PDA

View Full Version : Tome of Battle



Pages : [1] 2

Matthew
2007-08-10, 08:17 AM
Just thought I would open a new Thread to discuss Tome of Battle, since the Original Poster of the ToB Thread regarded the discussion there to be straying off topic: Previous Tob Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3012243&postcount=64)



I didn't say it gives them the same amount of power, especially not compared to optimized casters. I said it puts them on the same SORT of power curve... over the period of time a caster gains 20% power, a warblade also gains about 20% power, instead of gaining 3% power like a fighter.

That's a parallel power curve, I would imagine you're describing. If they're still not as powerful as Full Casters, though, it doesn't really matter.


If your casters don't optimize too much, you actually do end up with a reasonable balance with ToB and core magic, though I suspect it'd be much better with ToB and ToM or ToB and XPH (I just haven't had the time to read/play through ToM or XPH yet.)

As do you if you nerf Casters against Fighters through Variant Rules or removing certain Spells/Feats.


It solved the vast majority of them for me. Maybe others are running into woes I'm not aware of, but for me personally, ToB pretty solidly fixed the melee woes I'd run into. (I have played a 1-20 game with 2 very competent casters, so I think I've got a fair idea of what woes melee runs into, but maybe I'm missing something.)

Which is all fine, but similarly people are capable of playing D&D without ToB and having the same experience.


True. I suppose the earlier "buff is better than a nerf" mentality comes into play. ToB's popularity also has something to do with the versatility it lends to melee characters. Traditional melee characters are very much tied to their builds in terms of what they can do. For instance, you will rarely see someone attempting to disarm someone else unless they are a dedicated disarmer fighter (Not that you see those anyway, tripping being a massively superior option).

However, any warblade can select Disarming Strike, which can allow him to reliably disarm an opponent even if he hasn't focused his entire build around. He can then follow it up with another maneuver next turn, either a pure damage one or one with another tasty effect, like one of those juicy con damaging strikes from Stone dragon.

I think that is indeed the main reason. People like shiny things. That's pretty much the business model behind 'expanding the system'. It's definitely true that ToB supports a greater degree of variety as well, but eventually people will get bored of that too and look for the next 'power up' or shiny thing.



Bastard Cross.
High Serpent.
Guard of the Arrow.
Iron Door.

These are the names of several stances from a Western martial arts manual used by 14th-century knights. Sound a lot like Tome of Battle maneuver and stance names, don't they? Many of the techniques in said manual even look like something you'd expect to see in a dojo... well, if you discount the fact that the combatants are in full plate and wielding longswords.


I think I have something of a middle ground thanks to my amazing perceptual abilities:

Most people (sorry about the surprise broadside Tengu) don't seem to be saying ZOMG replace all your old classes!@!@!. I seem to be hearing something more along the line of ZOMG why won't you at least allow them as an option.

If none of your players like the martial adepts, they won't get played. If your other melee'rs feel like they are being overshadowed... then what kind of casters do you have and why hasn't it already been a problem?

At the same time though, I agree with Fax, if its something you don't feel like learning, fine. I certainly don't want to ram something down somebody's throat.



@Matthew : out of curisosity, have you tried playing a martial adept ? Are they not simply more fun than the Fighter/Monk ? You're welcome to disagree ; it's my opinion that the 'increased fun' side does more for the ToB's reputation than the 'increased power' one.



14th century? Bloody modernists.

To develop on my point, however. Yes, those are fancily named maneuvers. Did any of them, say Resist Fire? Heal yourself of wounds? Attack two people at once? Walk in any kind of terrain, more effectively than you do on a flat sparring-room floor? Damage people with cold? Ignore damage? Smell things well enough to pinpoint anything within 5'? Because that's 1st level maneuvers from 7 of the 9 schools.


I'm not completely sure whether you're in the camp that wants to "uphold the honor of the PHB classes" :smallwink: , but just in case :


Combat Vigor feat (PHB2)


The Barbarian gets DR.


Combat Awareness feat (PHB2)

I suspect all the rest can be gained from items.

And about comparing D&D/the real world/wushu... well, one of the usual example is the use of skills, even physical ones. Jump & Balance can easily be considered to have an "anime feel" (whatever that means).


Maneuvers are almost always usable more than once per encounter (the only exception is a Swordsage that doesn't take Adaptive Style nor any other feat allowing recovery).



I shall expand upon why I used blasters as an example:

I play in large groups. That means large numbers of enemies. While your standard single target destructive spell is essentially the same in such conditions, AoE's can suddenly become far more useful than they normally would. When your casters can reliably hit 3-4 guys with a fireball, it quickly becomes pretty nice in combat. Especially if you have a Cleave/Great Cleave Fighter around.

Roog
2007-08-10, 08:39 AM
14th century? Bloody modernists.

To develop on my point, however. Yes, those are fancily named maneuvers. Did any of them, say Resist Fire? Heal yourself of wounds? Attack two people at once? Walk in any kind of terrain, more effectively than you do on a flat sparring-room floor? Damage people with cold? Ignore damage? Smell things well enough to pinpoint anything within 5'? Because that's 1st level maneuvers from 7 of the 9 schools.

Take a Warblade, as the other two classes can have mystical elements, and they are the best fit to the situation. They have 8 possible 1st level maneuvers, with the most unbelievable being Stone Bones (gain DR5/adamantine for one round if the attack is successful), and you could argue that one is believable (with the right fluff).

You say "Attack two people at once", is an unbelievable ability. Is it unbelievable for a character with a BAB of 10? Is it unbelievable for a character with two weapons? Is it unbelievable for a character with flurry?

If you take the Warblades 5 possible 1st level stances, one of them gives scent (a non-realistic ability) but you are still free to pick a different stance, just like you are free not to pick a Feat that is too unrealistic for your taste.

Ozymandias
2007-08-10, 08:42 AM
If you don't like the fluff, change it. If you don't like the crunch, disallow or house-rule it.

I object to the phrase 'anime feel'; there are certainly myriad anime with supernatural abilities etc, but there are plenty that are realistic. Even among the former camp, some (say, Rurōni Kenshin) generally avoid explicitly using impossible techniques et al (sure, there's plenty of pseudo-science, but that's a bit different in my opinion.) Kenshin can't fly, but he can jump really high so it's effectively the same thing. Sure, he can cut steel with his sword, but who can't these days? 'Excalibur' means 'cut steel' anyway.

Roog
2007-08-10, 08:57 AM
Whats an anime feel?

A 10th level Barbarian (14 DEX and Run) and max skill can jump an average of over 30' with no magic and a 10th level monk an average of over 40'.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 09:01 AM
I think that complaint calls for a cross-thread quote:

People tend to use "anime" as a catch all for "pretty much anything which originates east of Berlin". Hell I've heard Weapons of the Gods described as "anime" (because, y'know, China and Japan are practically the same country).

So "anime" might well actually mean "wuxia".

I think it *is* true that "western" traditions are less inclined to allow people to perform pseudo-magical effects with pure martial skill. A lot of what counts as a "martial art" in anime or a kung fu movie would count as "magic" in a more mainstream western fantasy.

I for one know approximately nothing about the technical terminology of modern eastern fantasy. I suspect I'm not alone in that, which is why 'anime feel' comes up so often. I know perfectly well that anime doesn't necessarily involve any of the features that get ToB tagged that way, but it is what some of them call to mind, and I for one lack the vocabulary to be more specific.


Whats an anime feel?

A 10th level Barbarian (14 DEX and Run) and max skill can jump an average of over 30' with no magic and a 10th level monk an average of over 40'.
A tenth level character is substantially superhuman. I'm not sure I see the problem here.

Though if you go down to less or non superhuman levels long jumping is still over the top a bit. This has been noted (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html).

Roog
2007-08-10, 09:18 AM
A tenth level character is substantially superhuman. I'm not sure I see the problem here.

I'm wondering what the difference between "substantially superhuman" and anime feel is.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 09:23 AM
All the while, that monk would take lethal damage by the amount of distance or height he can jump unless he is adjacent to a wall, which is friggin ridiculous. I actually like the more absurd wire-fu, so letting monks auto-feather fall and such would be nice....Insane movement acrobatics, actually making the physical buffs more agile than casters.....


What I dislike about ToB, but also about the completes in terms of improving Melee characters: bigger numbers. A Core-only, somewhat optimised THF-Fighter does a maximum of 2d6+22 Damage (Greatsword, Str 22, +6 strength with items, +5 enhancement bonus +4 Focus tree) + Power Attack + additional damage Boni (flaming, freezing, Bane, whatever). That makes for an average of about 30 points of damage for an optimized Fighter, maybe 45 for a Rogue(1d6 Shortsword + 3 Strength + 10d6 Sneak + 5 Enhancement). Suddenly, massive Damage makes sense, because itīs, at least in Melee, only invoked with furious Power Attacks or succesful Sneak Attacks. Iīll also award anyone who finds a Core-Monster that reliably does more than 50 damage per attack a cookie.
Of course, casters could do much more, but only once per round, only limited times per day - and energy resistance is much easier to come by than DR, making your weapon damage much more valuable against anything but Oozes.
Of Course save-or-die makes these considerations moot, but basically, theyīre solid - being hit with all someone at your lvl has got has killed you, and will kill you in 1-3 rounds, depending on your build.

Having a lancer build(complete Series) or diamond nightmare striking character(ToB) just turning your enemies into gory mist of course somewhat equals Save-or-die. But it upsets the calculation of damage in core, and actually makes Fights less flexible - to qoute PHB PSAīs in slightly modified form "If youīre not special attacking with a class feature, you ainīt doing Jack!".
It just puts everybody in his little niché, with little to no chance of coming out of it and doing something useful anywhere else (unless youīre Swordsage, in which case you can drop some of your maneuver-skills like concentration to learn skills for secondary Skillmonkey role).
It also upsets CR and makes fights stupid.

I can understand where the anime-feeling comes from (and not the good sort). Itīs no longer Bob and William the playerīs facing of their Barbarian and Rogues in a fierce battle against Fred the DMīs hulking monster in a contest of will and skills, but the parties facing of ridiculous amounts of HP, DR and fast healing + insta-death attacks against the power of Sneak attack and the Charge of gory red mist. The fight is much more binary, with characters and monsters reduced to their primary attack/class feature.
Itīs no longer "you have some HD(Barbarians, Rangers and even Fighters have better HD than most Monsters save Dragons and Outsiders!) and additional capabilities weīll take it from there" but a battle of the "OMG-Pwnzor special attacks". No more lateral thinking, tactics are reduced to setting up the field for your ultimate attack.

Much like MtG, which was, at least originally, also about tactics, 3.87 fights are more about preparation/deck-building and strategy, with the fights mostly decided before the first die is rolled/first card is drawn. I think one of the most intrigiung aspects of the game is lost that way.....

And while ToB gives you necessesary power to compete within the system, it doesnīt change what is wrong with the system (to much emphasis and power on and in class features imho).

Matthew
2007-08-10, 09:30 AM
I'm wondering what the difference between "substantially superhuman" and anime feel is.

Here's how the conversation developed in the previous Thread:


I think I know why I've been grumpy about ToB... it's trying to bring anime combat into D&D. That's my least favorite part of 3.x... the anime influences. I prefer to play more traditional fantasy, instead of anime.



You know, I hear everyone say that, and I always think: 'fluff distinction.' Fluff is the easiest part to change, and is completely doable on the fly. Have you looked at the mechanics? If you have, how do you feel about the mechanics, divorced from their "anime" placement?



So mythical heros like Cuchulain or Heracles, and movies like 300, are anime?



Well, 300 is a kind of anime, as far as being inspired by a comic book.

The deeds of Cuchlain I'm not familiar with, but it's worth noting that Hercules is the son of Zeus, which lends a certain leeway to what he is capable of. It's not anime, for sure, it's mythology, which is itself slightly different from the D&D paradigm (though only slightly).



...which is a valid stance. I don't have a problem with people who don't like the system because it's 'not necessary,' or 'too complex,' or other complaints that basically boil down to 'I don't want it in my game because I don't like how it works.'

I do, however, have a problem with the 'wrong feel' type complaints. Why? Because flavor is the easiest thing to change. Most DMs do it all the time with basic things: making the elves from a specific nation or killing off all the gnomes. Changing the fluff is easy; changing the mechanics are hard.


Of course, that creates an interesting dichotomoy. Someone can dislike the anime feel of ToB (if that's what they perceive) and still quite like the mechanics or vice versa. Viewing ToB as essentially a mechanical book (which is probably valid) will lead to the conclusion you arrived at.



It's not merely fluff that places them with anime; their style and effects are quite similar. I'm reading several Desert Wind maneuvers and attributing them to Makoto Shishio, from Rurouni Kenshin. Stone Dragon? Sagara Sanosuke. Diamond Mind? Not too bad for Kenshin. I have trouble seeing these outside of a comic book/anime context.

For mechanics, they're not horrible... their mechanical basis doesn't seem out of line with magic of a similar level, bringing warriors up to par with wizards. But, quite frankly, they're not the game I want to play; I prefer to avoid wuxia in my games.



Man, what? Desert Wind is mystical, but "make fire, durr" isn't limited to anime. I mean, c'mon--Stone Dragon is just hitting things really hard and being tough! Diamond Mind is just discipline and focus.


Shadow Hand and Desert Wind have like all or all but one or two of the (Su) maneuvers. What wuxia? Look at what the maneuvers bloody well DO: Tiger Claw is pouncing on people and cutting them, Iron Heart and Stone Dragon are hitting them real hard and being tough, Devoted Spirit is Don't Fall Down. You CAN make them Wuxia, yeah--but it's definitely not the default.



One more thing about anime - anime is not a genre, it's a style of drawing cartoons. Shonen anime like DB, Naruto or Bleach (all three of which, I admit, I used to like and in case of Bleach still do) is just a grain of sand in the desert - I can easily give you at least half a dozen anime I've watched that didn't have ANY elements that most people mean when they say "anime feel".
Just a nitpick.



You're right. "Anime" in this case is a shorthand for "shonen anime with a significant fighting focus", but shonen anime is a genre in and of itself; it has certain genre conventions which influence the story-telling and action depicted, much like fantasy novels do. In such animes (and in the broader genre), it's not uncommon to have the strong idiot, the former adversary who is almost equal to the hero, but more ruthless, and the main hero, who is simply more awesome than anyone else.

It would be highly unusual to see an anime where people fight competently, but without secret maneuvers or tricks that depend on their school. Sure, there's other kinds of anime... but the style of ToB is very distinctly influenced by the shonen fighting anime.



Hmm... maybe Twelve Kingdoms? Many of the characters are good fighters, but in combat they rely on swordplay (or brute strength in some rare cases), not super-duper flashy special techniques. Granted, this anime is not about action, but it's more a social-political one (though it begins with the extremely used-up "schoolgirl ends up in another world" cliche).



I recently saw something called Tsukikage Ran--fansubbed, about a wandering samurai. the fights were short and without any kind of "special moves" on the samurai's part--just Iai swordsmanship... which, you'll note, has technique just like any kind of swordsmanship, but is fundamentally just cutting people.

As for maneuvers and tricks, well... those are widespread to Western swordsmanship of most periods, Renaissance duelling schools, and modern martial arts. I agree with ROL; hitting things is hitting things, whether you call it Mountain Hammer or not.



I do look at what they do. I also look at the broader mechanical context, which is heavily influenced by anime.* Maneuvers which are only usable once per encounter? Not that dissimilar from the various special attacks used in anime, from Kenshin's special strikes to DBZ's constipation-manuevers. How many times an encounter can Yusuke use his Rei Gun? About once per encounter, right? Anytime he's used it more than once in the same fight, there's usually a significant pause in the action... long enough for him to, say, take a full-round action to recharge his abilities.

I find it difficult to translate these into traditional Western literature; modern interpretations of them, certainly, but Beowulf didn't beat Grendel with "Ancient Mountain Hammer", he overcame it with strength and wrestling skill... things that anyone in Geatland had, but he was simply better at.

*To save Tengu time, when I say "anime", I'm referring to "shonen anime with a significant focus on combat", such as Dragonball Z, YuYu Hakusho, or Rurouni Kenshin. Yes, I know there are other types of anime.



Don't worry, I'm not that annoying to nitpick the same thing twice in one thread. Which does not say a lot, though.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 09:32 AM
I'm wondering what the difference between "substantially superhuman" and anime feel is.
Taking a 30 foot long jump is superhuman. But it's superhuman by direct extrapolation of real capabilities, and it's at a level where PCs no longer fall anywhere close to mundane human capabilities. So it's just a matter of extraordinary strength/skill.

Some 'anime feel' features of ToB:
-Magic by martial arts. Lots of it, though only in 3 schools. And it doesn't all get supernatural-tagged...Lightning Throw!?
-Maneuvers are expended, rather than being on call anytime.
-A huge amount of the fluff. (Obviously, you can trim that, but it's still in the book)

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 09:41 AM
I can understand where the anime-feeling comes from (and not the good sort). Itīs no longer Bob and William the playerīs facing of their Barbarian and Rogues in a fierce battle against Fred the DMīs hulking monster in a contest of will and skills, but the parties facing of ridiculous amounts of HP, DR and fast healing + insta-death attacks against the power of Sneak attack and the Charge of gory red mist. The fight is much more binary, with characters and monsters reduced to their primary attack/class feature.
...where do the will and skill go away? I understand that the numbers go up, possibly, though it's often claimed that a correctly built charge-barb is still the ultimate in (ideal) damage per round. But you need more than larger or smaller numbers to somehow alter the fundamental logic.

Where are you claiming that the basic nature of the thing changed?

Kioran
2007-08-10, 09:47 AM
...where do the will and skill go away? I understand that the numbers go up, possibly, though it's often claimed that a correctly built charge-barb is still the ultimate in (ideal) damage per round. But you need more than larger or smaller numbers to somehow alter the fundamental logic.

Where are you claiming that the basic nature of the thing changed?

Because the HP didnīt scale with it - just like save-or-die, the moment the lancer-Barb or Diamond nightmare Warblade hits you, your **** is ruined. Most people die from one, perhaps two of these attacks. Why risk exposure to such tactics or a Maze/Finger of Death when you can use such tactics to end the battle in one attack? Thus, people lvl their ultimate attacks at each other 90% percent of the time, and the first two rounds decide the entire fight(unless your swimming in Mooks). If you succeed, bam, you win. If you fail, you die horribly. No rethinking of plans because there isnīt time for it.

Core only, with blaster casters, most fights last a bit longer, and you might have time/success with alternate tactics.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 09:55 AM
Because the HP didnīt scale with it - just like save-or-die, the moment the lancer-Barb or Diamond nightmare Warblade hits you, your **** is ruined. Most people die from one, perhaps two of these attacks. Why risk exposure to such tactics or a Maze/Finger of Death when you can use such tactics to end the battle in one attack? Thus, people lvl their ultimate attacks at each other 90% percent of the time, and the first two rounds decide the entire fight(unless your swimming in Mooks). If you succeed, bam, you win. If you fail, you die horribly. No rethinking of plans because there isnīt time for it.

Core only, with blaster casters, most fights last a bit longer, and you might have time/success with alternate tactics.

Two things:

1. How is "success=win, fail=die" not representative of actual combat?

2. Lancers are perfectly capable of providing stellar damage output even while remaining within core, so stopp sing them to argue your point.

Roog
2007-08-10, 09:55 AM
Iīll also award anyone who finds a Core-Monster that reliably does more than 50 damage per attack a cookie.

Using a standard action...

Titan (CR21) uses its Maul of the Titans (+6 Gargantuan Warhammer) with both hands and Power Attacks for 6 (+12 dam), giving average damage 51 at +25 Attack.

That is, if it doesn't use that action to cast as a 20th level Wizard or 20th level Cleric.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 10:01 AM
Two things:

1. How is "success=win, fail=die" not representative of actual combat?

2. Lancers are perfectly capable of providing stellar damage output even while remaining within core, so stopp sing them to argue your point.

Stellar damage is something like 90 points, which is 20 BAB used for Power attack along with other optimization. Show me how to do more. More comes non-core, and Core-only you donīt hit anything when you do that much.

as for point 1: you are right, but 2-round fights decided by one or two tricks are somewhat predictable and depend only on the circumstances of the fight. You know your one ticket to victory. Hold that card and use it. ToB is good in so far as it gives you one or two additional cards so youīre no a one-trick pony, but it doesnīt remove the problem.
In my Core-only campaing, many fights last much longer than in the core+complete campaign before that. And the characters had to adapt to situations more than once, whioch is possible because mistakes arenīt instantly lethal, like they would be in a 3.87 fight.

Oh and the Titan? Does 4d6+27, average of 41 damage. Not even more than a sneaky rogue.

Ozymandias
2007-08-10, 10:03 AM
Two things:

1. How is "success=win, fail=die" not representative of actual combat?

2. Lancers are perfectly capable of providing stellar damage output even while remaining within core, so stopp sing them to argue your point.

I think he's trying to say that ToB characters' most attractive option is letting loose immediately and finishing the fight as quickly as possible, instead of taking a more measured, drawn out, 'tactical' approach.

More broadly, I'd say he prefers a tactical, take-it-as-it-comes approach, as opposed to a more strategic, in-advance-build-optimization one.

I may be misreading.

Qooroo
2007-08-10, 10:06 AM
Taking a 30 foot long jump is superhuman. But it's superhuman by direct extrapolation of real capabilities, and it's at a level where PCs no longer fall anywhere close to mundane human capabilities. So it's just a matter of extraordinary strength/skill.

Some 'anime feel' features of ToB:
-Magic by martial arts. Lots of it, though only in 3 schools. And it doesn't all get supernatural-tagged...Lightning Throw!?
-Maneuvers are expended, rather than being on call anytime.
-A huge amount of the fluff. (Obviously, you can trim that, but it's still in the book)

1. I fail to see how that's inherently anime. Yes, people achieving super-human, and often supernatural feats, by virtue of martial prowess is something that appears commonly in a specific sub-genre of anime. But it's hardly limited to that. Ancient western myth (Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer, Song of Roland) is full of examples of people doing phenomenally super-human things using only their skill. Yes, they were often godly in some respect, but in terms of capacity they were humans - just humans that were better at stuff than normal humans could be. Which is completely appropriate for D&D characters. You're the Big Damn Heroes. You should be able to do phenomenal stuff.
2. The maneuver system is a crunch conceit, just like the vancian magic system. It's part of the way D&D balances things. Furthermore, I really can't think of any examples in anime OR western literature that plays up that kind of limited times/day thing.
3. That's really your call, but I don't see how the fundamental fluff (different schools of martial training, each teaching their students to fight in a distinct fashion is a systemized manner) is inherently eastern. Yes, that could be used to describe various asian martial arts. It could also be used to describe various forms of fencing.

The system is designed in such a way that it can support a crazy shounen over-the-top martial arts anime flavour. Because there are people who like that and want it in their game. D&D, being a game of options, has provided people this ability. However, it's also equally suited for producing heroes of classical myth, or even just people who are just skilled combatants, without being particularly superhuman (any more than D&D already is, anyway) in appearance.

Generic PC
2007-08-10, 10:07 AM
Woah... didnt think that so many people avoided TOB... I just wanna thank most of the people who sort of helped me understand TOB. Of, and Matthew, for making sure the thread didnt get locked or something...

Roog
2007-08-10, 10:09 AM
Oh and the Titan? Does 4d6+27, average of 41 damage. Not even more than a sneaky rogue.

Titan:
4d6 + 6 (Weapon) + 13 (Str) + 6 (Two Hands) + 12 (Power Attack for 6) = 4D6 + 37

average 51 dam.



Twelve Headed Hydra (CR11):
Attacks with all heads on a standard action (+13 melee).
12 attacks x 1d10 + 6 = Average damage 138

OK it does less than that on average, but it is equivalent to a creature with one attack at the same hit number.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 10:10 AM
1. How is "success=win, fail=die" not representative of actual combat?
I think he's more objecting to how (in his perception, anyway) that win/die will be decided, essentially, by the first attack to hit. Not that this is unrealistic, but it does make it a bit hard to try something different if it goes wrong the first time.

I've been thinking...it seems more or less universally assumed that the only viable tactic is all-out offense. Is it impossible to instead design a party to chip away slowly at the enemy while resisting attacks, so that battles don't resolve in a 3-round splatterfest? Without thereby taking more of a beating than the party that can puree the opposition instantaneously, but thinks nothing of using Shock Trooper to drop their AC to single digits.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 10:21 AM
You wanted to see damage output? Sure.

Let's go human Paladin, just so I can stay in core. A lance does 1d8, with a 20/x2 critical, and does double damage from horseback. I'll use the Elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for ease of use.

