix Mage. These bring some casting into the mix, in the form of Crusader/Cleric/RKV and Swordsage/Wizard/JPM. You can also do some other early entry/fast progression shenanigans to get 16 BAB and 9th level spells for each form, but that's a separate topic altogether.

Also, as far as I know, Mounted Combat and Archery are about the only things ToB characters can't do very well, so those roles are still fillable by core mundanes.

[Jowgen]

One other factor to consider that I don't think anyone's brought up: ToB is essentially just another alternative/parallel magic system, just like Psionics, Shadowmagic, Incarnum (arguably), etc.; with the quirk being that it's geared towards working with martial mechanics.

It is possible your DM dislikes ToB at least partially because he's the type that wants the core magic systems to be the only one in play; i.e. It's "Arcane and Divine", not "Ardents and Disciplines", damn it!. Personally, I think the introduction of sub-systems is something where a DM should do with as he pleases, as it has far more ramifications to the campaign world than it does to the individual player.

[NOhara24]

On a different thread many folks list "DM thinks ToB is OP" as a DM red flag. So many think this is a problematic attitude to have.

What are the main reasons DMs are reluctant to allow it? Is it just unfamiliarity, and the difficulty of learning a new set of rules? Or are there genuine dangers or temptations it would be best to avoid?



It is a red flag, because it indicates a lack of experience and understanding of 3.5 as a whole. Your DM is probably banning it because of a combination of the flavor - "weeaboo fightin' magic" and unfamiliarity. There are some cheesy things, particularly around how some stuff in the book is worded See: Snap Kick & Iron Heart Surge, but these are ultimately party tricks compared to what a CoDzilla or Wizard can pull off using core alone. The floor for ToB is rather high compared to other melee classes, and some DMs don't like that it basically makes most melee classes obsolete save for a few. (Barbarian is still very viable compared to ToB classes.) But in reality, if he's banning ToB and not restricting core casters in any way, it's very much like saying "Hey, you can't bring your semi-automatic pistol in this club, only flintlocks." and then letting the guy carrying an automatic shotgun inside without a second glance.

[Telok]

Warblade 5 is more fun than Fighter 5.
ToB never trivializes an encounter with one spell.
ToB never does that two or three times in a row.
ToB never binds Nightmares for Astral Projection at level 9.
ToB has one infinite trick and two badly written abilities.
Initiators are not forced to specialize in one specific weapon or combat style.
Simulacrum.
Animate Dead.
Divine Metamagic.
Celerity.
Polymorph.



"Hey, you can't bring your semi-automatic pistol in this club, only flintlocks." and then letting the guy carrying an automatic shotgun inside without a second glance. Well it's less an auto-shotgun and more of a grenade launcher.

[atemu1234]

It's "Arcane and Divine", not "Ardents and Disciplines", damn it!

It's Adam and Great Cleave, not Iron Heart Surge and Leave!

[Godskook]

We'll be starting a new game in a few months. DM for game thinks ToB is "too overpowered". Wants to limit game to just core and a few other books, to limit OP.

I'm playing a Druid in a core-ish game right now. I and he know that some parts of core can be OP.

On a different thread many folks list "DM thinks ToB is OP" as a DM red flag. So many think this is a problematic attitude to have.

I like this DM and the rest of the group. Definitely want to play. And I've been working on a concept for a warblade/eternal blade that looks fun to play.

So rather than finding a different game, I'd like to talk to the DM about his reluctance.

Your DM's balance decisions are not a good justification to leave a game as long as they're fairly consistent. Well, unless you really and truly don't enjoy playing as anything he's offering, but that should be rare, I should think.


What are the main reasons DMs are reluctant to allow it? Is it just unfamiliarity, and the difficulty of learning a new set of rules? Or are there genuine dangers or temptations it would be best to avoid?

What is the best way to explain that ToB isn't any more OP than some parts of core?

Any DMs out there who have changed your mind about ToB? What changed your mind?

The best way is for you to bring him here and have him talk to us directly about his concerns.

Also, as far as ToB versus Core goes, the more OP one depends *HEAVILY* on PC skill. Players who are good at optimizing will do horrible things with core casters. Players who aren't....well, not letting ToB into those games is a fair answer, imho.

[WeaselGuy]

Also, as far as ToB versus Core goes, the more OP one depends *HEAVILY* on PC skill. Players who are good at optimizing will do horrible things with core casters. Players who aren't....well, not letting ToB into those games is a fair answer, imho.