Character Specifics:

STR 15, DEX 8, CON 13, WIS 14, INT 10, CHA 12
1: Power Attack
1: Mounted Combat
3:Ride-By Attack
4: +1 Str
6: Spirited Charge
8: +1 Str
9: Cleave
12: Improved Critical (Lance)
12: +1 Str
15: Great Cleave
16: +1 Str
18: Trample
20: +1 Str

At level 5, when I get my mount, I will have a lance +1. I can power attack for 3 points at that point while charging without even dropping below my regular AB (+2 for charging, +1 for lance +1), and I can wield my lance in two hands. This is +6 damage, doubled on a charge, and I don't have to end my charge near my foe to do so due to Ride-By Attack.

ECL 5: (1d8+(3*1.5 [2-handed weapon])+(3*2 [power attack])+1)*2, or a range of 24-38.

At level 6, I acquire Spirited Charge. This makes my lance do *3 instead of *2 on a charge.

ECL 6: (1d8+(3*1.5)+(3*2)+1)*3, or a range of 36-57.

I can break Massive Damage at ECL 6. I can do it better if I start adding in proper (ie: WBL) gear, such as gauntlets of ogre power. This also doesn't take into account critical hits, power attacking for more than 3, or a flying mount (which is available as early as early as ECL 7, if you check the LA line on a giant eagle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/eagleGiant.htm)).

Thrawn183
2007-08-10, 10:28 AM
I'd say the problem is the number of enemies that you have to take out very, very quickly. Full casters, beholders, anything with a special ability that is a death effect of some kind. An enemy cleric will have decent hp/ac/saves. The best counter is getting some spell resistance/saves and then taking them out as soon as possible (though not necessarily in that order).

Tactics and the like are great. Unfortunately they are most effective against random mobs: things that get into melee but that's about it, maybe ranged enemies that can't nova. The problem is that if your enemy can nova, you have to be able to do so as well. Any enemy that can kill you with a single action... you have a cumulative chance to die every round it survives.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 11:02 AM
I think I have something of a middle ground thanks to my amazing perceptual abilities:

Most people (sorry about the surprise broadside Tengu) don't seem to be saying ZOMG replace all your old classes!@!@!. I seem to be hearing something more along the line of ZOMG why won't you at least allow them as an option.

Heh, that's true of this Thread and the last one, but I do seem to see it a lot elsewhere. To be clear, that is pretty much my only objection to ToB, the fervour that has sprung up around it.


If none of your players like the martial adepts, they won't get played. If your other melee'rs feel like they are being overshadowed... then what kind of casters do you have and why hasn't it already been a problem?

A good question. More than likely they are either playing below level 10 where it's just plain less of a problem or the Spell Casters are of the 'Blaster' type. Either way, introducing ToB doesn't solve any problems, it just provides additional options (some of which may appear too powerful in relation to the rest of the group)


At the same time though, I agree with Fax, if its something you don't feel like learning, fine. I certainly don't want to ram something down somebody's throat.

A good attitude, I think.


@Matthew : out of curisosity, have you tried playing a martial adept ? Are they not simply more fun than the Fighter/Monk ? You're welcome to disagree ; it's my opinion that the 'increased fun' side does more for the ToB's reputation than the 'increased power' one.

Never for a campaign. I have made a few to see what was possible and familiarised myself with the rules for one shot games. I'm not claiming ToB isn't fun, nor that it is poorly designed. I think it's 'okay', I just don't subscribe to it as a necessity for the game at large.
I think there are several elements involved in the fun aspect; ToB increases the power of high level Martial Characters. ToB is new and interesting. ToB provides a number of new variations on old tricks. ToB lets you play a different style of Martial Character. All of which is fine with me.

The things I consider a problem are if a Player buys Tome of Battle and insists that his Dungeon Master allows its use without regard for the context in which they are already playing or the desire of the DM to learn yet another bunch of rules. Something new gets released and somebody buys it and wants to persuade his regular group to try it, mainly as a means of seeking the spotlight for their new Character, rather than seelking to balance the game [they rarely want to DM these new Character Classes]. I have no problem doing this for one shots or games specifically tailored to accomodate the trying out of new rules, but it can really disrupt a regular campaign that is striving for balance (and has already achieved it).

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 11:10 AM
I'd say the problem is the number of enemies that you have to take out very, very quickly. Full casters, beholders, anything with a special ability that is a death effect of some kind. An enemy cleric will have decent hp/ac/saves. The best counter is getting some spell resistance/saves and then taking them out as soon as possible (though not necessarily in that order).

Tactics and the like are great. Unfortunately they are most effective against random mobs: things that get into melee but that's about it, maybe ranged enemies that can't nova. The problem is that if your enemy can nova, you have to be able to do so as well. Any enemy that can kill you with a single action... you have a cumulative chance to die every round it survives.
If you can make that chance small enough, though, it isn't as much of a big deal. An orc warrior with a scythe is also a bit of an instant death risk for a while, when the critical does something like 44 average damage without any power attack.

Survival tactics against spellcasters would almost certainly involve at least one person readying an attack to disrupt their magic, and as much hiding, magical protection, spell resistance, and save-pumping as you can manage. I don't feel at all competent to figure out how safe you can make yourselves that way, though. Or to tell how safe you need to be to compete with the 'do unto others, right away!' approach.

1. I fail to see how that's inherently anime. Yes, people achieving super-human, and often supernatural feats, by virtue of martial prowess is something that appears commonly in a specific sub-genre of anime. But it's hardly limited to that. Ancient western myth (Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer, Song of Roland) is full of examples of people doing phenomenally super-human things using only their skill. Yes, they were often godly in some respect, but in terms of capacity they were humans - just humans that were better at stuff than normal humans could be. Which is completely appropriate for D&D characters. You're the Big Damn Heroes. You should be able to do phenomenal stuff.
I went at some length on this topic before. In my opinion, anyway, there are phenomenal things that are mundane, and phenomenal things that aren't. For an example brought up there: Throw an apple through someone's skull? Sure, why not? (Actually, why not is because the apple would become sauce in your hand under the acceleration, but besides that...) You have to be insanely strong and fast, but it's just extrapolation. Phenomenal, but not magic. Flying, teleporting, manipulating supernatural shadows...those aren't. If you're flying, and you don't have wings, it's magic. It may or may not be phenomenal...in D&D flying magically isn't all that amazing.

I don't mind mundane characters doing phenomenal stuff. I do mind them doing magical stuff. Magic and swordsmanship are both things you can learn, but they aren't interchangeable.

2. The maneuver system is a crunch conceit, just like the vancian magic system. It's part of the way D&D balances things. Furthermore, I really can't think of any examples in anime OR western literature that plays up that kind of limited times/day thing.
Well, I suspect that the works of Jack Vance might have, though I haven't read them... Nothing in ToB is per day, though. You can recover maneuvers during battle if you really want to, and get them back for free in between fights (which is poorly defined...grumble...).

I realize it's a necessary balance feature. But nonetheless it does contribute to flavor, and yanking a different move out of your bag of tricks each time you act does seem odd.

3. That's really your call, but I don't see how the fundamental fluff (different schools of martial training, each teaching their students to fight in a distinct fashion is a systemized manner) is inherently eastern. Yes, that could be used to describe various asian martial arts. It could also be used to describe various forms of fencing.
As far as it goes, you're right. But that isn't anywhere near as far as it goes:
"As you make a successful attack, you enter a meditative state that leaves you almost invulnerable to harm. For a few brief moments, arrows bounce off your skin, and sword blows barely draw any blood" (Iron Bones)
"You crouch and set your feet flat on the ground, drawing the resilience of the earth into your body." (Stonefoot Stance)
...you know, either I have a great imagination substituting for memory, or I fail at searching. I can't find the vast stores of mysticism I remembered floating around the flavor text. A fair bit of Stone Dragon has 'focus your energy' stuff in it, and I bypassed the magic schools, but that's all I can dig up right now. So I may be completely full of it about the provided flavor.

elliott20
2007-08-10, 11:21 AM
It seems to me a lot of the problems stems from the combat mechanics just doesn't give people an awful lot of options to work with. (Or at least, not without a huge number of feats devoted to it)

To be even decently competent at hitting someone or at doing a particular stunt, the game requires you invest in a large number of maneuvers that after a while are just not cost effective. So basically, you have to spend precious feats to be a bit more effective but still staying within the system of reason. Magic, on the other hand, goes the OTHER direction, where it increasingly becomes more and more powerful and eventually just outright breaks the rules all together, making the caster more and more exempt from various mechanics of the game. (This is where your insta-kill tactics come from)

All the while, the game already has very few physical combat options as to how you can deal with your enemy to begin with. When you introduce mechanics that makes these options obsolete, you have a problem.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 11:27 AM
Whats an anime feel?

A 10th level Barbarian (14 DEX and Run) and max skill can jump an average of over 30' with no magic and a 10th level monk an average of over 40'.

At 10th level, you're bordering on the section of the game called "wuxia", according to quartile theory (1-5 is gritty, 6-10 is heroic, 11-15 is wuxia, and 16-20 is superheroes).


The long jump is also notable for two of the longest-standing world records in any track and field event. ... On August 30 of [1991], Mike Powell of the USA leapt 8.95 meters at the World Championships in Tokyo.

World record for a running long jump is 8.95 meters, which is just shy of 30' (29', 4"). That's skill, not magic.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 11:40 AM
It seems to me a lot of the problems stems from the combat mechanics just doesn't give people an awful lot of options to work with. (Or at least, not without a huge number of feats devoted to it)

To be even decently competent at hitting someone or at doing a particular stunt, the game requires you invest in a large number of maneuvers that after a while are just not cost effective. So basically, you have to spend precious feats to be a bit more effective but still staying within the system of reason. Magic, on the other hand, goes the OTHER direction, where it increasingly becomes more and more powerful and eventually just outright breaks the rules all together, making the caster more and more exempt from various mechanics of the game. (This is where your insta-kill tactics come from)

All the while, the game already has very few physical combat options as to how you can deal with your enemy to begin with. When you introduce mechanics that makes these options obsolete, you have a problem.

I think that's a fair assessment of the perceived problems inherent in the system. Since Combat is essentially abstract, it cannot model the nuances that might make it more interesting. ToB provides a host of mechanical options (each of which is somewhere between a Feat and a Spell) that serves to provide additional choices during combat with regard to limited resources and their best application to defeat a given challenge. Some of these are, like Feats, simply better than others, which is in my opinion a bit of a flaw, but not a major problem.

However, if I were seeking to make combat more interesting in this way (which, generally speaking I am not, as I find Combat to already be interesting enough for its purpose) I would be more inclined to allow already existing Martial Characters to learn these techniques and secrets through study at the Temples.

In many ways, this all reminds me of the 'Fighting Styles' from 2e, where you where the option was available to invent special Fighting Skills and learn them via Character Points/Proficiency Slots, which I think would be quite a fun approach.

Some Manoeuvres strike me as things that should already be part of the Combat system, such as Wall of Blades.

[Edit]
I wonder if some of this is due to how people choose to focus on how they play D&D [i.e. as a Tactical War Game as opposed to that being one facet of the whole].

Roog
2007-08-10, 11:41 AM
At 10th level, you're bordering on the section of the game called "wuxia", according to quartile theory (1-5 is gritty, 6-10 is heroic, 11-15 is wuxia, and 16-20 is superheroes).
So if 11-15 is wuxia why do people complain about ToB being too anime? What makes ToB different?



World record for a running long jump is 8.95 meters, which is just shy of 30' (29', 4"). That's skill, not magic.

And if the Barbarian rolls well he will make 40'. I forgot tumble synergy and only had 14 DEX, so 45' foot is achievable at that level without any extra feats/magic/special abilities (and over 50' for the monk).

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 11:43 AM
1. I fail to see how that's inherently anime. Yes, people achieving super-human, and often supernatural feats, by virtue of martial prowess is something that appears commonly in a specific sub-genre of anime. But it's hardly limited to that. Ancient western myth (Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer, Song of Roland) is full of examples of people doing phenomenally super-human things using only their skill. Yes, they were often godly in some respect, but in terms of capacity they were humans - just humans that were better at stuff than normal humans could be. Which is completely appropriate for D&D characters. You're the Big Damn Heroes. You should be able to do phenomenal stuff.

Again, there's also the level at which this takes place. Achilles? Demi-god, made nigh-invulnerable by his goddess mother. Hector? Not a 1st level warrior. Gilgamesh? Enkidu? Again, these are demi-gods who are doing demi-god acts. I don't know much of what you're referring to in the Song of Roland... care to point to examples?

For a more appropriate level of what people should be doing, IMO, at low-levels of play, try the Serpentwar Saga by Raymond Feist, especially the first book, Shadows of a Dark Queen. You've got a variety of characters there... ranging from low-level, beginning warriors (Erik and Roo's company), to higher levels (Sgt. Bobby), high-level wizards (Miranda), to templated characters (Calis, who is half-elf, quarter-human, quarter godling), to epic characters (Pug, Tomas).



The system is designed in such a way that it can support a crazy shounen over-the-top martial arts anime flavour. Because there are people who like that and want it in their game. D&D, being a game of options, has provided people this ability. However, it's also equally suited for producing heroes of classical myth, or even just people who are just skilled combatants, without being particularly superhuman (any more than D&D already is, anyway) in appearance.

I disagree. It's suited to making those great heroes at low levels, or making a shonen anime hero. To do something else, you have to cut substantial chunks from it... barring large chunks, and essentially remaking the system.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 11:44 AM
So if 11-15 is wuxia why do people complain about ToB being too anime? What makes ToB different?

I think the issue is that ToB opens with Wuxia, keeps up with Wuxia, and doesn't let up.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 11:46 AM
So if 11-15 is wuxia why do people complain about ToB being too anime? What makes ToB different?

Levels 11-15 are wuxia. Levels 1-10 are not. ToB changes that, pushing it into wuxia territory immediately. I seldom play higher than level 10; I don't like it. Why would I want to make the lower levels more like it?

Matthew
2007-08-10, 11:49 AM
I don't know much of what you're referring to in the Song of Roland... care to point to examples?

Probably the bits where men and horses get cut in half or where the Frankish rearguard sees off an enemy many times it's size. Of course, Roland has a magic sword and the whole thing is actually a result of the favour of God [i.e. not actually skill, but faith], but there you go.

All the same, Roland and co are probably pretty high level (at least 7, I reckon)

lord_khaine
2007-08-10, 11:57 AM
Originally Posted by MrNexx
At 10th level, you're bordering on the section of the game called "wuxia", according to quartile theory (1-5 is gritty, 6-10 is heroic, 11-15 is wuxia, and 16-20 is superheroes).

So if 11-15 is wuxia why do people complain about ToB being too anime? What makes ToB different?


well some people think quartile theory is a load of rubish.

and for that matter that the word wuxia should not be thrown so casualy around in a world where you might risk getting hit by a fireball at lv 1.

do note that most of the TOB abilities are either supernatual or extraordinary, where extraordinary just means a supernatual ability that works in a antimagic field. (by that im refering to that extraordinary abilities are still able to break the laws of physics)

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 12:11 PM
well some people think quartile theory is a load of rubish.

It might not pin the numbers correctly, but there are some fairly clear levels of play in 3e.


and for that matter that the word wuxia should not be thrown so casualy around in a world where you might risk getting hit by a fireball at lv 1.

It's a matter of genre conventions, I suppose.

Magic is a part of D&D as I see it. It doesn't annoy me, or break my suspension of disbelief, because wizards throwing fire, lightning, and other such things fit in with it. martial maneuvers aren't; they go outside of what I see as the conventions of D&D, and so I don't like them.

Funnily enough, I don't have this problem in Earthdawn, where characters are capable of many similar feats. It fits in with the world of Earthdawn and my expectations of it... but not with D&D, and the way I see it.

Reinforcements
2007-08-10, 12:13 PM
Levels 11-15 are wuxia. Levels 1-10 are not. ToB changes that, pushing it into wuxia territory immediately. I seldom play higher than level 10; I don't like it. Why would I want to make the lower levels more like it?
But it still isn't the same power level. It seems to me that it makes more sense that a character could do impressive (but appropriately powered) stuff right off the bat, instead of being mundane for a while and then suddenly hitting some magical threshold (after a few months of fighting stuff) where hey! now he's superhuman.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 12:14 PM
But it still isn't the same power level. It seems to me that it makes more sense that a character could do impressive (but appropriately powered) stuff right off the bat, instead of being mundane for a while and then suddenly hitting some magical threshold (after a few months of fighting stuff) where hey! now he's superhuman.

You're going to have that regardless. It's part of the problem with Vancian Magic.

Manave_E_Sulanul
2007-08-10, 12:20 PM
First, I'd like to say I had no idea what Wuxia was before I read this thread then asked the oracle (read:wikipedia) what it was.

The oracle (again, read: Wikipedia) didn't quite do it for me though in regards of understanding the relevance of it to this discussion because it didn't help me understand the combat style presented at all.

Does anyone have any links to good examples they can share?

But to be more pertinent and try to not be too digressive, I like Tome of Battle, because I enjoy many of the non-supernatural ones.

I also like the Martial feat (Can't remember the name just now) that lets people learn single maneuvers because they make good 'special ability rewards' I can give in place of XP to keep my game going in the '1-10' sweet spot I like in D&D while not effecting the games mechanics too badly.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 12:20 PM
You're going to have that regardless. It's part of the problem with Vancian Magic.

Hell, it's part of the problem with levelling.

lord_khaine
2007-08-10, 12:20 PM
Magic is a part of D&D as I see it. It doesn't annoy me, or break my suspension of disbelief, because wizards throwing fire, lightning, and other such things fit in with it. martial maneuvers aren't; they go outside of what I see as the conventions of D&D, and so I don't like them.


you should try and think of TOB chars as the new fighter/wizards, for thats what they are, some of the maneuvers are just plain skill, but a lot of them draws on magical force in some way.
and for that matter, is it so strange than in a world overflowing with magic some swordsmen have found a way to draw a little bit on it?

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 12:24 PM
But it still isn't the same power level. It seems to me that it makes more sense that a character could do impressive (but appropriately powered) stuff right off the bat, instead of being mundane for a while and then suddenly hitting some magical threshold (after a few months of fighting stuff) where hey! now he's superhuman.

In most cases, the advantages you see at higher levels are continuations of things that happened at lower levels... it's not a matter of suddenly acquiring nigh-magical abilities, but of getting more and more competent until you reach that level.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 12:26 PM
Hell, it's part of the problem with levelling.

True enough, but a leveled system does have its benefits, not the least of which is the ability to accurately determine and regulate the approximate power level of a party (in essence, ECL and CR).

Further, a leveled system prevents WoD/GURPS min-maxing, which is of a different sort than what's found in D&D. In essence, a leveled system means that there are limits as to acquisition of new power. A purchase system, like WoD or GURPS, has no such limits beyond prerequisites (and in some cases, there are no prerequisites), which means that someone aiming to exploit the system has a much easier time doing so. Instead of spending their energies fulfilling all their needs (ie: leveling up), they can focus their efforts onto purchasing just what they need to get their ZOMG KILLER COMBO ATTACK OF DOOM.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 12:34 PM
True enough, but a leveled system does have its benefits, not the least of which is the ability to accurately determine and regulate the approximate power level of a party (in essence, ECL and CR).

Absolutely. Though the degree of accuracy can vary considerably, levels do provide a good gauge. However, the degree of variance between a 3e Level 1 Character and a Level 20 Character is the most significant I have yet to see. I suspect this is part of the reason D&D seems best balanced at levels 1-6.


Further, a leveled system prevents WoD/GURPS min-maxing, which is of a different sort than what's found in D&D. In essence, a leveled system means that there are limits as to acquisition of new power. A purchase system, like WoD or GURPS, has no such limits beyond prerequisites (and in some cases, there are no prerequisites), which means that someone aiming to exploit the system has a much easier time doing so. Instead of spending their energies fulfilling all their needs (ie: leveling up), they can focus their efforts onto purchasing just what they need to get their ZOMG KILLER COMBO ATTACK OF DOOM.

Hmmn. Not sure I agree completely with this. It depends what you do about thresholds and caps, I suspect. WFRP was a good example of a well capped system with a sense of progression, I think.

elliott20
2007-08-10, 12:36 PM
I think that's a fair assessment of the perceived problems inherent in the system. Since Combat is essentially abstract, it cannot model the nuances that might make it more interesting. ToB provides a host of mechanical options (each of which is somewhere between a Feat and a Spell) that serves to provide additional choices during combat with regard to limited resources and their best application to defeat a given challenge. Some of these are, like Feats, simply better than others, which is in my opinion a bit of a flaw, but not a major problem.

However, if I were seeking to make combat more interesting in this way (which, generally speaking I am not, as I find Combat to already be interesting enough for its purpose) I would be more inclined to allow already existing Martial Characters to learn these techniques and secrets through study at the Temples.

In many ways, this all reminds me of the 'Fighting Styles' from 2e, where you where the option was available to invent special Fighting Skills and learn them via Character Points/Proficiency Slots, which I think would be quite a fun approach.

Some Manoeuvres strike me as things that should already be part of the Combat system, such as Wall of Blades.

[Edit]
I wonder if some of this is due to how people choose to focus on how they play D&D [i.e. as a Tactical War Game as opposed to that being one facet of the whole].

Well, to further develop my post, I guess it really depends on how you want to play the game in the very end.

Take, for example, MtG or Diablo 2. Combat is not just about your field tactics, it's about your build, your preparation, and the work you place into building your strength. Preparation is probably about 90% of the battle. As such, these games while still requires a high level of skill, is still mostly investment based. (these resources being either experience points, wealth, or just access to powerful cards) In games like these, it is quite frequently that the player can do decently well by specializing their strats to have their own little insta-win button.

Now, let's turn this around and compare this to a fighting game like say, SoulCalibur. What you pick is what you get. In this case, your skills and strategy is far more important than your previous investment. Your investment here is not money, or wealth, or anything of that sort, but skill. While you can build your game on specialization, in order to truly succeed, you can't be a one trick pony. If you want to do well in Soul Calibur, you have to know how to parry, poke, dodge, block, control spacing, etc, everything.

The same can be said of chess. You can't preemptively level your king so he can move 3 spaces instead of one. (although, that would be kind of a funny twist for a chess game if you could level up all your pieces.) the entire game is skill based.

The complaint that is levied here against ToB is that it simply gives fighters an insta-win button that pushes it even further away from the entire strategy aspect of the game, and makes it more about building that one hit win strategy as opposed to making it more about trying to dissolve your foes defense through careful planning with the tools you have available.

The problem with that is that the combat system does not give you an awful lot of tools to do that with in the first place. You can't surgically figure out ways to dissolve the enemy's defense if you just don't have the right tools available. And this is the result of the entire leveling up system that all investment based games will have. Some people are just not going to be equipped to deal with certain situations. that's fine and all but then on the flip side of it, WotC have actually made it so that there are classes who DO have tools to defuse EVERY situation. For them, THEY are the ones who get to play the strategic game in addition to the ONE HIT KILL game.

And that, I think, is where the problem lies.

ToB solves ONE part of that problem by giving the melee guys some means of also playing a one hit kill game. But in terms of the tools and options game? that's still investment based.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 12:37 PM
Hmmn. Not sure I agree completely with this. It depends what you do about thresholds and caps, I suspect. WFRP was a good example of a well capped system with a sense of progression, I think.

WFRP does have a good cap. WoD (both new and old) does not: in fact, there is very little in the way of limitation in WoD (and, perhaps to a greater extent, in Exalted).

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 12:38 PM
you should try and think of TOB chars as the new fighter/wizards, for thats what they are, some of the maneuvers are just plain skill, but a lot of them draws on magical force in some way.
and for that matter, is it so strange than in a world overflowing with magic some swordsmen have found a way to draw a little bit on it?

Doesn't fit in with how I see the world, and not the game I want to play.

My primary world is the Forgotten Realms. I tend to view things through the lens of the Forgotten Realms, because I've been playing in it for about 15 years, and DMing it for 10. To introduce things of that nature means either shoehorning it in (obscure things that have never been seen before, and are just suddenly popping up), or bringing it in from a foreign land. The foreign lands available are Maztica (Native American), Zakhara (Arabian), Kara-tur (Asian), or Wildspace (Spelljammer).

In Earthdawn, that's precisely what happened... people learned how to use magic to enhance their physical abilities, even going beyond purely physical abilities.

You know what else I noticed, running through the book? A "does this belong in my game" section. Not there at all.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 12:40 PM
You know what else I noticed, running through the book? A "does this belong in my game" section. Not there at all.

Ah, but there are "adaptation" entries for the three classes and for all the PrCs.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 12:51 PM
Ah, but there are "adaptation" entries for the three classes and for all the PrCs.

Not the same at all. They're brief, and very generalized, without much related to anything beyond "these are a few general ideas on how to make these guys different", rather than "Here's concrete ways to use them in a campaign set in X world that we own."

Matthew
2007-08-10, 12:58 PM
The complaint that is levied here against ToB is that it simply gives fighters an insta-win button that pushes it even further away from the entire strategy aspect of the game, and makes it more about building that one hit win strategy as opposed to making it more about trying to dissolve your foes defense through careful planning with the tools you have available.