I actually disagree with you on this point. 90% of the optimizers here will tell you that Evokers in general are subpar (especially as compared to the shenanigans a Gnome Illusionist can pull off), to say nothing of a Warmage specifically. However, even operating with Core Only casters, a 6th level Sorcerer casting Fly and Fireball exclusively will trivialize anything a 6th level Fighter or Rogue can dish out. Add a Crusader, Warblade, or Swordsage in to the mix, and that same Sorcerer will still out damage the Initiators, it's just the Initiators will have more fun, because they can do more than just "I charge and hit it with my axe for 2x(1d12+8)" or "I use Move Silently to get behind them and Sneak Attack for 4d6+8".

[Fizban]

I'm playing a Druid in a core-ish game right now.
It doesn't matter what you're playing: what are the other players and the DM playing?

ToB is in fact overpowered compared to quite a few classes with no or low-op. There are plenty of effects that the game (read: monster and potential encounter design) does not expect people to have even without counting the supernatural options, which is the whole point. ToB gives you things you don't normally have, which is more fun, and more powerful, period.

So what is the rest of the group playing, and what is the DM throwing at you? Your group already has a dynamic encompassing what each "type" of character can do, and that's what determines if ToB is okay to just use, or if you're going to have to change the group dynamic. If you can describe your desired build in terms of what the group expects martial characters to do, but also with X, and convince them +X is acceptable, there you go. A basic Warblade build can bypass DR/hardness/armor on some attacks, block some saving throws and attacks, and generally move+attack a bit better than normal. That's quite a bit, but you can't use it all every round and if your group already feels martials are a little weak/boring it should be sale-able.

If you can only make it sound palatable by shouting about casters, you already know it's not going to fit, and using ToB will require first changing the group dynamics to fit. Weather that means realizing that the guy who normally plays fighters won't be as good with a caster, balancing out your "fighter" being better than a fighter, or getting the group to accept an overall power increase as the "fighter" becomes better, either way you'll have to present it openly without hiding behind the internet's idea of balance. A Warblade/Eternal Blade can do what a warblade can, plus ignore DR all the time and/or gain some potentially very large flat bonuses, and essentially knows all the manuevers of two schools thanks to it's ability to call one up on demand each fight, something not even spellcasters can normally do let alone martial characters. It's a significantly harder sell and spellcaster comparisons don't matter because this is a martial character filling the martial slot in the party, while someone else is also playing a spellcaster. From the DM's perspective this is nothing but more powerful, which means they have to change how they build things in response.

[flappeercraft]

To me what seems the best argument is to just ask him to try it out for a couple of sessions. If he doesnt like it, tough luck, if he does he will probably continue to allow it.

If it is because of concerns that it is "too OP" just tell him to make the most powerful build he can and you use a caster and destroy that build in one round.

[Elkad]

The best argument is to convince him to let it in for a couple sessions as a test case.

Build something solid. Skip White Raven Tictacs and don't try to put out the Sun with Iron Heart Surge, but other than that, go nuts.

Show him that swift-action leaps and hitting people for an extra 6d6 is cool, but then you have to recover, and your selection is really limited.

[Gildedragon]

I agree that showing is probably the best argument. But I'd go the other way round. DM them a one-shot where they use ToB stuff

[Godskook]

I actually disagree with you on this point. 90% of the optimizers here will tell you that Evokers in general are subpar (especially as compared to the shenanigans a Gnome Illusionist can pull off), to say nothing of a Warmage specifically. However, even operating with Core Only casters, a 6th level Sorcerer casting Fly and Fireball exclusively will trivialize anything a 6th level Fighter or Rogue can dish out. Add a Crusader, Warblade, or Swordsage in to the mix, and that same Sorcerer will still out damage the Initiators, it's just the Initiators will have more fun, because they can do more than just "I charge and hit it with my axe for 2x(1d12+8)" or "I use Move Silently to get behind them and Sneak Attack for 4d6+8".

90% of players I play with refuse to play ToB because, and I'm quoting here, "it's too complicated."

I've had a player try to optimize a character once, by having 200k worth of items on his DM-approval-needed sheet. When the budget was 13k for an e6 game.

I currently have a player who will cast Scorching Ray(CL7) over Energy Wall when facing hordes. Same player will cast multiple energy spells as enemy types that are known to have resistances and immunities. This same player has also charged into combat against Trolls as a Rogue without a flanking bonus or distracting ally because he wanted to hit them with his flaming sword. Also E6.