I dunno, I'm not convinced that is the complaint, it's certainly not mine. I think it just continues the 3e trend of specialised builds. My complaint was more along the lines of 'this is okay, but it's just not that great, it could have been a lot better'.


The problem with that is that the combat system does not give you an awful lot of tools to do that with in the first place. You can't surgically figure out ways to dissolve the enemy's defense if you just don't have the right tools available. And this is the result of the entire leveling up system that all investment based games will have. Some people are just not going to be equipped to deal with certain situations. that's fine and all but then on the flip side of it, WotC have actually made it so that there are classes who DO have tools to defuse EVERY situation. For them, THEY are the ones who get to play the strategic game in addition to the ONE HIT KILL game.

And that, I think, is where the problem lies.

ToB solves ONE part of that problem by giving the melee guys some means of also playing a one hit kill game. But in terms of the tools and options game? that's still investment based.

Hmmn. I think that is a reasonable observation about 3e. I do find that the majority of my 'fixes' for the game are focused on low levels and always end up 'front loading' a Base Class. I do think Class and Level based games would function better if they interacted with none level based factors (Hey, I'm describing my Home Brewed version of D&D, what a surprise, I'm prejudiced :smallbiggrin: ).


WFRP does have a good cap. WoD (both new and old) does not: in fact, there is very little in the way of limitation in WoD (and, perhaps to a greater extent, in Exalted).

Hmmn. I always thought they were supposed to be capped at your 'comfort level', but I haven't played WoD. I know GURPS has something along the lines of advice pertaining to types of builds.
WFRP is probably one of my favourite systems (Indeed, it was my first 'proper' RPG). Interestingly, the combat options in that game were pretty much the same as for D&D (which it closely mirrored) and yet I never felt as though I needed more combat options. On the other hand, I always felt like the careers could have been better handled.

Roog
2007-08-10, 12:59 PM
For a more appropriate level of what people should be doing, IMO, at low-levels of play, try the Serpentwar Saga by Raymond Feist, especially the first book, Shadows of a Dark Queen. You've got a variety of characters there... ranging from low-level, beginning warriors (Erik and Roo's company), to higher levels (Sgt. Bobby), high-level wizards (Miranda), to templated characters (Calis, who is half-elf, quarter-human, quarter godling), to epic characters (Pug, Tomas).
IIRC The Midkemia books (especially Magician) were roleplay inspired. Take a look at the structure of the story in Magician, the way the characters improve through that book is quite unusual for a novel but common for D&D. His later work has moved away from that style of character development.

Personally, I think this makes the earlier stuff both a good and bad example of what characters should be like. Good because (especially Magician) it reads like a campaign you could see being played, and would have been a really good campaign (unlike say LotR). Bad because as a circular inspiration (RP -> Novel -> RP) tends to inspire us to do more of the same type of thing only better.



I disagree. It's suited to making those great heroes at low levels, or making a shonen anime hero. To do something else, you have to cut substantial chunks from it... barring large chunks, and essentially remaking the system.
A distinction needs to be made between the Disciplines available to Warblades and the others. Swordsages have supernatural abilities, so do monks, thats often a part of the concept (although they can dump the supernatural abilities more easily than the monk).

namo
2007-08-10, 01:03 PM
The things I consider a problem are if a Player buys Tome of Battle and insists that his Dungeon Master allows its use without regard for the context in which they are already playing or the desire of the DM to learn yet another bunch of rules. Something new gets released and somebody buys it and wants to persuade his regular group to try it, mainly as a means of seeking the spotlight for their new Character, rather than seelking to balance the game [they rarely want to DM these new Character Classes]. I have no problem doing this for one shots or games specifically tailored to accomodate the trying out of new rules, but it can really disrupt a regular campaign that is striving for balance (and has already achieved it).

That's a rather specific concern, and I doubt anybody will disagree with it. It also sounds like it happened to you.


I had never heard of the quartile theory, but I do think it's a load of rubbish. You can be gritty at almost any level.


Also, I have almost never had fights lasting 1 round. Sure they're short, but they're short because the characters use efficient tactics - generally involving creative use or transformation of the environment. More splatbooks mean more powerful abilities, but also lots of counters to those abilities.

LotharBot
2007-08-10, 01:04 PM
Magic is a part of D&D as I see it. It doesn't annoy me, or break my suspension of disbelief, because wizards throwing fire, lightning, and other such things fit in with it. martial maneuvers aren't; they go outside of what I see as the conventions of D&D, and so I don't like them.

Right... maneuvers are a new system. They are, by definition, outside of the previously-established conventions of D&D.

Personally, I love the new mechanics, and hate the new fluff. I think the idea of martial maneuvers (ie, different forms of attacks with different effects) fits D&D better than the old feats and "I power attack for 6" mechanic. I also suspect I'd stay away from supernatural maneuvers unless I was building a monk-flavored character.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 01:09 PM
That's a rather specific concern, and I doubt anybody will disagree with it. It also sounds like it happened to you.

Nah, it's only ever happened to me once, when an entirely new player brought along his Planar Handbook and wanted to be a Race out of there off the bat. He was nice enough about offering to lend it to me, but his motives and playstyle turned out to be shameful to say the least (a lot of the people I met at our University Games Club were like that).

However, we do (or did for a while) get quite a lot of threads here entitled 'I just bought ToB and my DM thinks it is too powerful, help me convince him he's wrong TM', which usually had a number of responses along the lines of 'Play a cheesed up Wizard/Cleric/Druid' and ruin his game to demonstrate how crazy he is!'

As I said, though, I neither like nor dislike Tome of Battle itself, it's the attitudes that have appeared around it that annoy me. Playing a balanced game is more than just acquiring a more powerful splat book; it requires thought and agreement between a competent DM and Players who desire the same thing.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 01:18 PM
Right... maneuvers are a new system. They are, by definition, outside of the previously-established conventions of D&D.

It's not a matter of them being new mechanics. I don't object to new mechanics. I don't however, want to change the game I'm playing to accommodate them. It involves a conceptual change in how the world works, beyond a change in mechanics.

LotharBot
2007-08-10, 01:21 PM
It's not a matter of them being new mechanics. I don't object to new mechanics. I don't however, want to change the game I'm playing to accommodate them. It involves a conceptual change in how the world works, beyond a change in mechanics.

I wouldn't advocate a change mid-campaign.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-10, 01:28 PM
First, I'd like to say I had no idea what Wuxia was before I read this thread then asked the oracle (read:wikipedia) what it was.

The oracle (again, read: Wikipedia) didn't quite do it for me though in regards of understanding the relevance of it to this discussion because it didn't help me understand the combat style presented at all.

Does anyone have any links to good examples they can share?

But to be more pertinent and try to not be too digressive, I like Tome of Battle, because I enjoy many of the non-supernatural ones.

I also like the Martial feat (Can't remember the name just now) that lets people learn single maneuvers because they make good 'special ability rewards' I can give in place of XP to keep my game going in the '1-10' sweet spot I like in D&D while not effecting the games mechanics too badly.

No links at the moment, but good references that you can probably rent from your local video store include "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," as well as "House of Flying Daggers". I haven't seen it yet, but from the previews, "Hero" might also qualify.

If you want to get a good feel for relatively recent Asian Heros who are proved to actually have existed you might want to rent "Once Upon a Time in China" a story about a relatively modern Chinese hero named Wong Fe Hung. What he does in these movies is on the border between 'incredibly good martial arts' and wuxia. Then again, 'incredibly good martial arts' worthy of being a legend... perhaps even a modern legend... is what Wuxia is all about.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as a reply to the REST of the thread:

Many cultures have entirely different views as to the nature of the world and what is, in their culture, an example of "just being that good", however often times these break what most modern people view as "impossible because of science." Often enough, however, a modern person will refuse to believe that a feat is possible unless they have seen it with their own eyes. The 'chi' of the master practitioners of Tai Chi, for example, is passed off as being fakery and fraud. Flight through the use of machine, especially a self-powered flying machine, was viewed as impossible. Yet... well, here we are with such available to us. Though the self powered ones are limited to some REALLY insanely good and practiced atheletes, and they don't go very far.

At the same time, things that seem perfectly plausible to us, may seem entirely 'out there' to other cultures.

There are a large number of things common to many different cultures which are 'out there' if you look at things from purely a 'have I seen it' standpoint, and not relying on culture to say that it is indeed possible. These are things which have often not been proven to be possible, or have been proven to be extremely unlikely, to the point of being nearly impossible.

Because the technicalities are hard to grasp and measure all the time, the shared cultural background with which one is familiar allows us to suspend our disbelief, and view things as 'not really realistic, but fun to imagine', where as things from other cultures may seem strange, and unattractive to our imaginations.

Generally, people need to be willing to indulge the imaginations of others, but people also need to be understanding of situations or themes that are not fun for others in their game. If the DM really doesn't want to have to learn yet -another- set of rules, or doesn't have the time, the player should be understanding.

But if the player is really excited about this 'great new thing' and the DM has the time to read this book, or another one that wouldn't be used in the campaign, but just doesn't like the feel of the book... well, honestly, part of the DM's job is to try to fit in something that will be fun for everyone in the campaign. Now, if he can't imagine a way to fit it in in a way that won't ruin things for the other players, he and the player with book X may need to sit down and have a chat.

By the same token, if the other players are made uncomfortable by a certain element of another character (say... a shape shifter that doesn't stick in one gender) and it knocks things out of 'fun, in character' for them, the player of said shifter may need to tone that back a bit or, if that was part of what made the character fun in the player's eyes... he may need to come up with a different character.

So, generally speaking. You don't like Tome of Battle? Or the complete series, or anything but core? Fine. I can come up with a character within those strictures. But if there's a concept I've been dieing to try that requires some of these resources... well... I'll wind up being disappointed, and the game may wind up being less fun for me.

I've DMed a non D&D campaign in a home brew world with the express concept of having an excuse to flesh it out so I can use it as a background world for character I want to write a web-comic about. I've let players come up with whole kingdoms. And I've changed house rules several times in order to try to accomidate character concepts and feels, and make the game more fun for my players. Generally speaking, most of these changes have been well recieved... but I have drawn lines. "No, how magic works in this campaign is pretty key to it's basic character feel. You may not completely violate the laws of how that magic works just caue you think it might be neat."

DMing, and being a player both involve balancing acts. Holding a hard line on everything, just because you prefer it to be that way doesn't usually fit that.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 01:30 PM
I wouldn't advocate a change mid-campaign.

It goes beyond campaign; it goes to the world that exists; to the metaphysics of how things work in the world.



I find it interesting that people are going to great lengths to convince me that I must include this in my game... that there's no option but to bring in this thing I don't like.

It's not that the mechanics are bad; I've said that. It's that the flavor of them, and the implicit metaphysical assumptions that go with them, don't suit my game.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-10, 01:33 PM
*shrug* If you don't like it, and your players don't like it either, don't bring it in.

And this may be just an idiom of speach, but you seem rather possessive of your game. The game does belong to all the players, not just the DM.

I see no problem with including, or not including material, so long as all of the players are, generally speaking, happy with the game.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 01:37 PM
*shrug* If you don't like it, and your players don't like it either, don't bring it in.

My players haven't even asked about it.


And this may be just an idiom of speach, but you seem rather possessive of your game. The game does belong to all the players, not just the DM.

Yes, but its the DM who is responsible for seeing to the rules of the game, and ensuring that the world makes sense. It may be partially the player's game, but the GM's responsibility remains to keep things in line. Adding rules the DM doesn't like makes a hard job harder - if he doesn't have a way to fit it neatly into the game, then it'll stress suspension of disbelief for everyone.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 01:40 PM
*shrug* If you don't like it, and your players don't like it either, don't bring it in.

And this may be just an idiom of speach, but you seem rather possessive of your game. The game does belong to all the players, not just the DM.

I see no problem with including, or not including material, so long as all of the players are, generally speaking, happy with the game.

Sure, but the DM has to be able to have fun too and that may not merely be about indulging the Players. One of the most attractive aspects of being a DM is that you can create a world and mechanical system that appeals to you. The level of compromise is entirely based on the degree to which the Players 'trust you to know what you're doing.'

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 01:41 PM
Nexx, I don't think anyone's trying to convince you to include it, I think --well, at least in my case this is true--they're just trying to show you the merits of the system.

LotharBot
2007-08-10, 01:42 PM
It goes beyond campaign; it goes to the world that exists; to the metaphysics of how things work in the world.

Depends on which maneuvers you use, I suspect... along with how much of the fluff you do or don't accept.

BTW, the first time I read ToB, having heard all the hype on this board... I was downright ANGRY about the fluff. I was upset because the mechanics looked really cool and exactly what I wanted for fighters etc. but the fluff was all eastern/wuxia. My solution was to simply discard the fluff and say "here's the crunch. Use it if you like it."


I find it interesting that people are going to great lengths to convince me that I must include this in my game

I'm not particularly interested in whether or not you personally use it. I'm just interested in addressing the arguments/reasoning you and others have posted. I enjoy thinking and analyzing ideas. You've posted some ideas; I've posted my thoughts on them. In the end, you can use or not use whatever you want around your own gaming table. (This also goes for those who like the fluff in ToB -- if you like it, use it.)

Kioran
2007-08-10, 01:48 PM
You wanted to see damage output? Sure.

Let's go human Paladin, just so I can stay in core. A lance does 1d8, with a 20/x2 critical, and does double damage from horseback. I'll use the Elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for ease of use.

Character Specifics:

STR 15, DEX 8, CON 13, WIS 14, INT 10, CHA 12
1: Power Attack
1: Mounted Combat
3:Ride-By Attack
4: +1 Str
6: Spirited Charge
8: +1 Str
9: Cleave
12: Improved Critical (Lance)
12: +1 Str
15: Great Cleave
16: +1 Str
18: Trample
20: +1 Str

At level 5, when I get my mount, I will have a lance +1. I can power attack for 3 points at that point while charging without even dropping below my regular AB (+2 for charging, +1 for lance +1), and I can wield my lance in two hands. This is +6 damage, doubled on a charge, and I don't have to end my charge near my foe to do so due to Ride-By Attack.

ECL 5: (1d8+(3*1.5 [2-handed weapon])+(3*2 [power attack])+1)*2, or a range of 24-38.

At level 6, I acquire Spirited Charge. This makes my lance do *3 instead of *2 on a charge.

ECL 6: (1d8+(3*1.5)+(3*2)+1)*3, or a range of 36-57.

I can break Massive Damage at ECL 6. I can do it better if I start adding in proper (ie: WBL) gear, such as gauntlets of ogre power. This also doesn't take into account critical hits, power attacking for more than 3, or a flying mount (which is available as early as early as ECL 7, if you check the LA line on a giant eagle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/eagleGiant.htm)).

Fine - so thatīs your ultimate attack. Itīs supercedes massive damage, but I bet itīs rather difficult to get into three digits. This where high-lvl ToBlers already are, and the Completed barbarians follow. But they donīt have to have as much space and donīt need to look out for their mounts, who might very well die. They can do this in dungeons and donīt loose 60% of their attack power when theyīre in a dungeon or building or anywhere where they canīt ride around freely. And a Tank of that lvl could get lucky and survive, moreso while they level.
I maintain that anything beyond massive damage requires some sort of special attack/high power attack in Core. Even the Titan needs it. These are significantly harder to pull of than a maneuver. Fact is, Core Character do significantly less damage, but donīt have significantly less HP.

Someoen said something about investment-based games. Heīs actually reflecting much of my stance on the game. Essentially, fights can very well be over before theyīve begun, even at the same ECL. And over fast. You cannot change strategy or start fighting differently, because youīre dead before that happens. That is the problem. Disarming your opponents, softening him up or standing in his way become unimportant if characters die in one or two rounds.
The only thing to do in these fights is preparing your tricks, loading up on concealment to let you survive that attack of doom, and have at it. You use 1-4 of your tricks, and if you fail, you can teleport out or die.


What I like about current Monks is that they get some abilities which have little combat application (speed, slow falling), but are interesting. I canīt quite see (Wuxia again) why we should have characters smashing Iron gates with a single attack (which is entirely possible in current D&D) or throwing aroung whole cows, but no one capable of jumping 10 meters high or dropping down a 100 ft. without seriously hurting themselves. You import all the bad Wuxia, and none of the interesting, wire-fu stuff. Incidentally, less damage and more movement would, provided there was a means of interception, provide a more tactical combat.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 01:59 PM
Fine - so thatīs your ultimate attack. Itīs supercedes massive damage, but I bet itīs rather difficult to get into three digits. This where high-lvl ToBlers already are, and the Completed barbarians follow. But they donīt have to have as much space and donīt need to look out for their mounts, who might very well die. They can do this in dungeons and donīt loose 60% of their attack power when theyīre in a dungeon or building or anywhere where they canīt ride around freely. And a Tank of that lvl could get lucky and survive, moreso while they level.
I maintain that anything beyond massive damage requires some sort of special attack/high power attack in Core. Even the Titan needs it. These are significantly harder to pull of than a maneuver. Fact is, Core Character do significantly less damage, but donīt have significantly less HP.

Someoen said something about investment-based games. Heīs actually reflecting much of my stance on the game. Essentially, fights can very well be over before theyīve begun, even at the same ECL. And over fast. You cannot change strategy or start fighting differently, because youīre dead before that happens. That is the problem. Disarming your opponents, softening him up or standing in his way become unimportant if characters die in one or two rounds.
The only thing to do in these fights is preparing your tricks, loading up on concealment to let you survive that attack of doom, and have at it. You use 1-4 of your tricks, and if you fail, you can teleport out or die.


What I like about current Monks is that they get some abilities which have little combat application (speed, slow falling), but are interesting. I canīt quite see (Wuxia again) why we should have characters smashing Iron gates with a single attack (which is entirely possible in current D&D) or throwing aroung whole cows, but no one capable of jumping 10 meters high or dropping down a 100 ft. without seriously hurting themselves. You import all the bad Wuxia, and none of the interesting, wire-fu stuff. Incidentally, less damage and more movement would, provided there was a means of interception, provide a more tactical combat.

Okay, let me show you something. I'll continue that paladin to ECL 20.

I have a flying mount now, and a lance +5. I also have gauntlets of ogre power +6 and have used a +5 tome. My total Str score is 31, for a bonus of +10.

Now, on a diving charge, I'll power attack for 5.

I deal (1d8+(10*1.5)+(5*2)+5)*4, or 124-152. This is more damage than any ninth level maneuver puts out, and it's still not optimized and is within Core-only.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 02:09 PM
Except a good Strike Of Perfect Clairity, or a few others.

For this sort of thing, can we use templates and races from MM?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:10 PM
Except a good Strike Of Perfect Clairity, or a few others.

For this sort of thing, can we use templates and races from MM?

Strike of Perfect Clarity is 100 flat damage, no?

Douglas
2007-08-10, 02:21 PM
In addition to your normal damage, yes. It can't be combined with a charge, but most other sources of damage on a single attack work.

Inyssius Tor
2007-08-10, 02:22 PM
It's inferno blast that deals a flat hundred damage, by the way.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:24 PM
Still. I have demonstrated how a melee character well within regular means can deal similar amounts of damage to maneuvers in the ToB.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 02:30 PM
Strength optimization, core (incl MM) easily goes up to 56. (nat 18, orc(+4), barbarian raging (+6), half dragon(+8), +10 levels and tome, +6 belt, +4 Righteous might in ring of spell storing (not the basic one, you know)). More than that is probably doable. +44 to hit, weapondamage+39 per hit, without power attack (which is easy here). Add in the mount bit, with a flying, diving mount (and lance), get spirited charge somewhere, you can probably get a good +36 at 8d6+236.

Then again, that's a barbarian charger, with some messy techniques. Yuck.

lord_khaine
2007-08-10, 02:32 PM
and it could be more optimised.

when you are just talking about pure damage output, then as i understand it the damage output of most ToB chars are around the same as what a barbarian can do on a full attack, the big difference is mostly that ToB chars can do it on a standart action.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:36 PM
and it could be more optimised.

when you are just talking about pure damage output, then as i understand it the damage output of most ToB chars are around the same as what a barbarian can do on a full attack, the big difference is mostly that ToB chars can do it on a standart action.

Um, a diving charge is a single attack, not a full one.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 02:42 PM
Hmmn, does Barbarian Pounce work with Diving Charge?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 02:44 PM
Hmmn, does Barbarian Pounce work with Diving Charge?

Yes. A diving charge is a type of charge. However, I was trying to stick to core.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 02:45 PM
As was I. If we have that, then we have leap attack and shock trooper, and from there it spirals slightly. On the other hand, Polymorph gives all extraordinary attacks of the form...

As does wildshape.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 02:49 PM
Yes. A diving charge is a type of charge. However, I was trying to stick to core.

Oh yeah, forgot about that.

lord_khaine
2007-08-10, 03:06 PM
Um, a diving charge is a single attack, not a full one

ehh i cant really see the point where i claim otherwise

Kioran
2007-08-10, 03:08 PM
Okay, let me show you something. I'll continue that paladin to ECL 20.

I have a flying mount now, and a lance +5. I also have gauntlets of ogre power +6 and have used a +5 tome. My total Str score is 31, for a bonus of +10.

Now, on a diving charge, I'll power attack for 5.

I deal (1d8+(10*1.5)+(5*2)+5)*4, or 124-152. This is more damage than any ninth level maneuver puts out, and it's still not optimized and is within Core-only.

Power attack isnīt multiplied, as is the enhancement bonus (isnīt with criticals, at least, so Iīd assume itīs the same here), so youīd be at 3d8+45+20+5. Respectable 93 damage on the average. still not three digits. Sorry, youīll have to do better than that. You can probably get there by heavily templating, but Iīd figure I can achieve these 3-digit damages much earlier with a Lion barbarian frenzied berzerker.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 03:09 PM
Fax may have assumed you were specifically referencing his (must... remember... gender) build. Which does damage in one hit, instead of a full attack.

EDIT:
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Sounds like it's part of the basic damage to me, which is irrelevant, because
When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon.

Nothing there about similairity to Critical hits. Using typical multipliers, we can add it with crits, but... wait.

Multiplying Damage
Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.

Nope, it's legal. PA multiplies on crits, also.

Ninjad!

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 03:11 PM
Power attack isnīt multiplied, as is the enhancement bonus (isnīt with criticals, at least, so Iīd assume itīs the same here), so youīd be at 3d8+45+20+5. Respectable 93 damage on the average. still not three digits. Sorry, youīll have to do better than that. You can probably get there by heavily templating, but Iīd figure I can achieve these 3-digit damages much earlier with a Lion barbarian frenzied berzerker.

Except...it is. "Extra points are always multiplied; extra dice are never multiplied." Enhancements and power attack damage is always multiplied.


Multiplying Damage

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 03:24 PM
Except...it is. "Extra points are always multiplied; extra dice are never multiplied." Enhancements and power attack damage is always multiplied.

Still, this works only in very narrow constraints(works only outdoors, and youīre mounted on something with 12d8+12 = 66 HP, which easily killed, even with natural AC 25 + barding. Youīd have to invest heavily to toughen it up) and is easily replicated and outdone with Completes or ToB, and with less of these pesky restrictions. Apart from Improved Toughness and greater Resilency in the completes and some stone dragon in ToB though, I see little that enhances your ability to soak up damage without templating too much. At least in melee, Damage increasement has outpaced damage capacity. The objective of the arms race is not to be the toughest SoB on the block, but to be a mean damage-dealer who can kill anything in three rounds, tops.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 03:27 PM
Still, this works only in very narrow constraints(works only outdoors, and youīre mounted on something with 12d8+12 = 66 HP, which easily killed, even with natural AC 25 + barding. Youīd have to invest heavily to toughen it up) and is easily replicated and outdone with Completes or ToB, and with less of these pesky restrictions. Apart from Improved Toughness and greater Resilency in the completes and some stone dragon in ToB though, I see little that enhances your ability to soak up damage without templating too much. At least in melee, Damage increasement has outpaced damage capacity. The objective of the arms race is not to be the toughest SoB on the block, but to be a mean damage-dealer who can kill anything in three rounds, tops.

Just because I did not entirely frame out my build does not mean I'm fragile, incompetent, or incapable. This is semantics at this point, and I'm not going to continue proving my point if you're not going to consider its merits at all.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 03:31 PM
Fax? Wildshape?

Now, if you include cheese from ToB (not regular stuff, like Strike of Perfect Clairity. Cheese, like triple full attack Teflammar (sp?) Shadow Lords, or Robilar's gambit/Karmic Strike/Thicket of Blades/Defensive sweep/Spiked chain/Big size/etc/Channeling the storm), then it gets silly, but that's like casters.

Smearing monsters on the floor isn't that tough, seeing as most CR 20's have only a couple hundred Hp. Anyone care to try max damage using wildshape and MM1?

Seatbelt
2007-08-10, 03:42 PM
If your players can put out a ton of damage and kill what is supposed to be a tough monster in a couple hits, are you justified in giving it more HP/arbitrarily upping its AC?