Within my current campaign, the most powerful character by far was the Barbarian. He had no power attack, refused to use Expansion, no pounce, and no good sources of bonus damage. The second most powerful was the warlock. Unless you count the Psion who played for exactly 2 sessions and stomped the field.

The party Paladin, in almost every encounter he fought, declared himself and allowed his opponents to attack first.

Disagree with me all you want. I'm just going to assume you're unfamiliar with what low player skill looks like.

[Waker]

I believe most of the other posters have more or less exhausted all of the mechanical reasons DMs tend to look at ToB askew. Another big reason is the fluff associated with it. Some DMs look at the book and just come away thinking that everything is wire-fu nonsense from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and say that it doesn't fit the setting. And even if you make numerous comparisons to actual fighting styles or explain how some styles do a great job on emulating certain fictitious characters, they instead cling to the most rigid view of the book. I know I've had my experiences where a DM has difficulty changing fluff aspects of a race/class, saying "It just doesn't belong in the story."

[Darth Ultron]

What are the main reasons DMs are reluctant to allow it? Is it just unfamiliarity, and the difficulty of learning a new set of rules? Or are there genuine dangers or temptations it would be best to avoid?



The first two are huge Red Flags. It is always bad when a DM does not know some rules well. Worse when the players are super rule experts...and about a 100 times worse when the players might, even ''accidently'' abuse their knowledge and power.

Other then the powers are ''just like spells'', I find the worst part is knowing what power is ''on''. The worst is sneaky players will always say they have the ''right power'' on whenever they want, except the rules don't let them do that....but they just want to break and bend and ignore the rules as they are so cool. Really, it comes down to a way for players to manipulate the game. The worst might be going from non-combat role playing to the player whining and crying that their character bent time and space to ''do this or that power or maneuver'' .

It so annoying having one or two jerk players just trying to ruin the game with this one book, it's just not worth it. At least with spells they make sense and the DM can say ''no you did not just cast Mage Armor'' when your character was attacked...magic and spells don't work that way as they make sense and take time and actions.

[Venger]

The first two are huge Red Flags. It is always bad when a DM does not know some rules well. Worse when the players are super rule experts...and about a 100 times worse when the players might, even ''accidently'' abuse their knowledge and power.

Other then the powers are ''just like spells'', I find the worst part is knowing what power is ''on''. The worst is sneaky players will always say they have the ''right power'' on whenever they want, except the rules don't let them do that....but they just want to break and bend and ignore the rules as they are so cool. Really, it comes down to a way for players to manipulate the game. The worst might be going from non-combat role playing to the player whining and crying that their character bent time and space to ''do this or that power or maneuver'' .

It so annoying having one or two jerk players just trying to ruin the game with this one book, it's just not worth it. At least with spells they make sense and the DM can say ''no you did not just cast Mage Armor'' when your character was attacked...magic and spells don't work that way as they make sense and take time and actions.

I assume you're talking about stances. players cheating isn't a flaw of the book, though.

[J-H]

Managing readied/active maneuvers & stances can be done at a table with 3.5 cards (face up/face down or turned in to the DM until refreshed, etc.).

Best argument:
D&D is about having fun through roleplaying and tactical combat.
Doing the same thing over and over again is not fun.
Mundane martial characters (by which I mean the fighter and monk) spend 95% of their combats doing three things:
-Charge
-Move and attack once
-5' step and full attack

Here are the four things that every fighter has to decide every round. Note that this is a repeatable algorithm modified only by the occasional "chase the wizard" or "do a trip attack."
1) Am I next to an enemy? If yes, full attack. If no, next line.
2) Can I charge? If yes, charge. If no, next line.
3) Can I move and attack? If yes, pick an enemy and do so. If no, next line.
4) What double move gets me closest to the enemy so that I can charge or full attack next round?

[TheIronGolem]

if your gm understands how spells work, then there are no new mechanics for him to learn. tob classes cast spells, they're just much weaker.

The mechanics of martial maneuvers resemble those of spells, but definitely not to the point where a GM doesn't need to learn anything new to accommodate initiators. If you get a GM to agree to let you use ToB/PoW by telling them "it's just spells" and assuring them they don't need to learn anything new, you're going to prove yourself wrong the first time you activate a stance, refresh any maneuvers during combat, or change out your readied maneuvers without first taking an 8-hour nap. At that point, the GM may well feel like you've tried to sneak something past them, and they'll have a point even if your intentions are innocent. Initiation's a great system, but it does have a time-to-learn price tag attached, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise.