For example, my party was fighting a Boneclaw (104 HP, AC 16). They hit AC 16 in their sleep every time, and never managed to roll less than a 20. But someone finally rolled low (something like 2 18s and a 17), so I just called the monster's AC 20 and said he missed.

Or, they devastate the monster in the opening round(s) of combat before it has a chance to cast/full attack/whatever, so you give the monster an arbitrary 5 more HP than whatever damage was dealt, so it can take a turn before being smited?

Kioran
2007-08-10, 03:42 PM
Just because I did not entirely frame out my build does not mean I'm fragile, incompetent, or incapable. This is semantics at this point, and I'm not going to continue proving my point if you're not going to consider its merits at all.

I wonīt, since a single build that only works within narrow constraints doesnīt prove that Core Damage-dealers are generally on par with splatbooked ones. They arenīt, insisting they are by showing me a one-trick.pony with some, admittedly impressive, capabilites is sophistry. Apart from you, youīd find few GMs that would argue your critter outdamages optimized Warblades or Lion Barbarians.

But for the sake of argument:

Lion Barbarian 10/Frenzied Berserker 10, with pounce, shock trooper and leap attack, attacks(equipped with a keen Falchion). He has Str 18+ 5(increases) + 6 (Belt of giant strength) + 5 (Tome) + 4 Rage + 6 Frenzy :

2d4 + 17x1,5 (strength bonus) + 20 x 4 (Power Attack) + 5 Enhancement = 118,5 Damage, 5 Attacks, 2 at highest BAB, and a decent chance of critical hits.

This build is not to much optimized, but it transforms anything it hits into fine red spray. It deals considerably more damage than your flyer. it could be argued that shorter range and coming from the ground are disadvantages against battlefield control, but then, you can also do this in buildings


So whereīs your Core masssive damage now?

Edit: miscalculated Strenght bonus. Still - thatīs soma damage right there.......

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 03:54 PM
The point of remaining within core was to show that the ToB maneuvers are not out of line with what's already existent in the most basic version of the game.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 03:57 PM
As opposed to making heavy use of Shock trooper. The argument was that ToB wasn't OP (without cheese), compared to potential core builds (say nothing of Clerics/Druids/Wizards), not that you can kill stuff with shock trooper.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-10, 04:11 PM
I wonīt, since a single build that only works within narrow constraints doesnīt prove that Core Damage-dealers are generally on par with splatbooked ones. They arenīt, insisting they are by showing me a one-trick.pony with some, admittedly impressive, capabilites is sophistry. Apart from you, youīd find few GMs that would argue your critter outdamages optimized Warblades or Lion Barbarians.
Are you proposing a challenge to match the best damage builds possible, period, with a core-only build? Because seeing as core-only is a small, small subset of all rules in existence, that's a pointless and silly challenge. The existence of Shock Trooper alone more or less guarantees that that's impossible.

I seem to recall the gauntlet actually thrown being more like this:
Stellar damage is something like 90 points, which is 20 BAB used for Power attack along with other optimization. Show me how to do more. More comes non-core, and Core-only you donīt hit anything when you do that much.
And subsequently this:

Fine - so thatīs your ultimate attack. Itīs supercedes massive damage, but I bet itīs rather difficult to get into three digits.
Not: "Can you show that every splatbook ever published actually contains material less powerful that the player's handbook?"

Kioran
2007-08-10, 04:11 PM
As opposed to making heavy use of Shock trooper. The argument was that ToB wasn't OP (without cheese), compared to potential core builds (say nothing of Clerics/Druids/Wizards), not that you can kill stuff with shock trooper.

But that Paladin build has some disadvantages, while doing roughly the same damage (the warblade has 100 + base damage + stance, thereīs some mileage to be had there as well. Also, "Time Stands still" + anything like searing blade (Martial study if necessesary) = damage galore). Bear in mind that the warblade can do these under almost any circumstances, and can under specific circumstances outdamage your Paladin. It also doesnīt rely on a squishy mount, has more HP (d12), more Skills, and Iron heart surge to get rid of debuffs. So while the damage is only on par, there is much less you can do to protect yourself against it. No buildings for cover, no setting you longspear against the charge for double damage, no scorching ray to finish the mount. You have to deal with the man himself, and short of killing the Warblade outright, thereīs little you can do to prevent him from bringing that damage. Or more ("Time stands still" + damage booster).
The Paladin? Oh, hmm, yeah. Heīs pretty easy to shut down compared to that.

So yeah, that makes more damage.

lord_khaine
2007-08-10, 04:16 PM
still, anything have have to take frenzied berserker lvs isnt worth considering imo, since their hazard for the party isnt balanced up by their effectivity.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 04:17 PM
But that Paladin build has some disadvantages, while doing roughly the same damage (the warblade has 100 + base damage + stance, thereīs some mileage to be had there as well. Also, "Time Stands still" + anything like searing blade (Martial study if necessesary) = damage galore). Bear in mind that the warblade can do these under almost any circumstances, and can under specific circumstances outdamage your Paladin. It also doesnīt rely on a squishy mount, has more HP (d12), more Skills, and Iron heart surge to get rid of debuffs. So while the damage is only on par, there is much less you can do to protect yourself against it. No buildings for cover, no setting you longspear against the charge for double damage, no scorching ray to finish the mount. You have to deal with the man himself, and short of killing the Warblade outright, thereīs little you can do to prevent him from bringing that damage. Or more ("Time stands still" + damage booster).
The Paladin? Oh, hmm, yeah. Heīs pretty easy to shut down compared to that.

So yeah, that makes more damage.

My paladin happens to be a halfling on an advanced eagle. I deal on average one less damage now, but I also have the Mounted Archery feat.

Hey look, I ACTUALLY HAVE PROFICIENCY WITH BOWS. Eat that, Warblade. I'll sit here from 80' up and pepper you with full-attacked arrows until you die.

Wolfwood2
2007-08-10, 04:23 PM
But that Paladin build has some disadvantages, while doing roughly the same damage (the warblade has 100 + base damage + stance, thereīs some mileage to be had there as well. Also, "Time Stands still" + anything like searing blade (Martial study if necessesary) = damage galore). Bear in mind that the warblade can do these under almost any circumstances, and can under specific circumstances outdamage your Paladin. It also doesnīt rely on a squishy mount, has more HP (d12), more Skills, and Iron heart surge to get rid of debuffs. So while the damage is only on par, there is much less you can do to protect yourself against it. No buildings for cover, no setting you longspear against the charge for double damage, no scorching ray to finish the mount. You have to deal with the man himself, and short of killing the Warblade outright, thereīs little you can do to prevent him from bringing that damage. Or more ("Time stands still" + damage booster).

On the other hand, the Paladin build has the the advantage that after the strike is over he's about 80 feet away from the guy he just hit. (Because he used Ride-By attack, of course.) The Warblade, on the other hand, is standing in perfect position to get a full attack to the face from that Balor and his vorpal sword. There are going to be pluses and minuses to any build.

Also, if I can have access to the Spell Compendium I can increase the paladin's damage output considerably.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 04:30 PM
My paladin happens to be a halfling on an advanced eagle. I deal on average one less damage now, but I also have the Mounted Archery feat.

Hey look, I ACTUALLY HAVE PROFICIENCY WITH BOWS. Eat that, Warblade. I'll sit here from 80' up and pepper you with full-attacked arrows until you die.

Yeah - and the Warblade has bonus feats. Use one for Proficiency with greatbow (CW) or longbow (Core), "black pearl of doubt" to protect yourself against some of the later attacks (or some Stone Dragon for DR, though that costs more feats), and shoot the giant Eagle. At that juncture, youīre on par with the halfling Paladin, damage-output wise. And you can soak better. And have more bonus feats, which you have invested in Improved Toguhness/saves or something that helps in combat. Not using one of your many feats to get you ranged weapon is plain stupid. Sure, it doesnīt play up to your strentghs, but being restricted to melee is a weakness easily removed.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 04:34 PM
Yeah, except you don't read the warblade bonus feats. They have a much more limited scope than fighter feats. I recommend bracers of archery.

Dausuul
2007-08-10, 04:35 PM
My paladin happens to be a halfling on an advanced eagle. I deal on average one less damage now, but I also have the Mounted Archery feat.

Hey look, I ACTUALLY HAVE PROFICIENCY WITH BOWS. Eat that, Warblade. I'll sit here from 80' up and pepper you with full-attacked arrows until you die.

That's why all warblades should be wood elves. +2 Str, +2 Dex, and proficiency with bows. :smallbiggrin:

I'm surprised you didn't include smite evil in your charge damage calculation up there. Add another 80 to the paladin's damage output...

Kioran
2007-08-10, 04:50 PM
That's why all warblades should be wood elves. +2 Str, +2 Dex, and proficiency with bows. :smallbiggrin:

I'm surprised you didn't include smite evil in your charge damage calculation up there. Add another 80 to the paladin's damage output...

Theyīre not weapon damage - itīs an additional magical effect, just like a manuever or a channeled spell. And the target has to be, you know, evil.

But even with limited feat selection, the warblade has access to normal feats. By lvl 20, if he wants a bow as a backup, he has one. And alll the other stuff doesnīt even rely on Feats - they come in as a bonus, while he basically relies on his Warbladeditute to provdie the rest.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 04:57 PM
You're still missing the point.

The point is, well-built (even core-only) characters can keep up with ToB classes, as both you (with your barbarian) and I (with my paladin) have demonstrated. The only real mechanical difference is that ToB characters largely are optimized "out of the box", while others take some work.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 05:05 PM
*raises hand*

Wellll. I can get 10 attacks of +33, 4 of +28, 4 of +23 using ToB, each doing 10d6+38. Note that this requires at LEAST 100K in weapons, to a maximum of just over 3 million in weapons. It also requires 4 feats, flanking, and a full attack. Also, 3/day. Keeping up with that is tough.

But then again, make a... never mind, you don't get a save. You lose. 3/day, at max (or so). Requires 130K.

Look, it is "you lose", unless you can survive 10 rounds of being beat down by every person in the party.

Droodle
2007-08-10, 05:05 PM
Theyīre not weapon damage - itīs an additional magical effect, just like a manuever or a channeled spell. And the target has to be, you know, evil.Sure, the enemy does have to be evil, but Smiting damage is still regular damage, so it multiplies, too. From the SRD:


Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level.
Assuming decent Charisma, Fax's Paladin would also probably be able to power attack a bit harder, too.

Dausuul
2007-08-10, 05:06 PM
Theyīre not weapon damage - itīs an additional magical effect, just like a manuever or a channeled spell.

Hmm? Where does it say that?

Text of smite evil:


Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.

That's a flat damage modifier, and I don't see anything saying it isn't multiplied normally by crits and mounted charge attacks. Unless specifically stated otherwise, all flat damage modifiers are multiplied.

Of course, one could argue that a charge does not constitute a "normal melee attack." But if you can smite on a charge at all, it should result in prodigious damage.


And the target has to be, you know, evil.

Well, yeah, but 95% of the stuff you fight at that level consists of evil outsiders, evil NPCs, and evil dragons. I suppose you might run into the occasional super-advanced golem, but that will be a rare exception in most campaigns. You'll get a lot more opportunities to smite evil than you will to make a mounted charge.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 05:28 PM
You're still missing the point.

The point is, well-built (even core-only) characters can keep up with ToB classes, as both you (with your barbarian) and I (with my paladin) have demonstrated. The only real mechanical difference is that ToB characters largely are optimized "out of the box", while others take some work.

Yeah - they come optimized out of the box, with enough power to decide almost any fight within 3 or less rounds - while not being much tougher. Same goes for the Complete-barbarian. That changes the face of fights as you would have had them with core characters (sans insane cavalry builds). Which is the point I was trying to make. Fights are faster, meaner and deadlier, and since thereīs only few tactics that really work (as you have elobartely proven), they become less tactical.

And thatīs an argument for Core-only or heavily restricted game btw. , not against ToB personally. I just donīt think it really solves any problems, just helps you to live with them.......

Enzario
2007-08-10, 05:43 PM
Hmmm... I'm seeing a lot of "ToB is too wuxia/anime for my game" type arguments. Here's the thing though: fluff is a NON-ISSUE. I found it rather easy to stat out King Leonidas from 300 as a warblade, complete with bonus feats and maneuvers. If you have a problem with the fluff, CHANGE IT, don't sit around on your @** and complain because other people won't do it for you. As far as balance issues go, I don't play frontliners. I find it rather refreshing every once in a while to see the meat shield take some of the credit, instead of the normal conversation:

Fighter: Man, thanks for the last minute ownage of that thing. I was about to eat it.
Wizzy: Yeah, but hey, thanks for getting cut to ribbons so I could sit here and alter the cosmic balance of the universe, ultimately resulting in the destruction of said beastie. Oh, hey, I also got this new spell called Time Stop. Wanna know what it does?

But I digress. In reality, the existence of the ToB classes does not make the core classes any less powerful or less fun to play, and it does not stop us from having fun at a session and giving our DM a cookie afterwards.

Tellah
2007-08-10, 05:48 PM
And thatīs an argument for Core-only or heavily restricted game btw. , not against ToB personally. I just donīt think it really solves any problems, just helps you to live with them.......

But in a core-only game, there are even fewer distinct ways to be relevant in a fight. Save-or-lose spells and high-damage charge builds are the most powerful offensive tactics in a core-only game. Splat books allow for other, more varied tactics that actually can compete, like Spelltheives yoinking magical effects, Hexblades lowering enemies' saves, and Totemists fighting with scads of natural attacks. If you're looking for expanded tactical choices, you'll want splat books.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-10, 05:49 PM
In another thread, I did a comparison of a level 4 Fighter and a level 4 Warblade, both the kind of unoptimized characters inexperienced or for-the-fun-of-it players might build.
They were about even; the Fighter was even slightly ahead.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 05:50 PM
But in a core-only game, there are even fewer distinct ways to be relevant in a fight. Save-or-lose spells and high-damage charge builds are the most powerful offensive tactics in a core-only game. Splat books allow for other, more varied tactics that actually can compete, like Spelltheives yoinking magical effects, Hexblades lowering enemies' saves, and Totemists fighting with scads of natural attacks. If you're looking for expanded tactical choices, you'll want splat books.

Exactly. See, Tellah gets what I'm trying to say.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 05:54 PM
But in a core-only game, there are even fewer distinct ways to be relevant in a fight. Save-or-lose spells and high-damage charge builds are the most powerful offensive tactics in a core-only game. Splat books allow for other, more varied tactics that actually can compete, like Spelltheives yoinking magical effects, Hexblades lowering enemies' saves, and Totemists fighting with scads of natural attacks. If you're looking for expanded tactical choices, you'll want splat books.

No, because for most of these new tactical choices, some old ones become redundant and obsolete. Splatbooks effectively create few tactics which are super-powerful due to unexpected or underestimated synergies. The only reason nobody disarms or bull-rushes anymore is that the fight is mostly over before those take effect. "Fixing" the combat system would mostly consist of removing easy win-buttons.
If the casters refrain from using too much save-or-die (on both sides), the fact that you have disarmed the BBEGs henchman might actualy make a difference. As-is the insta-death attacks decide this. Which is kinda sad.

Splatbooks mostly donīt help, they just introduce more insta-win. That your insta-win now has different flavor doesnīt make it more tactical.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 05:55 PM
Hmmm... I'm seeing a lot of "ToB is too wuxia/anime for my game" type arguments. Here's the thing though: fluff is a NON-ISSUE. I found it rather easy to stat out King Leonidas from 300 as a warblade, complete with bonus feats and maneuvers.

Um, that's actually not a surprise, given that 300 is not exactly rooted in a desire to suspend disbelief.


In another thread, I did a comparison of a level 4 Fighter and a level 4 Warblade, both the kind of unoptimized characters inexperienced or for-the-fun-of-it players might build.
They were about even; the Fighter was even slightly ahead.

Yeah, I remember that. I think we are all reasonably agreed that ToB Characters only become noticably more powerful than Martial Characters from Level 6+.

Counterspin
2007-08-10, 05:59 PM
But 300 is of course far more realistic than D&D which we're discussing.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-10, 06:00 PM
No, because for most of these new tactical choices, some old ones become redundant and obsolete. Splatbooks effectively create few tactics which are super-powerful due to unexpected or underestimated synergies. The only reason nobody disarms or bull-rushes anymore is that the fight is mostly over before those take effect. "Fixing" the combat system would mostly consist of removing easy win-buttons.
If the casters refrain from using too much save-or-die (on both sides), the fact that you have disarmed the BBEGs henchman might actualy make a difference. As-is the insta-death attacks decide this. Which is kinda sad.
Hey, you know something? Nobody disarmed or bullrushed ANYWAY, because those tactics really suck. Okay, Disarm got some use sometimes, but almost never enough to make Improved Disarm worth it (especially when any opponent you could disarm, you could also trip, and if they're tripped you get plus bloody eight to disarm them).

Of course, now that Dungeonscape added the Dungeon Crasher variant, bullrushing is useful. And the Charging Minotaur maneuver makes bullrushing worth it when you use it, too.
And Disarming Strike means that disarming will be more common.

Splatbooks do make a crapton of stuff useable when it wasn't before. Shadow Blade makes TWFing good--it doesn't make it broken. And so on.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 06:00 PM
No, because for most of these new tactical choices, some old ones become redundant and obsolete. Splatbooks effectively create few tactics which are super-powerful due to unexpected or underestimated synergies. The only reason nobody disarms or bull-rushes anymore is that the fight is mostly over before those take effect. "Fixing" the combat system would mostly consist of removing easy win-buttons. Except no one disarms because it's not effective versus everyone, and no one bull rushes because, woohoo, I can push people around when I can be killing them instead.


If the casters refrain from using too much save-or-die (on both sides), the fact that you have disarmed the BBEGs henchman might actualy make a difference. As-is the insta-death attacks decide this. Which is kinda sad.
So I, as a caster, should hold myself back from living up to my potential because you, as a meleer, aren't capable of keeping up with me? The game is about teamwork, granted, but it's also about fun. And knowing that your party members are bringing themselves down to your level isn't fun, it's demeaning.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 06:01 PM
But 300 is of course far more realistic than D&D which we're discussing.

Kioran : Your argument is silly. Save or dies are the very definition of a win button and they are a key part of core.

Are you quite serious? I assume you mean because of the none existance of Magic?

Counterspin
2007-08-10, 06:04 PM
Why do you ask if I'm serious and then supply the obvious basis of my statement?

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 06:06 PM
Complaining about non-core insta win buttons, because core has them as well, just you shouldn't use them, seems to me to be applying a double standard.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 06:09 PM
Why do you ask if I'm serious and then supply the obvious basis of my statement?

Well, because if I was going to model a Historical Spartan Warrior for D&D, I wouldn't be statting him out as a Spell Caster or using Blade Magic. If I was going to stat out a Spartan Warrior from the Movie 300, I would be quite likely to use Blade Magic. There is a difference between D&D with Magic and D&D without Magic and it's not exactly hard to divorce one from the other.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 06:09 PM
Except no one disarms because it's not effective versus everyone, and no one bull rushes because, woohoo, I can push people around when I can be killing them instead.

Yes. In current-day fights, that doesnīt work. But if, in a seven round fight, you disarm the BBEGs right hand in second round and force him to attack with his secondary weapon, that might actually make a difference. Or pushing the Golem into the lava because you have no other way of killing him fast.
With the Splatbooks you have the ability to kill even hard targets in 2 rounds, and so has the enemy. Anything that doesnīt bring quick results isnīt going to cut it, which eliminates most slow tactics. Which is, incidentally my point.


So I, as a caster, should hold myself back from living up to my potential because you, as a meleer, aren't capable of keeping up with me? The game is about teamwork, granted, but it's also about fun. And knowing that your party members are bringing themselves down to your level isn't fun, it's demeaning.

Frankly, I think it isnīt. Restricting the amount of cheese isnīt demeaning, itīs essential for the game. Having a somewhat homogenous powerlevel is part of the parties and DMs job. Restricting the powerlevel can actually be fun, because you can make sub-optimal choices as a caster (Mystic theurge) and still be useful.
Besides, even you would balk if someone rolled out full-on Tippy-cheese (the tricks which, as shown by Emperor Tippy, allow any Core-Wizard to break the game). I just set the limit a little earlier.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 06:14 PM
Complaining about non-core insta win buttons, because core has them as well, just you shouldn't use them, seems to me to be applying a double standard.

The playtesters at WoTC played weaker casters. It doesnīt take much effort to play your Core Wizard non-brokenly, It even is possible to play a non-broken complete-char, but your ToB-char would have to actually gimp himself if he wanted to avoid being a lot more powerful or at least less situational than a Core-Character. He has to make more of an effort to break the game, mind you, but making more damage than any unmodified MM1 Monster of his ECL is a breeze at mid-to-high lvls.

Thatīs not a double standard.....

Reel On, Love
2007-08-10, 06:17 PM
Yes. In current-day fights, that doesnīt work. But if, in a seven round fight, you disarm the BBEGs right hand in second round and force him to attack with his secondary weapon, that might actually make a difference. Or pushing the Golem into the lava because you have no other way of killing him fast.
With the Splatbooks you have the ability to kill even hard targets in 2 rounds, and so has the enemy. Anything that doesnīt bring quick results isnīt going to cut it, which eliminates most slow tactics. Which is, incidentally my point.
Are you kidding me?
Barbarians do more damage more consistently than Warblades for most of their career. So do mounted paladins (especially halflings, whose mounts can go anywhere the party can). Killing things fast was already possible and important with core.

ToB characters being able to kill anything in two rounds is a complete myth. Barbarians do more damage. Fighters are just as good at level 1-4, because they can pull highly effective tactics that the Warblade doesn't have the feats for. What's the Warblade got, Mountain Hammer? So at level 4 he'll do a little more damage than the barbarian for one round--and less for the next three. And with a lower to hit, so hey, Power Attack away, barbarian!

Again: Bullrush and disarm were NEVER viable. I started playing core and I sure as hell only made the mistake of taking them once. Bullrush just didn't do anything for you and disarm wasn't useful anywhere near often enough, between enemies with more HD/BABs and, oh, locked gauntlets--and if you really wanted to do it you were better off doing it with a tripper.
Disarm gets used more as of ToB, not less. Comprende?

In other words, you're just plain making things up. That's not how it works. Tome of Battle characters don't significantly outpace core melee characters at low levels, only at high ones, which they damn well SHOULD.

Counterspin
2007-08-10, 06:17 PM
Matthew : That's because people have decided that non-supernatural maneuvers are inherently more magical because they have funny names. That's really the only anti-TOB argument I've ever heard. I'm not saying you have to or should take it into your game, but the "I don't like the fluff and I hate it so much that if I ran TOB I 'd be unwilling to get rid of it" thing doesn't fly for me.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 06:17 PM
Yes. In current-day fights, that doesnīt work. But if, in a seven round fight, you disarm the BBEGs right hand in second round and force him to attack with his secondary weapon, that might actually make a difference. Or pushing the Golem into the lava because you have no other way of killing him fast.
Both of those are very situational circumstances. Fighting the golem without a lava pit would make bull rush useless in that instance, as would fighting a BBEG who didn't use weapons (like, say, a dragon). That's really the problem with half of the combat maneuvers available in core: they're not good enough to specialize in because they're not always useful.

Frankly, I think it isnīt. Restricting the amount of cheese isnīt demeaning, itīs essential for the game. Having a somewhat homogenous powerlevel is part of the parties and DMs job. Restricting the powerlevel can actually be fun, because you can make sub-optimal choices as a caster (Mystic theurge) and still be useful.
Does your party think the same way, or do they think, "you're cramping my style because you suck"?


Besides, even you would balk if someone rolled out full-on Tippy-cheese (the tricks which, as shown by Emperor Tippy, allow any Core-Wizard to break the game). I just set the limit a little earlier.

I would, yes, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that ToB is nowhere near that power level.

Jasdoif
2007-08-10, 06:27 PM
Tome of Battle is an effective bandaid for melee combat, from what I've seen (haven't read over all the maneuvers and stances)...but it remains a bandaid. The underlying melee system and its problems are still there.

Not saying martial adepts aren't a fun concept, but I find that I like the thought of a melee character dripping with passive bonuses, and constant abilities. Stances do fit here, but maneuvers appear to take the cake and run the show. Which, while a nice option to go with mechanically, doesn't do a whole lot of good for the more traditional melee combatants.

The system has other potential, though. I think the underlying maneuver system would be suited to replace Vancian casting. It'd require some changes to the underlying magic system to accommodate it properly...but it could serve to eliminate the "1st-level caster, useless after one encounter" problem. "Spell, spell, recovery, spell, spell" certainly beats "spell, spell, rest-for-eight-hours, spell, spell".

Matthew
2007-08-10, 06:28 PM
Matthew : That's because people have decided that non-supernatural maneuvers are inherently more magical because they have funny names. That's really the only anti-TOB argument I've ever heard. I'm not saying you have to or should take it into your game, but the "I don't like the fluff and I hate it so much that if I ran TOB I 'd be unwilling to get rid of it" thing doesn't fly for me.

Er, no. I wouldn't be statting a Historical Based Spartan Warrior out using Tome of Battle because the overwhelming majority of NPCs are NPC Classed. I wouldn't use Tome of Battle to stat out Leonidas because it's unnecessary.
According to the Blade Magic Chapter of ToB 'Many of the Maneouvres of the various Martial Disciplines aren't magical at all - they are simply a demonstration of near superhuman skill and training.' Which ones are, which ones aren't? I have no idea, but I am not in any case inclined to present Leonidas as having near superhuman skill and training.
Once again let me reiterate, I don't dislike Tome of Battle and I am perfectly aware that I am the final arbitrator of what appears and does not appear in my game. I only find it unsurprising that using ToB somebody was relatively easily able to stat out King Leonidas as he appears in the movie 300 because the two are well suited to one another.

Kioran
2007-08-10, 06:41 PM
Are you kidding me?
Barbarians do more damage more consistently than Warblades for most of their career. So do mounted paladins (especially halflings, whose mounts can go anywhere the party can). Killing things fast was already possible and important with core.

Not without Splatbooks. With these barbarians outdamage everything. But Core barbarians? No. The donīt even go into triple digits. Which gives your CR 7 Huge elemental several rounds to do itīs thing. Your CR 10 NPC has 10d8+40 HP as well, so he also takes at least one round of gratuitous abuse to go down, probably more. All Iīm saying is, in our current core-only campaign, fights last longer.


ToB characters being able to kill anything in two rounds is a complete myth. Barbarians do more damage. Fighters are just as good at level 1-4, because they can pull highly effective tactics that the Warblade doesn't have the feats for. What's the Warblade got, Mountain Hammer? So at level 4 he'll do a little more damage than the barbarian for one round--and less for the next three. And with a lower to hit, so hey, Power Attack away, barbarian!

Yeah, you suck at level 1-4, boohoo. Then you get Iron Heart Surge at 5, additional maneuvers at 7, and by lvl 20 youīll still wonīt win duels, but thatīs no problem because the barbarian or Fighter flee before the lvl 11 Cleric slapping them with some Mind-affecting Mojo or get blasted to smithereens because they canīt make a reflex save for the love of god. All the while doing only little more damage than you. You know, hypothetically. While you actually make it.


Again: Bullrush and disarm were NEVER viable. I started playing core and I sure as hell only made the mistake of taking them once. Bullrush just didn't do anything for you and disarm wasn't useful anywhere near often enough, between enemies with more HD/BABs and, oh, locked gauntlets--and if you really wanted to do it you were better off doing it with a tripper.
Disarm gets used more as of ToB, not less. Comprende?

In other words, you're just plain making things up. That's not how it works. Tome of Battle characters don't significantly outpace core melee characters at low levels, only at high ones, which they damn well SHOULD.

My, my, weīre getting aggressive here. Locked gauntlets take up your gauntlet slot, so while cheap and effective, keep you from using magic gauntlets or casting spells. Not nearly everything will have them. Tripping? Yeah, itīs better most of the time, but not always. You can disarm some high-dex guys, but canīt trip them as easily. Bull rush?
I give you these tactics being situational - but thatīs what tactics are about. Finding that one solution. And if the Fighter is the only one who can use several of these, thatīs even better. It redeems his crappy HD and lack of class Features.
That thereīs a ToB attack which makes Disarming easier is nice, and actually something positive, but also utterly useless in context since there are more effective attakcs in the book, which "actually kill stuff". So ToB-boosted Disarming still canīt compete with ToB-killing


Does your party think the same way, or do they think, "you're cramping my style because you suck"?

75% would also rather spend more time playing than optimising, preferring a more happy-go-lucky style. They are very content with the lower power-lvl. Besides, I currently DM.


I would, yes, but the point I'm trying to illustrate is that ToB is nowhere near that power level.

That is correct. I merely draw the line earlier, which is a matter of preference. More then 50% of ToB might be over that line, while 90% of Core arenīt.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-10, 06:44 PM
75% would also rather spend more time playing than optimising, preferring a more happy-go-lucky style. They are very content with the lower power-lvl. Besides, I currently DM.

That is correct. I merely draw the line earlier, which is a matter of preference. More then 50% of ToB might be over that line, while 90% of Core arenīt.

Now you're making things up. Those percentages are inaccurate, unless you've got access to a poll somewhere I haven't seen yet.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 06:48 PM
Now you're making things up. Those percentages are inaccurate, unless you've got access to a poll somewhere I haven't seen yet.

Remember Fax, 87.3124 percent of statistics are made up on the spot :smalltongue:

Jasdoif
2007-08-10, 08:00 PM
According to the Blade Magic Chapter of ToB 'Many of the Maneouvres of the various Martial Disciplines aren't magical at all - they are simply a demonstration of near superhuman skill and training.' Which ones are, which ones aren't?Since you asked, supernatural maneuvers have a line at the end of their description that says "This maneuver is a supernatural ability". The rest are extraordinary.

This is briefly mentioned on page 40, in the little section on how martial powers interact with magic.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 08:03 PM
Since you asked, supernatural maneuvers have a line at the end of their description that says "This maneuver is a supernatural ability". The rest are extraordinary.

This is briefly mentioned on page 40, in the little section on how martial powers interact with magic.

Heh, that's true, missed that. The other Manoeuvres are almost Supernatural, but these specific ones are actually Supernatural, makes sense to me.

What threw me is there being listed at the end of the text description. Very inconsistant as well, some of the Devoted Spirit Manoeuvres seem blatantly Supernatural, are those listed as special cases somewhere?

Jasdoif
2007-08-10, 08:35 PM
What threw me is there being listed at the end of the text description. Very inconsistant as well, some of the Devoted Spirit Manoeuvres seem blatantly Supernatural, are those listed as special cases somewhere?It's certainly a lousy spot to list it, I'd have preferred them being marked as such in the main block. A simple "(Su)" by their name would've sufficed, or a single bolded line under the name that said "supernatural".

And there isn't a special case that I know of. It appears only Desert Wind and Shadow Hand actually have supernatural maneuvers, if I didn't miss any on my quick glance-through. Odd that it's so perfectly split along disciplines, isn't it?

Counterspin
2007-08-10, 08:37 PM
The split is intentional. Only swordsages have access to supernatural abilities. The Devoted Spirit strikes are supposed to be primarily rooted in morale, though of course the fluff provided conflicts with that. I think it's likely a case of the original mechanic writers being overridden because the fluff for morale effects isn't as cool as for supernatural effects.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 08:49 PM
Indeed, but since other Classes can use feats to buy (Su) Manoeuvres, anyone can potentially gain access to them, which is quite interesting.

Reinforcements
2007-08-10, 09:14 PM
Not without Splatbooks. With these barbarians outdamage everything. But Core barbarians? No. The donīt even go into triple digits. Which gives your CR 7 Huge elemental several rounds to do itīs thing. Your CR 10 NPC has 10d8+40 HP as well, so he also takes at least one round of gratuitous abuse to go down, probably more. All Iīm saying is, in our current core-only campaign, fights last longer.
Untrue. Tempest Stormwind on the Wizard's D&D forums did a comparison of Warblade vs. Barbarian damage across their entire careers and found that they're about the same, with Barbarian being slightly ahead more often then not. He used repeatable tactics for both classes, the same gear and no feats except for Power Attack. I'll track it down if you want.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-10, 09:17 PM
Not without Splatbooks. With these barbarians outdamage everything. But Core barbarians? No. In a world of "Nuh-uh" versus mathematics (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12990532&postcount=262), only one can survive. Who will stand, who will fall? The speaker, or the tweaker? The OMG or the PhD? Find out this summer, on Giant Itp.

So uh, in all seriousness... Core Barbarians? Yes.

Edit: Ah, if not for bothering to spend some time playing with a rhyming dictionary, I might've made it in before it got mentioned. Boo hiss.

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-10, 09:45 PM
My players haven't even asked about it.
Yes, but its the DM who is responsible for seeing to the rules of the game, and ensuring that the world makes sense. It may be partially the player's game, but the GM's responsibility remains to keep things in line. Adding rules the DM doesn't like makes a hard job harder - if he doesn't have a way to fit it neatly into the game, then it'll stress suspension of disbelief for everyone.


Sure, but the DM has to be able to have fun too and that may not merely be about indulging the Players. One of the most attractive aspects of being a DM is that you can create a world and mechanical system that appeals to you. The level of compromise is entirely based on the degree to which the Players 'trust you to know what you're doing.'

Oh, I totally agree. I'm sorry if I was unclear due to using non-standard terminology. The GM is playing in the game too, he or she just has a rather unique role, so sometimes I lump the GM in with the players who don't play hundreds (if not thousands) of characters.

The GM needs to have fun, or it's unlikely he's going to keep GMing and keep throwing the necessary gusto into the game.

And Mr. Nexx, you already said you had two places where 'asian' or 'wierd' themes could come from. One being the Asian continent of Forgotten Realms, and one being from beyyoooooond. I was just saying that if one of your players wanted to play one of these characters and if you had the time and the will to spend on learning the new rules to make said player able to play the new character type, I think it would be a good idea to at least try to add ToB to the mix.

This is a game. The point of it is that everyone has fun. Generally, my opinion is that the best set of rules to follow is whatever set gets the group there. And yes, I include that the DM should be having fun.

ImperiousLeader
2007-08-11, 12:10 AM
It goes beyond campaign; it goes to the world that exists; to the metaphysics of how things work in the world.

I find it interesting that people are going to great lengths to convince me that I must include this in my game... that there's no option but to bring in this thing I don't like.

It's not that the mechanics are bad; I've said that. It's that the flavor of them, and the implicit metaphysical assumptions that go with them, don't suit my game.

I just find I don't understand this point of view at all. I'm not incredibly familiar with Forgotten Realms, but I though Faerun was more high-fantasy, and Tome of Battle should be a natural fit.

Crusaders use divine inspiration to make them superior combatants, that seems natural in a world where everyone's got patron deities and the gods are so involved in the world. If you've got paladins running around why not Crusaders?

Warblades are incredibly skilled combatants. Naturally, there's no place in Faerun at all for those, given the number of epic spellcasters, but one never knows. Maybe Drizzt could be rebuilt as a warblade?

I'll admit to having trouble with Swordsages, but that's more my ignorance of Faerun, does the Weave empower all supernatural abilities? Do Dragons touch the Weave to breath fire? If so, then Swordsages merely focus the Weave through their weapons when using their more supernatural maneuvers, and are otherwise another form of skilled warriors.

Seatbelt
2007-08-11, 12:24 AM
I know these are all thought exercises, and I know they interest people. But I was under the assumption that "people dont actually use these characters" - so why are we getting all upset/arguing about it all. Its silly.



Unless someone is telling a big fib, and they actually make characters that are 0mg r0xx0rs instead of interesting.

AslanCross
2007-08-11, 01:39 AM
I'll admit to having trouble with Swordsages, but that's more my ignorance of Faerun, does the Weave empower all supernatural abilities? Do Dragons touch the Weave to breath fire? If so, then Swordsages merely focus the Weave through their weapons when using their more supernatural maneuvers, and are otherwise another form of skilled warriors.

As far as I can tell, any form of magical ability in Faerun comes from the Weave. I really don't see any reason why ToB wouldn't work with FR (I do use it).

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 01:41 AM
Matthew : That's because people have decided that non-supernatural maneuvers are inherently more magical because they have funny names. That's really the only anti-TOB argument I've ever heard. I'm not saying you have to or should take it into your game, but the "I don't like the fluff and I hate it so much that if I ran TOB I 'd be unwilling to get rid of it" thing doesn't fly for me.

I find it interesting that people say fluff can be completely divorced from mechanics. I find that, if the mechanics are well designed, they fit seamlessly in the world, and enhance the fluff (e.g. the "Adepts" of Earthdawn having magical talents for everything, including basic weapon use; the card and dice system from Deadlands). If your fluff and mechanics are completely separate, you're likely playing a game without a clear basis for how things work in the universe.

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 02:04 AM
And Mr. Nexx, you already said you had two places where 'asian' or 'wierd' themes could come from. One being the Asian continent of Forgotten Realms, and one being from beyyoooooond. I was just saying that if one of your players wanted to play one of these characters and if you had the time and the will to spend on learning the new rules to make said player able to play the new character type, I think it would be a good idea to at least try to add ToB to the mix.

Another aspect, which I've spoken on previous threads: I don't like Asian fantasy. I've had to run it in the past (my entire group wanted to play d20 Rokugan), and it annoyed the Hel out of me. I hated pretty much every minute of it. I'm not going to want to bring in stuff that's labeled as being from Zakhara or Kara-Tur, because it usually means introducing more aspects of settings that I detest.*

It would be possible to add ToB to the mix; as others have said, it's not terribly hard to make some canon Paladins into Crusaders, or fighters into warblades. Swordsages can cover the monk-types, or maybe give rangers an option to use maneuvers for their combat style feats. Fighters can use a few maneuvers that suit their style, if they like. It would not, after all, be hard to do.

But it changes the style of the game. Not just introduces things I don't want to learn; the system is simple enough to pick up relatively quickly; but changes the style of the game. I like a certain style of game and, while I haven't been able to play it in a long time, its what I much prefer, and am going to be happiest with.

We have another player in our group who despises psionics. Refuses it to be allowed. His characters actively kill psychic characters, regardless of alignment. He created a campaign that focussed around psychic powers possibly being rediscovered, and our quest to stop it from happening. When we got a new guy who wanted to play a psychic, we warned him and he said "Oh, okay, I'll play something else then." He didn't hate the game because he wasn't allowed to play his pet idea... he just went on, and had fun with a different character. And, quite frankly, I have to wonder at any player who DOESN'T do this. Everyone's had a neat idea for a character that just wouldn't work in the group you're playing with. Do you whine and plead to get it the way you want? No. You put on your big boy underpants and make another character. Your drow won't work in this all-gold-elf party of Shevarash worshippers... make something else. You're going to have a problem playing a barbarian in our Calimsham game... make something else. This DM doesn't like splat book X... make something else. It's called working with the setting and group, and not insisting on your way all the time.

If I were in a group that allowed ToB, am I going to insist that we play core-only (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52409)? No, I'm going to play a different character... one that doesn't rely on the rules I don't like... but I'm not going to demand that the rest of the group kowtow to my play style or preferences. But, quite frankly, if I'm responsible for the rules of the game, they're at least going to be rules I don't object to.

I fail to see a problem with this.

*Mind you, I'm not saying that they are necessarily bad settings... I just have little interest in them, and find them annoying to deal with. Rokugan was very well-designed, and rich in useful detail... but it's not what I want to play.

Kioran
2007-08-11, 02:06 AM
Now you're making things up. Those percentages are inaccurate, unless you've got access to a poll somewhere I haven't seen yet.

75% means 3 out of 4 players - so that one isnīt made up. Hell the idea to restrict the campaign to Core again was brought up by another player, who simply didnīt feel like spending more than one hour generating the characters. Heīs actually our min-maxxer (the second oneīs currently on hiatus because he has Virdiplom/tons olf exams). The other played a Ninja and the third one a sorceror/blood Mage.
But maybe we have a Min-maxer percentage of 40% again, when our former DM returns from hiatus - or 33,3%, when the newbie we picked up stays with the group. So that one? Hardly made up.


And the other numbers, while maybe not accurate, are significant in their tendency. In my kind of campaign, I expect my 3rd lvl Martial PCs to do about 15 damage. I expect fights to last about 5 rounds. When I ignore the most obviosly broken parts of Core (almost resstricted to Druid, CoDzilla and high-lvl arcane spells), this works.
The Cleric heals, he tanks only in emergencies. Tanking is our Rangers job, since he has good saves, acceptable HP and TWD. The Arcane caster is a Sorceror, and guess what? He knows Scorching ray and magic missile and applies them regularly. He also has some Mage armor and color spray, but they donīt always fit the bill.
These are all, except for the ranger, party roles as seen by the WotC developers. They are supported by core rulebooks.

ToB would upset that balance of moderate Chars. These guys have better HD, and tons of abilities that let them compete or more than compete damage-wise without tying up their Feats. Over half of the book(thatīs were the 50% come from) is too high-powered for me to use right off the bat, so I wonīt even bother with the the rest, since it isnīt worth the hassle. Now if I reintroduced the spel compendium, Complete Adventurer and Complete Divine again, got my players twinking, and replaced Melee with ToB, it might work. In my current campaign, it doesnīt.
As it is with most low-powered campaigns. ToB forces a high power-lvl. Itīs practically unavoidable. Thatīs why I dislike it. Apart from it not fixing the real issues with the system.

Leon
2007-08-11, 02:06 AM
As a person i quite like the book, would like to play a couple of things from it - Warblade and RKV

but move along to as a player, it doesnt fit with the setting that we are in (i showed the DM just as we were starting and he said no) and i understand and accept that.

and as a DM, maybe i'd allow it if i was going to run a "generic" DnD setting but since im not and instead going to run my favourite setting of IK - it is not even remotely suited to it, best i'd allow is possibly some of the general feats

namo
2007-08-11, 02:27 AM
His characters actively kill psychic characters, regardless of alignment.

That sounds like somebody I wouldn't want to play with. Mixing rules dislike with character personality ? Sure, do it once, that's enough. And killing them arbitrarily, regardless of alignment/deeds ? Sounds like CE, bordering on CS.[/rant]



These are all, except for the ranger, party roles as seen by the WotC developers. They are supported by core rulebooks.

Isn't that a bit restrictive ? I think it's great that you found a group of players of like spirit, but don't they sometimes want to break the mold ?

Also, do Bullrush/Disarm/... get used more often in your campaign ? Can you provide an example ?

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-11, 02:45 AM
Mr Nixx, at this point, I feel that I may be miss-communicating something.

I was not demanding you add things to your game in my last post. Nor was I saying that anything is wrong with deciding that you simply don't have fun DMing games that have a certain feel to them. I was, in fact, posting that I agreed that making sure EVERYONE enjoyed themselves, including you, the DM, is important.

By italicizing the word "if" twice in a statement where I tried to clarify my previous post, I was showing that I was only suggesting that you attempt to institute ToB rules (or any other rule set) based on a set of two preconditions, which I understood were false in this case. In other words: "No one in your group wants the rules, especially you, the DM, so it probably is not a good idea to try to institute Tome of Battle."

The fact that I have attempted to express that I agree with you twice in this thread, and that you have for some reason taken issue with my posts twice, says to me that either I am mis-understanding you, or that you are misunderstanding me.

To be clear, I am not attempting to blame you, the cause of the miscommunication could well be on my end.

However, I am no longer interested in arguing about how I'm wrong for agreeing with you. Especially when you start using language as you did in your previous post, which I personally find to be demeaning to those who do not agree with you.

This will be my last attempt at clarification on the issue of Tome and Battle in this thread, unless there is some evidence of progress towards this apparent misunderstanding being cleared up.

lord_khaine
2007-08-11, 05:04 AM
We have another player in our group who despises psionics. Refuses it to be allowed. His characters actively kill psychic characters, regardless of alignment.

seriously, you have 1 player in the group who gets to deside what the rest of you cant play?
thats really wrong imo, its one thing that the DM can deside some classes does not fit in the setting either because of power or story, but just because he dislike psionics he shouldnt be allowed to deside noone else is allowed to play them.

Dausuul
2007-08-11, 07:46 AM
If your fluff and mechanics are completely separate, you're likely playing a game without a clear basis for how things work in the universe.

Yes. It's called D&D.

Seriously, most of D&D's mechanics don't even have fluff. When they do have fluff, it often doesn't mesh well at all with the mechanics. In a game that's built with proper attention to fluff and crunch, it is, as you say, very hard to separate them; however, the WotC designers seem to concentrate all their efforts on crunch and slap the fluff on as an afterthought.

While this results in mechanics that are bizarre and nonsensical when you try to figure out what's actually going on in the game world, it does mean that it's very easy to change D&D's fluff without affecting the crunch.

MeklorIlavator
2007-08-11, 08:54 AM
We have another player in our group who despises psionics. Refuses it to be allowed. His characters actively kill psychic characters, regardless of alignment. He created a campaign that focussed around psychic powers possibly being rediscovered, and our quest to stop it from happening. When we got a new guy who wanted to play a psychic, we warned him and he said "Oh, okay, I'll play something else then." He didn't hate the game because he wasn't allowed to play his pet idea... he just went on, and had fun with a different character. And, quite frankly, I have to wonder at any player who DOESN'T do this. Everyone's had a neat idea for a character that just wouldn't work in the group you're playing with. Do you whine and plead to get it the way you want? No. You put on your big boy underpants and make another character. Your drow won't work in this all-gold-elf party of Shevarash worshippers... make something else. You're going to have a problem playing a barbarian in our Calimsham game... make something else. This DM doesn't like splat book X... make something else. It's called working with the setting and group, and not insisting on your way all the time.

Do you wonder at the Psionic Hater? Because he is doing exactly what you think shouldn't be done, namely restricting other players. Yes, if I was new to the group, I wouldn't do psionics, but after 3rd of 4th game, I would be asking if he could loosen up and let psionics exist (unless he's in charge of the game, in which case I would wait till someone else is DMing). All of your examples are negative, like player wants x, but we're doing y so no, yet sometimes you also need to the other side, player hates x, but he's not the only one playing, so sure. No, I'm not saying that everyone should make psionics from now on in your campaign, only that one player shouldn't hold stifle others ideas all the time.

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 08:57 AM
Mr Nexx, at this point, I feel that I may be miss-communicating something.

One aspect is that I wasn't solely responding to you, Josh. Since there are several people addressing me, I tend to find the post with something I most wish to address, then move on to other points raised.

As to the psionic hater, I mostly find it amusing that he's so radically anti-psionic. However, he's my friend, and so I go with his prejudices on it. If I happen to have an idea that would be really cool as a psychic, you know what I do? I come up with a different idea. They're not hard, and he's not ruining my fun, or anyone else's... we just come up with something else if what we thought of first won't work with our current group.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 08:58 AM
I dunno, if he's killing off 2e Psionic Characters he's probably doing everyone a favour...

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 09:02 AM
I dunno, if he's killing off 2e Psionic Characters he's probably doing everyone a favour...

True. Gods, but those were a mess.

Counterspin
2007-08-11, 12:23 PM
MrNexx:I find it interesting that people say fluff can be completely divorced from mechanics. I find that, if the mechanics are well designed, they fit seamlessly in the world, and enhance the fluff (e.g. the "Adepts" of Earthdawn having magical talents for everything, including basic weapon use; the card and dice system from Deadlands). If your fluff and mechanics are completely separate, you're likely playing a game without a clear basis for how things work in the universe.

That's because there is nothing new in the book whose manner of functioning is new. Most of the strikes are ways of systemically representing things that a fighter would be doing in a combat. Making tactical suggestions to teammates (pretty all of White Raven Tactics), cheering on his fellows (Devoted Spirit healing effects), taking a defensive stance for a round (Stone bones), leaping to an ally's defense (Shield Block) etc, etc. As for the supernatural effects, the Core D&D world clearly shows us that exact physical actions can be used produce supernatural effects(magic), so I fail to see why doing so with a sword in your hand represents anything new.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-11, 01:20 PM
That's because there is nothing new in the book whose manner of functioning is new. Most of the strikes are ways of systemically representing things that a fighter would be doing in a combat. Making tactical suggestions to teammates (pretty all of White Raven Tactics), cheering on his fellows (Devoted Spirit healing effects), taking a defensive stance for a round (Stone bones), leaping to an ally's defense (Shield Block) etc, etc. As for the supernatural effects, the Core D&D world clearly shows us that exact physical actions can be used produce supernatural effects(magic), so I fail to see why doing so with a sword in your hand represents anything new.
So you have no problem with tactical suggestions and cheering:
-duplicating the functionality of spells.
-requiring class features or feats to do.
-not behaving in any way like actual tactical suggestions or cheering, which anyone can do already.

And then there's fight defensively/total defense/combat expertise. You know, taking a defensive stance for a round.

Other than simply violating the way I look at arcane magic, the only thing I can say about the blade magic stuff...Why are hurling a cone of flame and physically redirecting someone's blows equivalent skills?

Thrawn183
2007-08-11, 02:03 PM
Kiorian, your players obviously don't play super optimized characters. I am not judging that in any way.

Have you looked at what a martial adept would do if it was equally unoptimized? If you had a swordsage that used manuevers that required its foes to be flatfooted, but never took improved initiative or stealth abilities to get them there.

I think looking at all the example builds has given you a jaundiced view of what a martial adept played by one of your own players would be like.

*sigh* Then again, I could be completely wrong. Being fallable sucks.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 02:12 PM
As for the supernatural effects, the Core D&D world clearly shows us that exact physical actions can be used produce supernatural effects(magic), so I fail to see why doing so with a sword in your hand represents anything new.