[Gilda]

As a 3.5 DM, I empathize with your DM for not wanting ToB.
Sure, it allows martial characters who are closer in power to casters, but the fact that he thinks it's "OP" rather than a "partial fix" shows a lack of familiarity with the contents of a 160 page book. You're asking him to familiarize himself with another 160 page book in order to run 3.5 for you.

The best argument I can think of for including it would be to give him your copy for the duration of the campaign he consents to use it in, rather than expecting him to spend more money to run 3.5, and then respect his rulings rather than rules lawyer him because you're more familiar with the contents of that 160 page book than he is.

DMing 3.5 is hard work.

[Venger]

The mechanics of martial maneuvers resemble those of spells, but definitely not to the point where a GM doesn't need to learn anything new to accommodate initiators. If you get a GM to agree to let you use ToB/PoW by telling them "it's just spells" and assuring them they don't need to learn anything new, you're going to prove yourself wrong the first time you activate a stance, refresh any maneuvers during combat, or change out your readied maneuvers without first taking an 8-hour nap. At that point, the GM may well feel like you've tried to sneak something past them, and they'll have a point even if your intentions are innocent. Initiation's a great system, but it does have a time-to-learn price tag attached, and it's not helpful to pretend otherwise.

Fair enough.

I was more speaking in terms of the effects of what the maneuvers are, and how they work. If you thumb through the maneuvers section, they'll have a level, an action it costs to use them, a target, a duration, etc. "If you can understand spells, then you will know how to read maneuvers, which are the bulk of the tob system" would probably be a more accurate way to express it.

[Godskook]

Fair enough.

I was more speaking in terms of the effects of what the maneuvers are, and how they work. If you thumb through the maneuvers section, they'll have a level, an action it costs to use them, a target, a duration, etc. "If you can understand spells, then you will know how to read maneuvers, which are the bulk of the tob system" would probably be a more accurate way to express it.

Psionics are notoriously misunderstood by DMs unfamilliar with them, and the main reasons usually stem from rules that aren't in the power descriptions, which read exactly like spells and manuevers. Point being, neither Manevuers nor Powers are understandable at *ALL* without understanding the system they exist within. And that includes debunking faulty common assumptions, such as "I can spend as many power points on powers as I want" and "I can use this Maneuver every round because its just swinging a sword".

[Gusmo]

It's weird, and I would even say inexcusable, for GMs to not allow ToB if they're otherwise down for anything goes, like Binders, Incarnum, etc. But if they just want a smaller ecosystem, I get banning ToB and other subsystems. It's not they any of them are difficult to understand or overpowered, it's that by limiting players to core, or core+whatever, you're dramatically limiting the universe of unforeseen consequences.

[Venger]

Psionics are notoriously misunderstood by DMs unfamilliar with them, and the main reasons usually stem from rules that aren't in the power descriptions, which read exactly like spells and manuevers. Point being, neither Manevuers nor Powers are understandable at *ALL* without understanding the system they exist within. And that includes debunking faulty common assumptions, such as "I can spend as many power points on powers as I want" and "I can use this Maneuver every round because its just swinging a sword".

yeah, psionics is a good analogy for this. it's just spells with like 3 other rules in there. once you read those, you're pretty much set.

[Godskook]

yeah, psionics is a good analogy for this. it's just spells with like 3 other rules in there. once you read those, you're pretty much set.

My point being that the history of Psionics on this board kinda proves that you can't just say "Theyr'e just like spells" and expect people to be able to appraise things accurately.

[Venger]

My point being that the history of Psionics on this board kinda proves that you can't just say "Theyr'e just like spells" and expect people to be able to appraise things accurately.

Right, I agree with you. You need to dispel the misconceptions first.

[Barbarian Horde]

http://www.tob-tools.net/maneuvers-alphabetical/

Check this out and see if your DM is interested in the Unofficial Tome of Battle fix.

http://www.tob-tools.net/maneuvers/iron-heart-surge/ Would be an excellent example.

[zergling.exe]

cut

Check this out and see if your DM is interested in the Unofficial Tome of Battle fix.

cut Would be an excellent example.

I believe linking to that site is a violation of forum rules, due to containing non-OGL information (namely, all the maneuvers).