This is the best defence for ToB I've seen so far. Of course, using it is tantamount to saying "ToB is blade magic". Oh wait, ToB says it is blade magic. That is what the entire manuever/stance chapter is entitled, for crying out loud. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with the idea of a blend of swordplay and magic because I'm used to AE's mageblade and witch classes (which are essentially base class gishes).

Josh the Aspie
2007-08-11, 05:18 PM
One aspect is that I wasn't solely responding to you, Josh. Since there are several people addressing me, I tend to find the post with something I most wish to address, then move on to other points raised.


Ah. That would explain some of it. Generally when I respond to multiple posts, I try to quote the posts I'm responding to, or otherwise delineate what part of my post is a reply to whom. Since your posting style was different, I was confused on a few aspects.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 05:43 PM
As for the supernatural effects, the Core D&D world clearly shows us that exact physical actions can be used produce supernatural effects(magic), so I fail to see why doing so with a sword in your hand represents anything new.



This is the best defence for ToB I've seen so far. Of course, using it is tantamount to saying "ToB is blade magic". Oh wait, ToB says it is blade magic. That is what the entire manuever/stance chapter is entitled, for crying out loud. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with the idea of a blend of swordplay and magic because I'm used to AE's mageblade and witch classes (which are essentially base class gishes).

Indeed, but the Manoeuvres available to War Blades are generally Non Magical, being described instead as 'almost Super Human'.

I'm starting to wonder about this Fluff (please somebody give me a better term) to Mechanics dichotomy. I think that mechanics are there to support fluff, not the other way around and I wonder if this isn't the logical disconnect where people often find disagreement with regards to things like ToB. Any thoughts?

Fax Celestis
2007-08-11, 05:55 PM
I think that mechanics are there to support fluff, not the other way around and I wonder if this isn't the logical disconnect where people often find disagreement with regards to things like ToB. Any thoughts?

See, I think that mechanics and fluff are disparate-though-mutually-dependent effects. For example: you can describe a sneak attack as a lucky shot or as a skilled thrust between the ribs, and it all depends on description. Regardless of how you describe it, though, it still works the same way.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 06:04 PM
That's a good point and I wonder if the way in which mechanics relate to fluff is not a constant, but rather subjective with regard to the situation.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-11, 06:06 PM
That's a good point and I wonder if the way in which mechanics relate to fluff is not a constant, but rather subjective with regard to the situation.

I think it varies from player to player, and is probably inherently built in to each person's play style. I, for instance, know some people who would call foul if I told them I was going to play a rogue whose sneak attack's were lucky shots instead of skilled strikes.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 06:10 PM
See, where things start to get a little hazy for me is when I can make DC Checks to discover things about War Blades that I encounter. That rather reinforces the idea that there are limits to how mechanics can be described.

People seem quite happy to ignore stuff like this and consider their game still RAW, but I have to say, I think that if we are going to interpret RAW literally, it has to extend to the non mechanical aspects, as well as the mechanical ones. (That's not to say I think the RAW is important, just that it seems people have one rule for description and another for mechanical effect).

Fax Celestis
2007-08-11, 06:24 PM
I think any lore table is ridiculous, and don't use them, so I tend to dismiss them rather than consider them in my arguments. You're probably right in that regard, but having a mechanical ability that gives a fluff description is a bit counterintuitive to me.

Jasdoif
2007-08-11, 06:24 PM
I'm starting to wonder about this Fluff (please somebody give me a better term) to Mechanics dichotomy. I think that mechanics are there to support fluff, not the other way around and I wonder if this isn't the logical disconnect where people often find disagreement with regards to things like ToB. Any thoughts?Let's go with...Descriptives. It usually becomes "fluff and crunch" anyway.


Anyway, it's like Fax says: They're separate, discrete concepts; but in the context of a role-playing game they're tied together. They can be mixed-and-matched, though.

For a light example, a Fighter's bonus feats are generally seen as the result of intense training. However, if you want a character who unlocks innate weaponry tricks from his or her psyche over the course of adventures, you could use the same Fighter class. The mechanics--the Fighter class--are unchanged, but the descriptives of the bonus feat progressions are different.

It works the other way too: A holy warrior, wielding his blade in the name of his deity, is traditionally a Paladin; but could also be a Fighter, or a Knight, or a number of other classes.


If you like the mechanics but not the descriptives, it's a lot easier to just change the descriptives then to write up a whole new set of similar mechanics.

Kioran
2007-08-11, 06:25 PM
Isn't that a bit restrictive ? I think it's great that you found a group of players of like spirit, but don't they sometimes want to break the mold ?

Also, do Bullrush/Disarm/... get used more often in your campaign ? Can you provide an example ?

Well, we are pretty cliché - with the slightly flirtatious half-elven Rogue and the Dwarven cleric - and our Tiefling Ranger isnīt that deviant. But itīs fun, and between killing ghasts and ghouls, fighting an Elven disarmer-Fighter (actually worked quite well, because his lvl 1 NPC-Warrior flunkies had an easier time attacking and flanking with no AoOs from the unarmed opposition), tavern brawls and subsequent burglaries, going hungry in the wild or causing forest fires, weīve had loads of different stuff to do. And apart from bullrush, all the maneuvers in the book (Disarm, Sunder, Trip) have been used succesfully, to varying effect (like having a PC-Class NPC tripping the dwarf in the second tavern brawl he incited, making it possible for his lvl 2 commoner friends to beat the prone dwarf with shovels, mwahaha).
And they still donīt seem to have much trouble with enemies their CR. Three 3rd lvl PCs took on a handful of Skeletons, half a dozen Zombies, a Ghast + 2 ghouls, an ogre and a lvl 4 Cleric, in fast succession.

Being unoptimized is something like being cursed with awesome.........

Fax Celestis
2007-08-11, 06:29 PM
Being unoptimized is something like being cursed with awesome.........

Being unoptimized is a matter of preference, nothing else.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 07:00 PM
Let's go with...Descriptives. It usually becomes "fluff and crunch" anyway.

Heh.


Anyway, it's like Fax says: They're separate, discrete concepts; but in the context of a role-playing game they're tied together. They can be mixed-and-matched, though.

See, I think that they are only discrete to an extent. The mechanics, to me, describe the non mechanical aspects, so that I always give non mechanical aspects priority during play. I think both are valid ways of looking at it, though.


For a light example, a Fighter's bonus feats are generally seen as the result of intense training. However, if you want a character who unlocks innate weaponry tricks from his or her psyche over the course of adventures, you could use the same Fighter class. The mechanics--the Fighter class--are unchanged, but the descriptives of the bonus feat progressions are different.

This is true, but we do also get a very explicit description of how these relate to Fighters:

Characteristics: Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name). Fighters are familiar with all the standard weapons and armors. In addition to general fighting prowess, each fighter develops particular specialties of his own. A given fighter may be especially capable with certain weapons, another might be trained to execute specific fancy maneuvers. As fighters gain experience, they get more opportunities to develop their fighting skills. Thanks to their focus on combat maneuvers, they can master the most difficult ones relatively quickly.

The question is how seriously do we take what is written in the Base Class Description? I think that whilst some people take it very seriously, others consider it more open to interpretation. Viewing the PHB as a collection of mechanics is a valid view, but I think that we should recognise that we are willfully ignoring what these mechanics are describing.


It works the other way too: A holy warrior, wielding his blade in the name of his deity, is traditionally a Paladin; but could also be a Fighter, or a Knight, or a number of other classes.

Hmmn. Well, my views on Paladins are a bit narrower, but I think that the Paladin has a very specific role that cannot be emulated by a Lawful Good Fighter or Knight.


If you like the mechanics but not the descriptives, it's a lot easier to just change the descriptives then to write up a whole new set of similar mechanics.

I think I more or less agree with this, but I think that it is also important to bear in mind that altering non mechanical aspects of the game is the same as altering mechanical aspects, it's just easier.

Counterspin
2007-08-11, 07:11 PM
Indeed, but the Manoeuvres available to War Blades are generally Non Magical, being described instead as 'almost Super Human'.

I'm starting to wonder about this Fluff (please somebody give me a better term) to Mechanics dichotomy. I think that mechanics are there to support fluff, not the other way around and I wonder if this isn't the logical disconnect where people often find disagreement with regards to things like ToB. Any thoughts?

Who cares what the book describes the maneuvers as? When you sit down and read them they're clearly aren't supernatural(maneuvers with the supernatural descriptor excluded, of course).

Shield block, the act of shoving a shield between a buddy and a weapon. Devastating Throw, the art of picking up and throwing your enemy. Steely Strike, the act of focusing on one opponent to the exclusion of others. Charging Minotaur, a bull rush. Flesh Ripper, injuring your opponent so he has trouble responding in kind. And on, and on, and on.

These are all things that warriors in the real world have been doing time memorial which had either had no mechanics or bad mechanics in D&D. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "near supernatural" about the vast majority of non-supernatural maneuvers.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 07:16 PM
I believe the short answer is "I care". As I have said a number of times, I have no problem with Tome of Battle itself, nor the mechanics it presents. I am, however, interested in discussing it within the context it is presented.

As far as the Manoeuvres go, yes, a number of them should be available to conventional Martial Characters at much lower levels. In fact, many Manoeuvres should just be out and out Feats.

Jasdoif
2007-08-11, 07:20 PM
See, I think that they are only discrete to an extent. The mechanics, to me, describe the non mechanical aspects, so that I always give non mechanical aspects priority during play. I think both are valid ways of looking at it, though.Yes, the mechanics are made to describe the descriptives. No argument here. However, once the mechanics are made, it's certainly an option to attach different descriptives to them.


To be clear, I don't have a problem with most of the descriptive stuff in the books. It's my favorite part in many of them. However, inserting such into a world where they simply can't fit is a bad idea; it breaks verisimilitude. If a change in description is needed, let it be done.


The question is how seriously do we take what is written in the Base Class Description? I think that whilst some people take it very seriously, others consider it more open to interpretation. Viewing the PHB as a collection of mechanics is a valid view, but I think that we should recognise that we are willfully ignoring what these mechanics are describing.Oh, it's serious alright. But if it won't work, it won't work. That's when a change needs to happen, assuming the mechanical side is desirable.


Hmmn. Well, my views on Paladins are a bit narrower, but I think that the Paladin has a very specific role that cannot be emulated by a Lawful Good Fighter or Knight.This is exactly what I'm talking about. A Paladin indeed has a different flavor then a Fighter, or a Knight. However, the basic "warrior wielding sword for deity" concept could be fulfilled by any of these. Different variants of this same concept are better expressed by different classes.


I think I more or less agree with this, but I think that it is also important to bear in mind that altering non mechanical aspects of the game is the same as altering mechanical aspects, it's just easier.I agree. I should just be realized that it can be changed, in case it makes for a better campaign/setting.

Counterspin
2007-08-11, 07:28 PM
So one sentence overrides the entirety of the actual Bo9S system? I surrender the topic.

As for fluff and crunch, Matthew said "I think I more or less agree with this, but I think that it is also important to bear in mind that altering non mechanical aspects of the game is the same as altering mechanical aspects, it's just easier."

That is wrong. It is wrong because altering mechanics impacts balance and altering fluff doesn't.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 07:33 PM
So one sentence overrides the entirety of the actual Bo9S system? I surrender the topic.

What are you talking about?


As for fluff and crunch, Matthew said "I think I more or less agree with this, but I think that it is also important to bear in mind that altering non mechanical aspects of the game is the same as altering mechanical aspects, it's just easier."

That is wrong. It is wrong because altering mechanics impacts balance and altering fluff doesn't.

I don't think you quite get it. Changing the mechanics will not necessarily impact the 'balance' at all. Balance in D&D is itself something of a fiction anyway and I can impact the balance of the game through fluff. "All Fighters are the son's of Kings". Job done. Fluff and mechanics are part of the same system. You can make both minor and major changes to both and impact or not impact the game.


I agree. I should just be realized that it can be changed, in case it makes for a better campaign/setting.

Indeed. What I am really wondering about is the emphasis people put on changing the descriptives over changing the mechanics. I often hear somebody say, just cross out "War Blade on the top of the Character Sheet and write Fighter", but they are much less likely to say, just swap the Fighter's Class feature Progression for the War Blade's, which seems to me to be just as good or better.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 07:37 PM
Who cares what the book describes the maneuvers as? When you sit down and read them they're clearly aren't supernatural(maneuvers with the supernatural descriptor excluded, of course).

Off the top of my head-
Running through a crowd of enemies, sending them all flying 20-30 feet.
Gaining the Scent ability
Shaking off Status Effects any spell of effect with a duration that doesn't prevent me from taking actions. Not supernatural, and not high level.

More coming soon after flipping through the book. (and getting food)

Castigating Strike: You strike an enemy with an opposing alignment, and then a there is a damaging burst of energy that strikes opponents within 30 ft.

Revitalizing Strike: You strike an enemy and hit an ally with a heal spell.

Wall of Blades: I can parry a ray! To use an extreme example, I can use my sword to parry a disintigrate spell! With a level 2 manuever!

Ballista Throw: I can throw someone so hard that they deal damage in a 60' line! (regarless of their weight or my low strength)

I don't think I need to continue here. And I haven't even gotten through setting sun yet. None of the above strikes/counters are supernatural.

EDIT-

I often hear somebody say, just cross out "War Blade on the top of the Character Sheet and write Fighter", but they are much less likely to say, just swap the Fighter's Class feature Progression for the War Blade's, which seems to me to be just as good or better.

Just as good or better? Aren't they exactly the same result?

Counterspin
2007-08-11, 08:10 PM
Of those, only castigating strike is necesarily supernatural. Revitalizing strike, as with all the DS heals are supposed to be morale effects. The fluff is terribly written. *shrug* Scent is not a supernatural ability in the first place. Shaking off a spell is something that happens without magic all the time by making your saving throw. Why not parry a ray?
Ballista is borderline, but you don't get it until such a high level that it's not any weirder than standard melee combat at that point. Doesn't seem any more supernatural than the ability to trip a big old dragon which traditional 11th level fighters can do.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 08:34 PM
Of those, only castigating strike is necesarily supernatural. Revitalizing strike, as with all the DS heals are supposed to be morale effects. The fluff is terribly written. *shrug* Scent is not a supernatural ability in the first place. Shaking off a spell is something that happens without magic all the time by making your saving throw. Why not parry a ray?

Right, so removing disease, paralysis, ability damage, blindness, deafness, and all manner of other things isn't supernatural.

Last time I checked, 'good morale' didn't heal the blind. I also doesn't bring people from dying to +10-150 HP, or remove most of these:
ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned.
(the ones I take issue with being non-'mystical' are in bold)

Shaking off a spell- again, once your blind- you just 'tough' it away?'

And while scent isn't supernatural- arbitrarily gaining and losing it certainly ain't within the realm of of 'things that real warriors have been doing for time memorial'.


Doesn't seem any more supernatural than the ability to trip a big old dragon which traditional 11th level fighters can do.

Actually, you can't trip things more than one size category larger than yourself, IIRC- although I doubt a traditional level 11 fighter could pull it off even if allowed, given that A- the dragon is stronger, and B- the dragon has a +16 size bonus on the check.

Also- why not parry a ray? Indeed, why not? I think its really cool. But it is clearly not in the realm of 'things normal IRL warriors can could do.'

Not to mention that most rays aren't things that should be readily parryable. I can see parrying an Acid Arrow, but Disintegrate? Enervation? There has to be some serious mojo behind that sword to make it stop negative energy, which isn't physical in any way.

EDIT- they are all supernatural in my game. but then, that game doesn't include any way to generate an AMF, so I don't see any possible way for that to matter (as always, my campaigns are very customized)

Fax Celestis
2007-08-11, 08:34 PM
Indeed. What I am really wondering about is the emphasis people put on changing the descriptives over changing the mechanics. I often hear somebody say, just cross out "War Blade on the top of the Character Sheet and write Fighter", but they are much less likely to say, just swap the Fighter's Class feature Progression for the War Blade's, which seems to me to be just as good or better.

I think that stems from the idea that, while the descriptions presented in the PHB are fully functional, the mechanics are not, and therefore need fixing--and, from that, the mechanics presented in the ToB are effective and therefore do not need fixing.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 08:35 PM
Just as good or better? Aren't they exactly the same result?

Almost. As I intended it, the Fighter with the War Blade progression would still have the same Weapon and Armour Proficiencies and Skills (with the addition of Martial Study and perhaps 4 Base Skill Points instead of 2), so he'd be slightly 'better' in a very subjective way. Also, he would have full access to the Specialisation Feat Tree in my head (none of which would particularly unbalance the game, as far as I can see).


I think that stems from the idea that, while the descriptions presented in the PHB are fully functional, the mechanics are not, and therefore need fixing--and, from that, the mechanics presented in the ToB are effective and therefore do not need fixing.

That may well be true. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but you may be right that this is a result of that perception.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 08:54 PM
I was going to edit this in, but this is funny enough to merit a new post:

:elan: She turned me into a newt!

:elan: . . . I got better. (Iron Heart Surge, ftw!)

Counterspin
2007-08-11, 08:59 PM
Yes, some of the TOB stuff is more out there than others. It's true. It's obvious.

I don't find the ability to "tough out" negative status effects through non supernatural effects weird. It happens all the time in the literature D&D draws from. Spell effects are often "toughed out" in this manner as well.

Yes, scent is more borderline. But it can easily be billed as "warrior's intuition" or a variety of other things.

Rays don't exist in the real world. Given that they have no real systemic description, it's equally likely that they can be parried as that they can't.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 09:09 PM
I'm sorry, but there's nothing "near supernatural" about the vast majority of non-supernatural maneuvers.

I was just arguing this point. Point mine. There are lots of non-supernatural manuevers that are 'borderline supernatural'.

All in all, I still like the book. From what I have seen running a crusader through World's Largest Dungeon- it isn't that broken either. It's just cooler. And if you like coolness, then you should try out ToB. If you like other things, like grittiness, or realism, or that low-level feel. Don't.:smallcool:


I wouldn't recommend inserting ToB mid-campaign, but then- all my campaigns are custom. I never add new sourcebooks mid campaign.

Goober4473
2007-08-11, 09:38 PM
What I am really wondering about is the emphasis people put on changing the descriptives over changing the mechanics.

Personally, I tend very much towards changing descriptives, while stealing, modifying, and recombining game mechanics. Game mechanics are much less open, I think. Sure, there are a million ideas for powers, but they tend to revolve around much more simple concepts than interactive stories do.

I'm always making new stories, settings, and things of that nature, and when I do, I could certainly make a new class, make some new spells, make a monster, etc. I have the rules knowledge to do it, but there are already so many good mechanics out there. Why not just take that monster, rename it, make it speak a new language, and put it in the story?

I guess I find that I enjoy creating new stories, characters, settings, and events than I do making mechanics. And while I'm perfectly happy using premade rules, I tend to dislike using other peoples' worlds and stories.

This is clearly personal. I could easily see some people taking Eberon or Forgotten Realms and changing all the rules, while leaving all the descriptions. I just do the opposite, myself.

That's not to say I don't change mechanics. I do it all the time. I'm currently running a game with a level 6 cap, a modified version of the vitality/wound system, and an entire system of special item progression with interchangable powers that act differantly depending on what base item activates them. But I have enough work to do to keep up with all that and the plot, so I tend to just take mechanics as I need and place them into the story, altering the descriptives as needed.

As for Tome of Battle, I find the concept very cool, though I'd personally make some of the stuff supernatural. Or maybe just all of it. Whatever works. I think the classes are all a bit overpowered, but not hard to fix. A hid-die reduction across all three, and a couple abilities nerfed, and we're all good. In my current game, I use the mechanics of Tome of Battle as a style of combat and pool of powers for certain boss monsters, to make them more unique, and again, to not have to come up with a ton of abilities myself, when stealing them is just as good. Some maneuvers and stances can be accessed through my item advancement system, after taking powers from some of these boss monsters. So I'm using the mechanics to a large degree, but changing the descriptives a fair amount as well.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 09:50 PM
Why not just take that monster, rename it, make it speak a new language, and put it in the story?

I've heard of a game in which the party fought a writhing mass of maggots. The maggots would form into a roughly medium-sizaed shape to attack, and then would spread out across the the room, and reform somewhere else. Turns out the party was fighting a swarm of maggots. The DM just used the stats of a blink dog to do it.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-11, 10:33 PM
This is the best defence for ToB I've seen so far. Of course, using it is tantamount to saying "ToB is blade magic". Oh wait, ToB says it is blade magic. That is what the entire manuever/stance chapter is entitled, for crying out loud. Maybe I'm just more comfortable with the idea of a blend of swordplay and magic because I'm used to AE's mageblade and witch classes (which are essentially base class gishes).

I think part of what troubles me about 'blade magic' is that it works nothing like gishes. Consider the duskblade class. It has combat capability, and arcane spellcasting, and class abilities that help make those features work together. But though they're intended to be complementary, they have magic and they have hitting things with swords, and these two properties are distinct.

Swordsages, on the other hand, have a big list of maneuvers they learn from. Some of these maneuvers are entirely mundane feats of skill. Some of them are pure sorcery. The only difference is that (most of the time) the sorcerous ones are tagged as supernatural abilities. The magic and not-magic are treated as entirely interchangable techniques of the same 'art'.

Dhavaer
2007-08-11, 10:37 PM
I've heard of a game in which the party fought a writhing mass of maggots. The maggots would form into a roughly medium-sizaed shape to attack, and then would spread out across the the room, and reform somewhere else. Turns out the party was fighting a swarm of maggots. The DM just used the stats of a blink dog to do it.

That is awesome.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 10:50 PM
The magic and not-magic are treated as entirely interchangable techniques of the same 'art'.

I honestly prefer it that way, but we're down to personal preference at this point. I like that the line between magic and swordplay is blurry for swordsages.

Dausuul
2007-08-11, 10:50 PM
I've heard of a game in which the party fought a writhing mass of maggots. The maggots would form into a roughly medium-sizaed shape to attack, and then would spread out across the the room, and reform somewhere else. Turns out the party was fighting a swarm of maggots. The DM just used the stats of a blink dog to do it.

I do that all the time. Once my players fought an undead angel. I just took the stats for an 11th-level wizard lich out of the Monster Manual and clapped a pair of decaying wings on its shoulders. I suppose I could have spent ages working up stats for an undead angel, but really--why bother?

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-11, 10:52 PM
I had a similar fight once. I took a solar and a nightwalker and put them in a blender, and there was my boss fight. It was really heinous, but that game was on crack by that point. Intentionally high-powered game, that one (I encouraged optimization in that campaign). It had the blade of a +6 unholy sword wedged into its back, which the party could make called shots on to bypass its DR (or use the other half of the blade, which they had gone on a quest to find, and was also +6 unholy).

CockroachTeaParty
2007-08-11, 11:28 PM
I think part of what troubles me about 'blade magic' is that it works nothing like gishes. Consider the duskblade class. It has combat capability, and arcane spellcasting, and class abilities that help make those features work together. But though they're intended to be complementary, they have magic and they have hitting things with swords, and these two properties are distinct.

Swordsages, on the other hand, have a big list of maneuvers they learn from. Some of these maneuvers are entirely mundane feats of skill. Some of them are pure sorcery. The only difference is that (most of the time) the sorcerous ones are tagged as supernatural abilities. The magic and not-magic are treated as entirely interchangable techniques of the same 'art'.

Well, in that case, couldn't a swordsage be a base gish monk/rogue warlock? Warlock's never run out of their supernatural abilities, and as long as a swordsage takes a few seconds to refocus, he can keep summoning fire elementals to help flank his foes.

A great deal of this thread made me cringe, but I suppose it's because I'm more of a fan of 'cool' than 'gritty' or 'traditional.' Call me a young whippersnapper, but my chums and I prefer over-the-top action, dashing antics, witty one-liners, and hanging from ropes dangling off of neogi spelljammers.

I'm often the DM among my mates, and I'm always open to new character concepts and rules. That's half the reason I have fun with the hobby in the first place. I enjoy reading new books, and if a player can supply me with a new book for a night or two, I'll happily allow something fresh. You want to play a totemist? Let me refresh myself on incarnum. I haven't touched the Tome of Magic, but if you want to play a binder, I'll enthusiastically support the decision, after a bit of homework.

I suppose it comes down to different playing and DMing styles, and I'm not saying any one way of playing the game is better than the other, but to me, if I disallow someone from using a book they spent hard-earned cash on, I'm causing them frustration that I've felt myself in the past. For too long did I torment under the rule of a DM who pinheadedly refused to even consider psionics in his FR campaign. It's been two years now, and he's finally begun to allow psionics in his campaigns, but being denied a cool character concept is no feast, and it's not something I would want to force upon a prospective player. If I was playing in a game where somebody was killing psions or martial adepts or gnomes out of spite, and the DM did nothing, or even encouraged such behavior, in all likelihood I wouldn't stick around. It may be the DM's game in the end, but I'm of the opinion that a game of D&D is everyone's shared, collective story. The PC's are the heroes, after all. Even if a character's the only Warblade in the entire world, it wouldn't stretch my suspension of disbelief. Perhaps he's the chosen champion of good, or the soon-to-be greatest swordsman in the world. Better that everyone have fun than limit options. You can stick with a set number of rules and books, but doesn't that ever get stale? In a world where I have to compete with Soul Calibur, World of Warcraft, and Grand Theft Auto for the attention of potential players, you'd better believe I'm going to unleash every tool in my arsenal.