[Godskook]

I believe linking to that site is a violation of forum rules, due to containing non-OGL information (namely, all the maneuvers).

I'd....assume because those maneuvers are all available in full for free off the Wizards site, they'd be OGL, but I've got no source for that.

[zergling.exe]

I'd....assume because those maneuvers are all available in full for free off the Wizards site, they'd be OGL, but I've got no source for that.

Never knew that. Still doesn't hurt to exercise caution though. Especially since Wizard's took down the main way to access those cards.

[Zanos]

But in reality, if he's banning ToB and not restricting core casters in any way, it's very much like saying "Hey, you can't bring your semi-automatic pistol in this club, only flintlocks." and then letting the guy carrying an automatic shotgun inside without a second glance.
Funnily enough, this is how some states gun laws work in the United States. You don't need a licence to carry a longarm, but you do need need a licence to concealed or open carry a pistol. However you would not need a licence for a flintlock, because many states do not regular black powder weapons under their modern firearms laws. Automatic weapons fall under a separate law, but many US states are a club where you could bring in a semi-automatic shotgun and a flintlock, but not a semi-automatic pistol.

To actually be on topic, though, there are balance reasons to not allow ToB. If wizard casting fireballs and fighter with weapon specialization is the balance point of the table, ToB is obviously not really appropriate.

[redzimmer]

It makes martial classes viable threats beyond sixth level. For PC and DM.

[weckar]

A good argument I've heard against ToB is that it kind of breaks the system of what D&D is supposed to be by making the game more 'anime'. If that's what you want to play, fine, but for some that really breaks the immersion.

Then again, most of these DMs won't use the class pyramid as written, so eh.

[Gildedragon]

A good argument I've heard against ToB is that it kind of breaks the system of what D&D is supposed to be by making the game more 'anime'. If that's what you want to play, fine, but for some that really breaks the immersion.

Then again, most of these DMs won't use the class pyramid as written, so eh.

Class pyramid?

[weckar]

I think it is in DMG2, so not really technically core, but there's a table that gives approximate percentages for how often a class occurs in a given population. I think one interesting approximation in that is about 150 Fighters to every 1 Wizard. In other words: Arcanes should be 'special', even within the setting.

[atemu1234]

I think it is in DMG2, so not really technically core, but there's a table that gives approximate percentages for how often a class occurs in a given population. I think one interesting approximation in that is about 150 Fighters to every 1 Wizard. In other words: Arcanes should be 'special', even within the setting.

This is why we ignore that book, unless we need to make Feycraft items.

[Godskook]

I think it is in DMG2, so not really technically core, but there's a table that gives approximate percentages for how often a class occurs in a given population. I think one interesting approximation in that is about 150 Fighters to every 1 Wizard. In other words: Arcanes should be 'special', even within the setting.

That's a very setting-specific thing that doesn't even hold true in Eberron, let alone homebrew settings.

[Metahuman1]

This is why we ignore that book, unless we need to make Feycraft items.

Or we want slippers of battle dancing.



If the DM is arguing that it's too Wuxia/Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon/Wire Fu/Anime in flavor/set up and "Doesn't really fit the setting." then try getting ahold of some of the following.


All the original Robert E Howard Written stories about his various famous characters. Especially Conan.

All of the more outlandish tales and accounts of King Arthur, and even more so for the various Knights of the Round Table.

As many of the Nordic Saga's as you can lay hands on. Beowulf is the most famous one, but there are plenty of others.

As many of the classic greek hero myths and epics about figures like Odysseus, Theseus, Jason and the Argonauts, anyone who isn't necessarily explicitly a half god. Even the Iliad works cause you can show off the badass feats of prowess of other characters like Hector and Ajax.

Any other classic style epics that work in this fashion, such as Gilgamesh.


As many historical accounts of insanely well documented badasses as humanly possible. There are modern practitioners of Historical European Martial Arts who use Treaties written by masters from the periods they study as the basis for there techniques and systems. Read up on these guys exploits and history's.


And then tell the DM to simulate these things that were the basis for this game and fit within the setting and flavor of this particular world, many of which are done by real people whom D&D heros are suppose to default to being mightier than, and the fictional ones are what the point of the game is.




Then, when he cannot, show him that you can, using tome of battle. Watch some Hema video's on youtube form places like Blood and Iron Hema, Metatron, Skallagrim and ScholaGladiatoria so you can see what the real stuff looks like, and then imitate that as much as possible as you describe the moves your pulling to justify your maneuver's.