And as for the whole Blade Magic defiling what people think of as magic in the first place, that frankly baffles me. Why does deflecting a ray spell with a sword seem like an abomination to the laws of reality, when wizards and clerics are shooting lightning out of their outstretched palms, or regenerating lost limbs?

Eh... that's a might rantish. Oh well.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 11:34 PM
Heh, that's a common reaction of a Player turned DM who was restricted in his choices. Of course, the opposite is also true, often a Player who has watched campaigns collapse under the strain of too many Options becomes the restrictive DM. People try too hard to find 'one true way', when variety of play styles is just as fun.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-08-11, 11:37 PM
Heh, that's a common reaction of a Player turned DM who was restricted in his choices. Of course, the opposite is also true, often a Player who has watched campaigns collapse under the strain of too many Options becomes the restrictive DM. People try too hard to find 'one true way', when variety of play styles is just as fun.

Actually, I've been a DM for far longer than the aforementioned DM. You could say I was dying to be a player for once, but once I had my options restricted I began to seethe with unholy juices.

Now I just fight crime as a masked vigilante, but I occasionally run the odd game.

EDIT: Oh, and your'e correct in saying that a variety of playstyles is fun. I'm not saying all of my campaigns are free-for-alls. I occasionally like to play a gritty game, or a no-magic game, or an asian-flavored game, etc.

However, I suppose I'm more in Fax's camp when I'm the DM, where flavor and fluff can be easily reconfigured to fit any situation. You want a warlock with innate magical talent, instead of fiendish dealings bestowing power? No problem. You want your Knight to be called a Samurai? No problem.

Matthew
2007-08-11, 11:41 PM
That's also a reasonably common problem with being a DM and then going back to being a Player, especially if you play under a less experienced DM. You feel a strong sense of "You're doing it wrong!", which prompts you to become a DM again and run the game "The right way".

[Edit]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against reflavouring, I am actually pro reflavouring and rebuilding mechanics to suit all desires. However, sometimes a campaign concept is ill suited to certain desires "I want to be Naruto! TM"

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-08-11, 11:43 PM
I love all the different books, with thier unique classes and mechanics- I think it adds tons of fun to the game, bringing something new to it.

My players always clear their characters with me, so its never a problem. If the character doesn't fit the current game, I ask them to make a new one, and *gasp* they do!

I don't see how anyone can make such general decisions- everthing has a time and a place, right?

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 11:46 PM
Heh, that's a common reaction of a Player turned DM who was restricted in his choices. Of course, the opposite is also true, often a Player who has watched campaigns collapse under the strain of too many Options becomes the restrictive DM. People try too hard to find 'one true way', when variety of play styles is just as fun.

Somewhat happened to me. My DM in HS was very restrictive; limited options from the Handbooks, no alternate races, etc. Occasionally, he'd decide he wanted to run a 3D6, straight down, game (i.e. you roll 3d6 for each attribute, in order). I got him to allow a gnome ranger, once; it was a major victory.

I got out of HS and started playing with all those options I had been denied, and found it to be a pain in the butt to allow everything. It makes my job Harder and Less Fun(tm). So, I started to cut back on what was allowed, and require that I own the book before it can be used in game... own it in that its available for me to look at whenever I want, not just have access to. I also require the rules for your stuff to be available at the table, so if its electronic, it has to be printed. More restrictive than a lot of people like? Sure. But it means I'm familiar with the rules that are going on around my table, I and I can reference them when I need to.

I can see your playstyle, CrTP. I can imagine it's quite a lot of fun, and wouldn't mind playing a game run that way... but I've given up trying to run them. An optimized, huge-number-of-options party puts a lot of strain on the DM to keep up, and I don't care to play the arms race, anymore.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-08-11, 11:48 PM
That's also a reasonably common problem with being a DM and then going back to being a Player, especially if you play under a less experienced DM. You feel a strong sense of "You're doing it wrong!", which prompts you to become a DM again and run the game "The right way".


Again, one my curses. I was playing in a game once where the DM announced that he was not using magic/psionics transparency. I couldn't help but tell him he was digging himself an early grave. Too often in RL games I begin my sentences with:
"Hey, it's your game, you're the DM, but..."
or
"Well, you can do it that way, but this'll save you a world of trouble..."

While my advice is usually benign, I try not to step on a DM's toes. Usually I'm happy enough to actually be a player that I tolerate all sorts of crappy DMing.

EDIT



I can see your playstyle, CrTP. I can imagine it's quite a lot of fun, and wouldn't mind playing a game run that way... but I've given up trying to run them. An optimized, huge-number-of-options party puts a lot of strain on the DM to keep up, and I don't care to play the arms race, anymore.

Ah, you see, now there's the key difference in my games. The VAST majority of people I play with are very new to the game, and they are rarely, if ever, optimized. It's not too difficult to manage when you don't have to fear cheese, and I usually play between levels 5-10.

I can completely understand your POV, Mr. Nexx, but you're games are probably a lot more stable. I have to deal with conflicting college schedules, people moving around all the time, etc. Perhaps its just a trait of a young, goofy gaming group. But considering how bored I am half the time, reading rules can be quite the effective time killer.

MrNexx
2007-08-12, 12:06 AM
Ah, you see, now there's the key difference in my games. The VAST majority of people I play with are very new to the game, and they are rarely, if ever, optimized. It's not too difficult to manage when you don't have to fear cheese, and I usually play between levels 5-10.

My current group likes to head towards level 20, and keep characters for a long time. And, except for two people, they're avid players who have several games a week (they're in college; I'm in the work world).


I can completely understand your POV, Mr. Nexx, but you're games are probably a lot more stable. I have to deal with conflicting college schedules, people moving around all the time, etc. Perhaps its just a trait of a young, goofy gaming group. But considering how bored I am half the time, reading rules can be quite the effective time killer.

Right... my games have been stable for months at a time. My final year of college, I was in two gaming groups... running one full time in 3.0, and another part-time (we had two other GMs). The game gets very stable, very quickly, and you learn what will work. Our "psychic-slayer"? Never actually seen him in a game with a psychic. The one time it came up, he objected so strenuously that I got the story from other people (a DM badly using 3.0 psionics), and we just don't use the rules.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-08-12, 01:50 AM
Sadly, I believe fear of 2e psionics and the loopholes in 3.0 psionics gets a lot of people started on the wrong foot. Now ToB, on the otherhand, is new, and the mechanics aren't nearly so potentially frightening to implement, in my opinion. I suppose it depends on what you ultimately see martial classes doing, in the end.

Jack Mann
2007-08-12, 02:08 AM
I got him to allow a gnome ranger, once; it was a major victory.

That reminds me of an article in Dragon from a long while back, just before 3rd edition kicked off. A number of different characters were talking about leadership, and one of them was a gnome ranger. Quoth the human fighter, "What sorcery is this?" "Relax, he was made under the new third edition rules."

Draz74
2007-08-12, 02:34 AM
I've heard of a game in which the party fought a writhing mass of maggots. The maggots would form into a roughly medium-sizaed shape to attack, and then would spread out across the the room, and reform somewhere else. Turns out the party was fighting a swarm of maggots. The DM just used the stats of a blink dog to do it.

One of the best examples I've heard of using creative fluff to make mechanics more flexible. Genius.

Tengu
2007-08-12, 09:02 AM
I must say, Iron Heart surge is the most shonen-anime style maneuver in the whole Tome of Battle.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-12, 11:39 AM
I must say, Iron Heart surge is the most shonen-anime style maneuver in the whole Tome of Battle.

Though, it it very common in myths. So myths are shonen anime style...

MrNexx
2007-08-12, 12:00 PM
Though, it it very common in myths. So myths are shonen anime style...

Care to give a mythical example? Because I'm not coming up with any right now.

MrNexx
2007-08-12, 12:02 PM
That reminds me of an article in Dragon from a long while back, just before 3rd edition kicked off. A number of different characters were talking about leadership, and one of them was a gnome ranger. Quoth the human fighter, "What sorcery is this?" "Relax, he was made under the new third edition rules."

I've always felt that gnomes made natural rangers, especially in 1st and 2nd edition (not so much in 3rd, where they changed them so much). A 1st edition gnome ranger... someone who fights well against humanoids, is at home in the wild places, and eventually learns magic? Yeah, that sounds like a gnome. It was a bit iffier in 2nd edition, but it was still a good match.

Tengu
2007-08-12, 12:40 PM
Care to give a mythical example? Because I'm not coming up with any right now.

I must say. The hero using only sheer will and determination to break some enchantment, spell or other effect that binds him is not what I recall in any myth, yet it happens all the time in shonen anime (heck, in Bleach for example it's even in the first episode).

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-12, 08:13 PM
I agree. Hercules was killed by poison, Cuchalain by a Geaes, Achilles by getting shot in the foot, etc.

Reinforcements
2007-08-12, 08:39 PM
I must say. The hero using only sheer will and determination to break some enchantment, spell or other effect that binds him is not what I recall in any myth, yet it happens all the time in shonen anime (heck, in Bleach for example it's even in the first episode).
I dunno, the power of trying-hard-ed-ness seems like a fairly ubiquitous concept to me. I could be wrong, though.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-12, 08:46 PM
The issue I have with Iron Heart Surge not being a mystical ability is that it can undo physical changes:

I'm Blind! Iron Heart Surge.
I'm turned into a sheep! Iron Heart Surge.

I don't have any problems with it undoing fear, confusion, stat penalties and the like w/o being in some way supernatural.

Thrawn183
2007-08-12, 09:12 PM
I always found it easier to accept Iron Heart Surge as an anti-magic defense. Turned into a sheep? How often does that happen without magic? Blind? The only time I see that happening without magic is from bright lights (as there are no called shots), and I see it as willing yourself to open your eyes even if it is unpleasent.

Yes, not everything can be explained as such. Yes, IHS works on to many things. In fact, I feel that IHS works on many things it is supposed to work on, and should work on most of the ones that it doesn't.

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-12, 09:16 PM
I don't have any problems with Iron Heart Surge as an ability that Warblades get. It is just one of those manuevers that I think should have been supernatural. I personally rule that all the manuevers are supernatural, but then, I have plot reasons for that as well.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-12, 10:56 PM
I must say. The hero using only sheer will and determination to break some enchantment, spell or other effect that binds him is not what I recall in any myth, yet it happens all the time in shonen anime (heck, in Bleach for example it's even in the first episode).

Well, technically, Soul reapers are Psi-warrs with that alternate class abilit that summons a mind blade with Call Weaponry. I mean, it grows it power as you level, looks however, you want it to look, and they have extra abilities.

So they are more magical than warrior like.

Roxlimn
2007-08-13, 05:24 AM
Arguably, every hero class in D&D ought to have supernatural capabilities.

Allow me to explain.

Many posters in this board and elsewhere insist that ToB isn't a usable supplement for them, mechanically, because it's more "Eastern" than anything else. Let's assume for the meantime that there's nothing wrong with excluding culture-specific references in a game. After all, I like playing an Arthurian game as much as the next guy, and I would definitely not consider fireball as all that consistent with the atmosphere.

Whether Eastern OR Western, one of the pervading characteristics that strike me about tales and myths is that in these accounts and stories, magic is real. It doesn't matter whether you're a Knight or a Wudan disciple. To you, the mythological framework of your culture is real, and you seek to master these elements as much as you can.

I've been fortunate enough to have acquired and read a lot of Western style myths - the collected Grimm tales, complete works of Hans Christian Andersen, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Mythology by (I forget the author). I'm sure a lot of the fans here boast a similar familiarity and collection, plus of course such works as Lord of the Rings, the Danish tales of Beowulf, Norse mythology, Goodkind series, and others.

In most of these works, warriors are proficient with both magic and might, such as it occurs in their respective worlds. In fact, the most powerful warriors of such worlds arguably are Gish concepts, not "pure warriors," whatever that happens to be. Galahad, the most powerful knight in Arthurian mythology, is strong not only because of his physical prowess, but more importantly because of his impeccable moral standing, and the allies and might that he gathers because of such. He can resist all temptation, reverse transmutations, dispel illusion, even banish demons. Such power isn't the usual flash-bang of D&D magic, but Arthurian magic generally tends to be subtle anyways, so he's not all that different in that respect.

Various Grimm tales of banded brothers grant these champions extraordinary powers, easily supernatural, but seemingly only an extension of various mundane skills. One brother can sink a ship and sail it underwater. Another brother can see halfway across the world. Yet another never misses with his arrow. I can easily imagine a Grimm fairy tale champion doing something akin to Iron Heart Surge, which can simply be described as an uncommon ability to break spells.

"Though he had been apprenticed to a magician in his youth, he proved of less than sterling aptitude and had no more than passing interest. The arts of the sword interested him more, though he knew not how much his knowledge of spells would aid him today."

Or alternately:

"The faeries he gamboled with in the garden took a liking to him, and thereafter would free him from unfavorable enchantments, as long as he dared to ask for their help."

Or even:

"His will grew so strong that no spell or enchantment had any lasting hold on him, no matter wheresoever it came from."

In D&D, therefore, where such things are real, it only makes sense that warriors would be more like Warblades and Crusaders and Swordsages - conversant and familiar with the magic of their world and able to deal with them each in his own fashion. A class like a Fighter or Barbarian would really be more suited to a Conan-like universe where magic is extremely rare and really not all that strong in general, but D&D is not like that.

Tengu
2007-08-13, 07:52 AM
Well, technically, Soul reapers are Psi-warrs with that alternate class abilit that summons a mind blade with Call Weaponry. I mean, it grows it power as you level, looks however, you want it to look, and they have extra abilities.

So they are more magical than warrior like.

Well, to begin with, all Shinigami apart from Ichigo would be undead in DND.


stuff

That's... the best pro-ToB argument I have ever seen. Well done!

lord_khaine
2007-08-13, 08:45 AM
not undead, just dead

Matthew
2007-08-13, 09:44 AM
Arguably, every hero class in D&D ought to have supernatural capabilities.

This depends very heavily on how you perceive D&D and whether it is restricted to one or multiple genres of fantasy.


Allow me to explain.

Many posters in this board and elsewhere insist that ToB isn't a usable supplement for them, mechanically, because it's more "Eastern" than anything else. Let's assume for the meantime that there's nothing wrong with excluding culture-specific references in a game. After all, I like playing an Arthurian game as much as the next guy, and I would definitely not consider fireball as all that consistent with the atmosphere.

Although Fire Ball is perhaps not consistant with an Arthurian atmosphere, a great many D&D Spells are. Even just reading the first hundred or so pages of Le Morte D'Arthur, Merlin uses a number of familiar enchantments, including shape changing, sleep and invisibility. To be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised to find him capable of shooting Fire Balls from his fingertips, or the Lightning Bolts that Gandalf shows himself capable of shooting. Noticably, Arthur is quite incapable of anything of this nature and never shows any interest in mastering such abilities.


Whether Eastern OR Western, one of the pervading characteristics that strike me about tales and myths is that in these accounts and stories, magic is real. It doesn't matter whether you're a Knight or a Wudan disciple. To you, the mythological framework of your culture is real, and you seek to master these elements as much as you can.

I would not agree. For many heroes, magic is quite outside their province, even though it exists in the framework of their mythological culture.


I've been fortunate enough to have acquired and read a lot of Western style myths - the collected Grimm tales, complete works of Hans Christian Andersen, the Iliad, the Odyssey, Mythology by (I forget the author). I'm sure a lot of the fans here boast a similar familiarity and collection, plus of course such works as Lord of the Rings, the Danish tales of Beowulf, Norse mythology, Goodkind series, and others.

Grimm's Fairy Tales I am not familiar with, but most of the rest I am. The Odyssey in particular strikes me as a tale full of magic, but whose hero never learns the slightest bit about how to practice it.


In most of these works, warriors are proficient with both magic and might, such as it occurs in their respective worlds. In fact, the most powerful warriors of such worlds arguably are Gish concepts, not "pure warriors," whatever that happens to be. Galahad, the most powerful knight in Arthurian mythology, is strong not only because of his physical prowess, but more importantly because of his impeccable moral standing, and the allies and might that he gathers because of such. He can resist all temptation, reverse transmutations, dispel illusion, even banish demons. Such power isn't the usual flash-bang of D&D magic, but Arthurian magic generally tends to be subtle anyways, so he's not all that

I think not. Galahad has no actual power of his own and it certainly does not resemble Merlin's powers. However, I think Galahad's connection with the Divine has long been recognised in the Paladin Class, which could perhaps be described as a Gish. It is noticable, however, that his role in Arthurian myth is unique.


In D&D, therefore, where such things are real, it only makes sense that warriors would be more like Warblades and Crusaders and Swordsages - conversant and familiar with the magic of their world and able to deal with them each in his own fashion. A class like a Fighter or Barbarian would really be more suited to a Conan-like universe where magic is extremely rare and really not all that strong in general, but D&D is not like that.

I think that this is a reasonable argument, but it relies rather heavily on defining D&D as a genre that does regard magic as 'everyday', rather than restricted to a few individuals or those 'born with the ability' (such as a Sorcerer). That is very much the way things have been heading for a long time (even before 3e), but I'm not convinced that it really is the logical outcome of every campaign. I would strongly disagree with such a view in the context of Greyhawk, for instance, but then that campaign world is as capable as any other of being self contradictory.

In short, I would contest rather strongly the mythological foundations of your argument, but I do agree broadly with the conclusions. If magic is relatively easily available, it does make sense that all Adventurers would have access to it as Class Features, rather than simply in the form of items. The closer D&D moves to that paradigm as the default, though, the less attractive I find it. It is probably rather telling that the last long term campaign I ran was 2e and featured a grand total of one Lightning Bolt Spell over the course of more than ninety sessions!

[Edit]
To be clear, I don't object to the Tome of Battle at all and I actually think that many Manoeuvres should be more easily avaialable to the conventional Martial Classes.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 10:01 AM
Magic is real, yes, but mastering it or even gaining power over it is hardly common in most fantasy material. I can't comment too much on fairy tales, but you bring up greek myths...What mortal possesses magic there? Mortals can overcome the efforts of gods from time to time, but the means don't tend to be supernatural

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, magic appears only in the hands of artifact-bearers and demigods. Is this different in the Silmarillion?

In Beowulf, at least the translation I read, I don't recall any magic whatsoever...

Galahad could hammer magic with pure piety? Alright, but who else could? Wikipedia observes: "Galahad appears to have lived a sinless life, and so as a result, lives and thinks on a level entirely apart from the other knights of the legend.", and also "Despite, and perhaps because of his sinless nature, Galahad as a character seems inhuman.". He isn't characteristic of the setting, but rather a radical departure from the norm. His powers, seemingly, are the stuff of Exalted feats and/or something like the saint template. Perhaps with a paladin-like class underneath the ultra-faithful trappings besides.

Finally, Tome of Battle isn't like that. The fluff you gave almost could cover the effects of Iron Heart Surge, though it doesn't really account for using it against diseases, poisons, and the like (Unless it doesn't work on those because they don't exactly have duration?). But it isn't just effects. Taking Iron Heart Surge through the Martial Training feat might fit the fluff nicely...If you ignore the prerequisite of one Iron Heart maneuver, the Initiator Level dependency, and the other effects of the Martial Training feat. And of course the fact that you don't have to have that fluff to get the feats. Taking Iron Heart Surge as a warblade maneuver, on the other hand, is nothing like what you describe. It's a technique, interchangeable with a number of others and available to all, not some kind of special individual gift like every example you mention.

The kinds of gifts you talk about have a mechanical implementation in D&D. They're templates. Admittedly, I doubt there's an existing template that allows you to sail a ship underwater, or to automatically hit with archery, because those are both extremely specialized and incredibly powerful when they do apply. But if you've got some ability or properties radically unlike those of your peers, either inborn or granted, templates cover that perfectly. Being a warblade doesn't. (Similar traits too weak to justify a template are often implemented as feats, though this is a bit of a kludge.)

Matthew
2007-08-13, 10:11 AM
Magic is real, yes, but mastering it or even gaining power over it is hardly common in most fantasy material. I can't comment too much on fairy tales, but you bring up greek myths...What mortal possesses magic there? Mortals can overcome the efforts of gods from time to time, but the means don't tend to be supernatural

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, magic appears only in the hands of artifact-bearers and demigods. Is this different in the Silmarillion?

In Beowulf, at least the translation I read, I don't recall any magic whatsoever...

I think that was rather his point. [i.e. The more magical the setting, the more magical the Heroes, and since D&D is very magical, so should the Heroes be]

Roxlimn
2007-08-13, 10:36 AM
Matthew:



To be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised to find him capable of shooting Fire Balls from his fingertips, or the Lightning Bolts that Gandalf shows himself capable of shooting. Noticably, Arthur is quite incapable of anything of this nature and never shows any interest in mastering such abilities.


This is a minor quibble. A bit of a nitpick, really, but Gandalf can't use lightning. He uses fire, and that is because he is the Master of the Secret Fire, the Elven Ring Nenya (or was it Narya?). Outside of this, his power is mainly in the inspiring of others to prudent action and wise thought.

Of course, if you read the Silmarillion, it's quite apparent that many OTHER Maiar are capable of throwing fire and brimstone all around, but they're demigods.

Merlin doesn't know how to use fire, and in the Arthurian myths, I would surmise that such arts are unique to Dragons, Demons and their ilk.

Arthur himself isn't capable of shooting fireballs, but then again, no one is saying that Warblades or Crusaders would be able to do that as well.

Would Arthur be able to rouse himself from despair? Sure. Would he be able to give his followers renewed hope and vitality in the face of grevious wounds? Sure. He certainly sounds like a shoo-in for Crusader.



I would not agree. For many heroes, magic is quite outside their province, even though it exists in the framework of their mythological culture.


Many heroes, yes, but such heroes aren't normally mighty warriors beyond the level of normal men. Usually, such warriors emphasize other skills, or passive ways of resisting magic.



Grimm's Fairy Tales I am not familiar with, but most of the rest I am. The Odyssey in particular strikes me as a tale full of magic, but whose hero never learns the slightest bit about how to practice it.


Of course he does. He knows how to influence his own fate - he just has to appeal to the right God. Magic in Greek mythology comes all from the gods, by blood or by favor. Odysseus doesn't have it in his blood, so he has to curry favor through other means, and as I read it, he was more or less successful on this in some instances.



I think not. Galahad has no actual power of his own and it certainly does not resemble Merlin's powers. However, I think Galahad's connection with the Divine has long been recognised in the Paladin Class, which could perhaps be described as a Gish. It is noticable, however, that his role in Arthurian myth is unique.


True. That's my point. Mighty warriors know magic and have or seek influence in that sphere, whether to use it themselves or to resist its effects. Galahad is by no means unique. Sir Percival is said to have similar influence to a lesser extent, as did Sir Bors. And let's not forget those Knights who regenerated unless you did X, or grew stronger as the day waxed, or who could turn invisible, among other things.

I think that it's unreasonable to say that Western mythology thinks that magic is rare, particularly when practically every story or myth of note has something markedly supernatural in it one way or the other. Frequently, there are many such instances in just one story.

Ulzgoroth:



Magic is real, yes, but mastering it or even gaining power over it is hardly common in most fantasy material. I can't comment too much on fairy tales, but you bring up greek myths...What mortal possesses magic there? Mortals can overcome the efforts of gods from time to time, but the means don't tend to be supernatural


Mortals include the sons of deities and lesser spirits. Achilles was a mortal, but his strength and resilience was godly. As well, mortals in Greek myths would seek supernatural effects through the intercession of deities, which isn't too far away from divine magic, wouldn't you say?



In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, magic appears only in the hands of artifact-bearers and demigods. Is this different in the Silmarillion?


You have to be more broad about how you define magic. Aragorn has superb healing skill, and his use of athelas is arguably both a property of the plant, and a property within himself. The way he calls Eowyn from death seems fairly supernatural. Elves, too, were capable of great feats of body and mind, the spell-battle between Morgoth and Gil-galad (?) is one such example.

Re: Galahad - see above



Finally, Tome of Battle isn't like that. The fluff you gave almost could cover the effects of Iron Heart Surge, though it doesn't really account for using it against diseases, poisons, and the like (Unless it doesn't work on those because they don't exactly have duration?). But it isn't just effects. Taking Iron Heart Surge through the Martial Training feat might fit the fluff nicely...If you ignore the prerequisite of one Iron Heart maneuver, the Initiator Level dependency, and the other effects of the Martial Training feat. And of course the fact that you don't have to have that fluff to get the feats. Taking Iron Heart Surge as a warblade maneuver, on the other hand, is nothing like what you describe. It's a technique, interchangeable with a number of others and available to all, not some kind of special individual gift like every example you mention.