[Barbarian Horde]

I believe linking to that site is a violation of forum rules, due to containing non-OGL information (namely, all the maneuvers).

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a

All maneuvers are made available to the public. On their main site in the link above. Even though it is copyrighted it's been made for public access so the original link I posted for fix would qualify for rule breaking? If it is I'll remove it, but that seems like a very gray line to me as I agree with the author of the page that it qualifies for fair use.

[weckar]

In general, linking the official source is encouraged as then the owner can remove it whenever they want.

[Rerednaw]

To the OP. Quite frankly we're only speculating why your DM doesn't allow ToB.

Bring him here and have him cite his reasons. We can certainly present a more cogent argument in favor if we know why.

[Aetis]

The Tome of Battle contains many of the strongest martial options available in 3.5, and it should be careful weighed before its legalization.

People have already brought up the point about ToB being very powerful at lower levels. If your game does not go to high levels, I do not recommend using the book, as many classes in ToB are heavily frontloaded and can easily outshine other classes entire game.

People also brought up the point about the ToB having a high optimization floor. If your party does not optimize much, then you guys are going to have a problem when your rangers are hitting things for 1d8+2 damage and warblades are dropping monsters in one hit.

You should not legalize the book unless all of your players are willing to learn the book. Otherwise, the martial characters in your party who refrain from using ToB will find themselves outclassed and outperformed by their ToB utilizing counterparts.

[Kane0]

Show him this thread?

[OldTrees1]

Show him this thread?

Not sure if a bad idea. They could rationally consider this entire thread as one large case of the "begging the question" fallacy.

[Metahuman1]

The Tome of Battle contains many of the strongest martial options available in 3.5, and it should be careful weighed before its legalization.

People have already brought up the point about ToB being very powerful at lower levels. If your game does not go to high levels, I do not recommend using the book, as many classes in ToB are heavily frontloaded and can easily outshine other classes entire game.

People also brought up the point about the ToB having a high optimization floor. If your party does not optimize much, then you guys are going to have a problem when your rangers are hitting things for 1d8+2 damage and warblades are dropping monsters in one hit.

You should not legalize the book unless all of your players are willing to learn the book. Otherwise, the martial characters in your party who refrain from using ToB will find themselves outclassed and outperformed by their ToB utilizing counterparts.

1: Because no 1st level wizard ever soloed 3 out of 4 daily encounters with color spray. And no 3rd level one ever did the same with Glitterdust.

2: Yes, but then again, so does a druid. Even the bad animal companions in core help your resources significantly, and start at level 6 the majority of druids really, really do take natural spell and have enough wild shape to stay in a form that has more combat prowess then the fighter. At worse they waste a few spell slots on Magic Fang/Greater Magic Fang first and still out preform him at his job, and can sling some spells and use the animal companion as a supplement besides. That's not even serious high op, that's just picking a few things from the PHB and MM1 that seem to go together and using them as intended.

3: This is the best point, but learning the book's important information takes an hour or so in actual practice, and then it's just learning all the individual PRC's, Classes and Maneuver's. And frankly, you can speed that along dramatically by saying "These are the one's actually in play or planned to be in play, learn them and were good." Your talking 2, 3 hours tops doing it that way. That's not an unreasonable thing for the other players to learn even if they themselves aren't all that interested.

[Zanos]

Color spray is extremely overrated. This would require every monster in all three encounters to be standing in a 15ft cone and for them to all fail their will saves, and to be vulnerable Mind-Affecting Patterns. Considering that enemies with low will saves tend to have high "kill wizard dead" rolls, getting within 15ft of enemies with 6 Hp is a pretty terrible idea.

[NomGarret]

A source of contention among those who flipped through the book once and declared it wasn't their cup of tea stems from the disconnect between maneuvers and class list. I'm not sure if everyone's copy does this, but my book naturally falls open to the Desert Wind section, highlighting the most overtly magicy discipline. But it can take until you've read it all the way through and then done some cross referencing to see that the three classes have differing levels of anime zaniness.

As has been said, asking what the DM's specific concerns are and showing a willingness to work with those is the best way to go. Don't spend a bunch of time on a fight you aren't having.

[redzimmer]

I just don't have the book is my reason.

Let your DM have a copy to flip through, maybe playtest him as the PC a time or two?