It's NOT available to all. It's only available usually to very exceptional individuals - characters with high levels, or levels in the Warblade class. Choosing that maneuver is a special individual achievement, and in that it could be flavored any number of ways, each instance could very well be unique.

Tome of Battle is like that, only it takes place within D&D, not in Greek myth, not in Lord of the Rings, and not in Arthurian mythology. In D&D, you can buy magical potions off the shelf as long as you're a pious man. You can't do that in any mythology I'm aware of, East or West.

Well, maybe in "The Princess Bride" and several modern fantasy works, but I digress.



The kinds of gifts you talk about have a mechanical implementation in D&D. They're templates. Admittedly, I doubt there's an existing template that allows you to sail a ship underwater, or to automatically hit with archery, because those are both extremely specialized and incredibly powerful when they do apply. But if you've got some ability or properties radically unlike those of your peers, either inborn or granted, templates cover that perfectly. Being a warblade doesn't. (Similar traits too weak to justify a template are often implemented as feats, though this is a bit of a kludge.)


Mechanics are only as good as they function. Putting a template on every great warrior would be great. Arguably, Mages ought to also be statted out that way, since almost every single magic-using character in mythology is a unique individual with unique powers.

Thing is, the spellcaster leveled advancement already does what we want better than any template, because it allows a variety of common and uncommon interpretations within the prescribed paradigm. It works for Wizards. ToB shows that it also works for Warriors.

Why would you use a template? Because it makes you unique? Baby, if you're an 18th level Warblade, you probably already are!

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 11:42 AM
I think that was rather his point.
Sure, but Greek myths, as you noted, can be very magical but lack magical heroes. I referred to the others because he did, and I wondered why.

Would Arthur be able to rouse himself from despair? Sure. Would he be able to give his followers renewed hope and vitality in the face of grevious wounds? Sure. He certainly sounds like a shoo-in for Crusader.
Would Arthur be able to treat one person's mortal wound by hitting another with a sword? No? Sounds like a perfect candidate for not actually fitting the mechanics of a crusader.

Of course he does. He knows how to influence his own fate - he just has to appeal to the right God. Magic in Greek mythology comes all from the gods, by blood or by favor. Odysseus doesn't have it in his blood, so he has to curry favor through other means, and as I read it, he was more or less successful on this in some instances.
Knowing how to deal with gods is not a magical skill. It's just a matter of high-stakes diplomacy. A level 1 commoner, on a good day or with a generous sacrifice, could use 'divine magic' by those standards.

Mortals include the sons of deities and lesser spirits. Achilles was a mortal, but his strength and resilience was godly. As well, mortals in Greek myths would seek supernatural effects through the intercession of deities, which isn't too far away from divine magic, wouldn't you say?
Templated mortals, right off...half-gods are not to be statted as standard humans... And besides that, what was godly about Achilles? Pehaps his DR, depending (according to Wikipedia) on which myths you decide to match. Perhaps his ability scores too, because Greek gods weren't really all that awesome most of the time. I think Achilles would be best represented without a single (su) or (sp) ability of any kind...so as far as I'm concerned, he's not really relevant.

Mortals sought the intercession of deities. This really isn't like divine magic as other settings know it, except on the most elementary level...what you got from it had nothing to do with your own abilities, and in a fair number of cases it involved bargaining. Anyone could try it, and it amounted to your ability to flatter, cajole, and bribe a powerful being more than anything else...If you ported D&D classes into Greek mythology, Bards would become the masters of 'divine magic'. Clerics probably wouldn't be able to cast anything at all.

You have to be more broad about how you define magic. Aragorn has superb healing skill, and his use of [i]athelas is arguably both a property of the plant, and a property within himself. The way he calls Eowyn from death seems fairly supernatural. Elves, too, were capable of great feats of body and mind, the spell-battle between Morgoth and Gil-galad (?) is one such example.
...You can be more broad about defining magic, but I don't see any 'have to' about it. Given a perfectly good mundane explanation for events, I don't feel any need to make them magical. A spell-battle, on the other hand, is clearly magic...and also clearly within the Silmarillion, which I have not read, so I haven't got much to say about it. Was Gil-galad in posession of one of the elven rings, though?

It's NOT available to all. It's only available usually to very exceptional individuals - characters with high levels, or levels in the Warblade class. Choosing that maneuver is a special individual achievement, and in that it could be flavored any number of ways, each instance could very well be unique.
It's available to any level 5+ ToB class for a feat, or a level of warblade after getting IL 4. Level 5 is quite moderate in many settings...are you claiming that the warblade class exceptional among PC classes? Because level 5 fighters are all over the place...standard demographics site at least two in every city, and they can be found even in the smallest of settlements.

Tome of Battle is like that, only it takes place within D&D, not in Greek myth, not in Lord of the Rings, and not in Arthurian mythology. In D&D, you can buy magical potions off the shelf as long as you're a pious man. You can't do that in any mythology I'm aware of, East or West.

Well, maybe in "The Princess Bride" and several modern fantasy works, but I digress.
Tome of Battle is not like that in that the maneuvers are in no way intended or well-designed to represent the fluff you're trying to give them. Your character learns Iron Heart Surge because you've got a bunch of fairies who like you...aside from issues of how that produces the exact effects, what happens when your character decides not to ready Iron Heart Surge? Warblades know more maneuvers than they ready...at some point you may well not want it. Do you keep it readied forever, because your fluff, in direct contradiction with the mechanics you're using to implement it, says trading it out for Lightning Throw makes no sense whatsoever?

Incidentally, I couldn't care less about reproducing mythology, myself...if people can make potions, and potions keep, people can and will sell them... though the frequently arising 'magic-mall' feel is rarely an actual result of setting so much as a dodge to get back to killing stuff rather than spending time in town.:smallmad:

Mechanics are only as good as they function. Putting a template on every great warrior would be great. Arguably, Mages ought to also be statted out that way, since almost every single magic-using character in mythology is a unique individual with unique powers.

Thing is, the spellcaster leveled advancement already does what we want better than any template, because it allows a variety of common and uncommon interpretations within the prescribed paradigm. It works for Wizards. ToB shows that it also works for Warriors.
I completely disagree with the assertion that spellcaster advancement provides what you speak of. Only the sub-standard Sorcerer-pattern casters learn an individualized spell list. The casters who actually understand magic, quite appropriately, don't get wedged into some little personal niche.

I don't think great warriors need templates everywhere. Because I don't see any reason every great warrior needs to be blessed by fairies, or the offspring of a god/dragon/demon, or imbued with the power of an element, or whatever. I dare say that what makes them a great warrior is being really good at fighting. An exotic notion, perhaps, that ordinary people could become legends on their own merits rather than some special gifts...

Why would you use a template? Because it makes you unique? Baby, if you're an 18th level Warblade, you probably already are!
Nah, its a big multiverse out there. You might be the only level 18 warblade in the world, but it's not like there aren't plenty of other worlds. You use a template because it specifically accounts for the nature and origin of your special power. Warblade 18 also accounts for it. In a specific way, which is not compatible with the way you're trying to fit it to.

Roxlimn
2007-08-13, 12:00 PM
Ulzgoroth:



Would Arthur be able to treat one person's mortal wound by hitting another with a sword? No? Sounds like a perfect candidate for not actually fitting the mechanics of a crusader.


Hitpoints are an abstraction. They've always been. Regaining hitpoints could mean healed wounds, or it could simply mean a renewed fervor to fight on.



Knowing how to deal with gods is not a magical skill. It's just a matter of high-stakes diplomacy. A level 1 commoner, on a good day or with a generous sacrifice, could use 'divine magic' by those standards.


And Clerics are exposed for the charlatans that they are.



Mortals sought the intercession of deities. This really isn't like divine magic as other settings know it, except on the most elementary level...what you got from it had nothing to do with your own abilities, and in a fair number of cases it involved bargaining. Anyone could try it, and it amounted to your ability to flatter, cajole, and bribe a powerful being more than anything else...If you ported D&D classes into Greek mythology, Bards would become the masters of 'divine magic'. Clerics probably wouldn't be able to cast anything at all.


Always in context. I didn't say that D&D classes would fit in Greek Mythology. I said that warriors in Greek mythology sought and used whatever supernatural powers they could.



...You can be more broad about defining magic, but I don't see any 'have to' about it. Given a perfectly good mundane explanation for events, I don't feel any need to make them magical. A spell-battle, on the other hand, is clearly magic...and also clearly within the Silmarillion, which I have not read, so I haven't got much to say about it. Was Gil-galad in posession of one of the elven rings, though?


Nope. It was pretty much just him. Luthien possessed a similar power. She put Morgoth to sleep with it, Beren wrestled with a Dog-God and wrested the Silmaril from the crown of Morgoth himself. Pretty magical stuff.

The Elven Rings weren't forged until much later. I think.



It's available to any level 5+ ToB class for a feat, or a level of warblade after getting IL 4. Level 5 is quite moderate in many settings...are you claiming that the warblade class exceptional among PC classes? Because level 5 fighters are all over the place...standard demographics site at least two in every city, and they can be found even in the smallest of settlements.


True, but they don't all take Iron Heart Surge.



Tome of Battle is not like that in that the maneuvers are in no way intended or well-designed to represent the fluff you're trying to give them. Your character learns Iron Heart Surge because you've got a bunch of fairies who like you...aside from issues of how that produces the exact effects, what happens when your character decides not to ready Iron Heart Surge? Warblades know more maneuvers than they ready...at some point you may well not want it. Do you keep it readied forever, because your fluff, in direct contradiction with the mechanics you're using to implement it, says trading it out for Lightning Throw makes no sense whatsoever?


Fluff is completely mutable. There is no issue in how it produces the exact effects. It's just like it does in the book. The change is purely fluff. Is it readied forever? No. Sometimes the Warblade doesn't prepare the mental fortitude he needs to dare to call his fey friends for aid.



I completely disagree with the assertion that spellcaster advancement provides what you speak of. Only the sub-standard Sorcerer-pattern casters learn an individualized spell list. The casters who actually understand magic, quite appropriately, don't get wedged into some little personal niche.


That not true. Each spellcaster's spells known selection is different, and his feats make him even more so, quite apart from specialization and such. True, they can all uniformly make use of the same items, but the item selection in itself lends uniqueness.



I don't think great warriors need templates everywhere. Because I don't see any reason every great warrior needs to be blessed by fairies, or the offspring of a god/dragon/demon, or imbued with the power of an element, or whatever. I dare say that what makes them a great warrior is being really good at fighting. An exotic notion, perhaps, that ordinary people could become legends on their own merits rather than some special gifts...


But that's just it. In a magical world, being really good at fighting invariably involves some kind of magic reflective of the setting. It could be from their own efforts, or through others. It really depends on setting, but it's not unheard of for a Greek warrior to have self-made allegiances with the gods.

It's just like in a Modern setting, being really good at fighting often includes some proficiency with guns, even if only a passing one.



Nah, its a big multiverse out there. You might be the only level 18 warblade in the world, but it's not like there aren't plenty of other worlds. You use a template because it specifically accounts for the nature and origin of your special power. Warblade 18 also accounts for it. In a specific way, which is not compatible with the way you're trying to fit it to.


It depends on what you're trying to fit. A templated creature is no more unique than a level 18 creature. I daresay the latter is actually rarer, depending on the template.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 12:54 PM
Hitpoints are an abstraction. They've always been. Regaining hitpoints could mean healed wounds, or it could simply mean a renewed fervor to fight on.
They are, though people may differ about the degree. However, being at negative hitpoints without Diehard is not an abstraction...you are unconscious and dying. Then the crusader hits someone nearby, and you are no longer dying and wake up.

Always in context. I didn't say that D&D classes would fit in Greek Mythology. I said that warriors in Greek mythology sought and used whatever supernatural powers they could.
Ah. Well, certainly true...sometimes, at least...um...what was the point exactly?

True, but they don't all take Iron Heart Surge.
No, but it is a pretty good choice for your 5th level maneuver learned, or your 6th level trade-in. A fair portion of Warblades of those levels are likely to take it.

Fluff is completely mutable. There is no issue in how it produces the exact effects. It's just like it does in the book. The change is purely fluff. Is it readied forever? No. Sometimes the Warblade doesn't prepare the mental fortitude he needs to dare to call his fey friends for aid.
Do you just not care about logic? Because fluff is mutable, certainly, but whatever you make it it has implications. You make a decent case for not always preparing it, though the recovery mechanism is...peculiar for this mechanism. But the effect is very odd. You can call on the fey to rid you of afflictions...even when you're in an antimagic field, even if the affliction is too powerful for any fey on the entire plane to actually remove if you were face to face, even if you're on the Far Plane, even if someone has exterminated the fey multiverse-wide.

That not true. Each spellcaster's spells known selection is different, and his feats make him even more so, quite apart from specialization and such. True, they can all uniformly make use of the same items, but the item selection in itself lends uniqueness.
Clerics and druids have no known spells selection. Wizards have selection, but they can also collect 'em all. Feats do produce some differentiation...I wasn't trying to say that prepared caster classes are homogeneous, but they don't have to take on any exotic properties or specialties to become powerful by simply mastering their art.

But that's just it. In a magical world, being really good at fighting invariably involves some kind of magic reflective of the setting. It could be from their own efforts, or through others. It really depends on setting, but it's not unheard of for a Greek warrior to have self-made allegiances with the gods.

It's just like in a Modern setting, being really good at fighting often includes some proficiency with guns, even if only a passing one.
I don't actually see that it does. Even mythologically, just being quick, strong, and experienced with the local weapon-of-choice has sufficed to be legendarily good at fighting. In comparison, its safer to say that getting really good at fighting in D&D invariably involves magic...at least one of Gloves of Dexterity and a Belt of Giant Strength are sure to be found on any high-level combatant under normal circumstances.

It depends on what you're trying to fit. A templated creature is no more unique than a level 18 creature. I daresay the latter is actually rarer, depending on the template.
I'm not trying for uniqueness, I'm trying for fitting the intended properties of the character. You could customize the template to be absolutely unique to the character's special properties, if that's important, but it isn't really the point.

Starbuck_II
2007-08-13, 12:59 PM
This is a minor quibble. A bit of a nitpick, really, but Gandalf can't use lightning. He uses fire, and that is because he is the Master of the Secret Fire, the Elven Ring Nenya (or was it Narya?). Outside of this, his power is mainly in the inspiring of others to prudent action and wise thought.


Um, in the hobbit Gandalf does use lightning. So he must know how.

Roxlimn
2007-08-13, 01:14 PM
StarbuckII:



Um, in the hobbit Gandalf does use lightning. So he must know how.


He uses a flashy noisome energy attack in the cave. I forget whether the word "lightning" was used. Was it?

Ulzgoroth:



They are, though people may differ about the degree. However, being at negative hitpoints without Diehard is not an abstraction...you are unconscious and dying. Then the crusader hits someone nearby, and you are no longer dying and wake up.


You hear his efforts and voice (perhaps an inspired figment) through your unconscious haze and realize that you can't give up fighting!



Ah. Well, certainly true...sometimes, at least...um...what was the point exactly?


All great warriors acknowledge and seek to use or master all combat elements in their world, including magic.



No, but it is a pretty good choice for your 5th level maneuver learned, or your 6th level trade-in. A fair portion of Warblades of those levels are likely to take it.


A fair portion of PC Warblades are apt to take it. There are usually only 4-6 PCs in every game world. Every other Warblade is an NPC and subject to DM statting.



Do you just not care about logic? Because fluff is mutable, certainly, but whatever you make it it has implications. You make a decent case for not always preparing it, though the recovery mechanism is...peculiar for this mechanism. But the effect is very odd. You can call on the fey to rid you of afflictions...even when you're in an antimagic field, even if the affliction is too powerful for any fey on the entire plane to actually remove if you were face to face, even if you're on the Far Plane, even if someone has exterminated the fey multiverse-wide.


They live on in you.



Clerics and druids have no known spells selection. Wizards have selection, but they can also collect 'em all. Feats do produce some differentiation...I wasn't trying to say that prepared caster classes are homogeneous, but they don't have to take on any exotic properties or specialties to become powerful by simply mastering their art.


What's your point?



I don't actually see that it does. Even mythologically, just being quick, strong, and experienced with the local weapon-of-choice has sufficed to be legendarily good at fighting. In comparison, its safer to say that getting really good at fighting in D&D invariably involves magic...at least one of Gloves of Dexterity and a Belt of Giant Strength are sure to be found on any high-level combatant under normal circumstances.


That's not true. In Greece, being good at fighting usually meant the favor of some god or other. It was exceedingly rare for a fighting man to be legendarily good AND to defy the gods, one and all. And in that case, you usually WERE a god yourself.

In Arthurian myth, you usually had the support of some wizard or otherworldly patron, or else your patron is God and your virtue protected you from such influences (meaning that you're playing on the same field, just with another team).

In Lord of the Rings, being a legendarily good warrior also usually meant having some kind of ensorcelled blade or heritage, some kind of "inner strength" descended from the undoubtedly magical Elves of Old (and the Men who served them).

In every case, magic is part of the equation, because ignoring magical protection and abilities in a world where magic is a real and powerful threat is just plain stupid.



I'm not trying for uniqueness, I'm trying for fitting the intended properties of the character. You could customize the template to be absolutely unique to the character's special properties, if that's important, but it isn't really the point.


I just don't see it. ToB capabilities are wide-ranging and diverse. You can simulate an awful lot of stuff with that. Why fight it?

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 02:02 PM
You hear his efforts and voice (perhaps an inspired figment) through your unconscious haze and realize that you can't give up fighting!
First of all, you're unconscious. Not allowed to be aware of anything. Also, it's not widely believed that you can stop bleeding to death by inspiration, as far as I know...

All great warriors acknowledge and seek to use or master all combat elements in their world, including magic.
Really? Just for example, Fafhird and the Gray Mouser? The Mouser does know a bit of magic, but neither is exactly a master of it...

Also, just no. There's a reason people don't always build a Fighter10/Wizard10, and it isn't just an artifact of D&D. Specialization has been the name of the game since, oh, Sumer? If you try dabbling in everything, you're liable to be spitted by the guy who only studied swordsmanship. Or even more likely, turned into a toad by the guy who didn't bother learning to use any sharp object larger than a penknife. There are a number of viable hybrid approaches (gish, stealth fighter...er, there ought to be more, but CoDzilla tramples divine-melee hybrids and I don't know any decent arcane archer), but all of them do face the problem that they aren't as good at either part of what they know as a specialist would be.

A fair portion of PC Warblades are apt to take it. There are usually only 4-6 PCs in every game world. Every other Warblade is an NPC and subject to DM statting.
Um, yes, why would you expect the DM to stat out NPCs without logic? And given that a warblade 6 winds up with two level 3 maneuvers, and there aren't all that many to begin with, a fair number would wind up with IHS even if they're statted by a random number generator.

They live on in you.
:smallyuk: ...and what about all the other examples? Particularly the affliction no fey could possibly remove, and the antimagic field...

What's your point?
Er...somewhere along the line, that spellcaster advancement doesn't resemble what you seem to be going for with combat classes? I'm a bit lost on this exchange, I think.

In every case, magic is part of the equation, because ignoring magical protection and abilities in a world where magic is a real and powerful threat is just plain stupid.
Yes, but what you keep saying here isn't 'they master magic'. It's 'they hang out with a wizard (analogue), just like every PC'. Having friends who are magic specialists is not the same thing as being personally capable in the field.

Except the Lord of the Rings, and, er...not great warriors perhaps, but what about the hobbits? They aren't exactly chopped liver, for all they more or less snuck into history without anyone noticing. And of course, magic isn't actually used against most of the characters in LotR, because it's restricted to a much more exclusive group that the main cast.

I just don't see it. ToB capabilities are wide-ranging and diverse. You can simulate an awful lot of stuff with that. Why fight it?
Because you're not trying to. You're trying to simulate something specific and narrow...like having the favor of certain fey...with something wide-ranging and diverse, but in no sense intended to simulate the kind of thing you're using it for.

It feels to me as if you're saying "You can simulate a whole lot of things with arcane magic. Why not use wizards instead of rangers?"

elliott20
2007-08-13, 02:05 PM
when it comes to fluff, I personally see more of a problem where the fluff just doesn't match the mechanics. i.e. describing a high level fighter as the MASTER OF COMBAT when really the cleric standing next to him can out-do him in a fight any given day of the week kind of makes you wonder if the fluff text is really just to make this "master of combat" not feel that bad about himself.

Roxlimn
2007-08-13, 02:17 PM
Ulzgoroth:



First of all, you're unconscious. Not allowed to be aware of anything. Also, it's not widely believed that you can stop bleeding to death by inspiration, as far as I know...


You'd be surprised at what the will to live and the right homeostatic mechanisms can do.



Really? Just for example, Fafhird and the Gray Mouser? The Mouser does know a bit of magic, but neither is exactly a master of it...


Use OR master. Not AND. If they can't master any aspect of it, they'll take what they can get.



Also, just no. There's a reason people don't always build a Fighter10/Wizard10, and it isn't just an artifact of D&D. Specialization has been the name of the game since, oh, Sumer? If you try dabbling in everything, you're liable to be spitted by the guy who only studied swordsmanship. Or even more likely, turned into a toad by the guy who didn't bother learning to use any sharp object larger than a penknife. There are a number of viable hybrid approaches (gish, stealth fighter...er, there ought to be more, but CoDzilla tramples divine-melee hybrids and I don't know any decent arcane archer), but all of them do face the problem that they aren't as good at either part of what they know as a specialist would be.


That's a D&Dism. In reality, warriors try to familiarize themselves with all aspects of warfare so as not to be surprised and caught flat-footed, as it were, by an unknown element.

A Knight may not have practiced Archery, but he familiarized himself enough with it to know what it can do and how to deal with it.



Um, yes, why would you expect the DM to stat out NPCs without logic? And given that a warblade 6 winds up with two level 3 maneuvers, and there aren't all that many to begin with, a fair number would wind up with IHS even if they're statted by a random number generator.


Logic is as logic does. If the point of statting out these other Warblades was to make IHS seem like a special thing, then it's logical not to give them to everyone, no?



..and what about all the other examples? Particularly the affliction no fey could possibly remove, and the antimagic field...


Your request makes the fey more powerful than any fey could be by themselves. AS for the AMF, that's an controversial ruling and I prefer not to comment on it.



Yes, but what you keep saying here isn't 'they master magic'. It's 'they hang out with a wizard (analogue), just like every PC'. Having friends who are magic specialists is not the same thing as being personally capable in the field.

Except the Lord of the Rings, and, er...not great warriors perhaps, but what about the hobbits? They aren't exactly chopped liver, for all they more or less snuck into history without anyone noticing. And of course, magic isn't actually used against most of the characters in LotR, because it's restricted to a much more exclusive group that the main cast.


I didn't say they had to master magic. Just acknowledge it and use whatever aspect of it they can. In Lord of the Rings, magic is much less a part of the warriors, particularly overt magic, but then again, magic was much less a part of virtually everything, so that's consistent. Didn't see a Wizard in either Bree OR Rohan.



Because you're not trying to. You're trying to simulate something specific and narrow...like having the favor of certain fey...with something wide-ranging and diverse, but in no sense intended to simulate the kind of thing you're using it for.

It feels to me as if you're saying "You can simulate a whole lot of things with arcane magic. Why not use wizards instead of rangers?"


Not quite. Much of the material in ToB hits pretty close to the money in terms of legendary capabilities great warriors were supposed to have - given the right flavor.

LotharBot
2007-08-13, 02:49 PM
many Manoeuvres should just be out and out Feats.

Perhaps so, but I like the maneuvers mechanic a lot better... lets you upgrade as the game goes on, in the same way as casters upgrade their spells. And it gives you a lot more flexibility in any given encounter. Having just finished a 1-20 campaign, anything that gives the axe-wielding melee type more flexibility than "I leap-attack it, power attacking for 9" is a good thing in my book.


What I am really wondering about is the emphasis people put on changing the descriptives over changing the mechanics. I often hear somebody say, just cross out "War Blade on the top of the Character Sheet and write Fighter", but they are much less likely to say, just swap the Fighter's Class feature Progression for the War Blade's, which seems to me to be just as good or better.

Since I ignore the fluff anyway, in my mind, they're equivalent actions (with the minor exceptions you listed a few posts later.) But it's less work to put a sticky note that says "fighter" at the top of the Warblade page than it is to copy the entire class feature progression from ToB into the PHB.

Also, I'm assuming everyone here is experienced enough that they create their own fluff for every character they build. Given my expressed disapproval for the warblade fluff, I think it's easy to infer that I expect people to use the warblade mechanics and whatever fluff they feel is appropriate.

Tormsskull
2007-08-13, 03:01 PM
What I am really wondering about is the emphasis people put on changing the descriptives over changing the mechanics. I often hear somebody say, just cross out "War Blade on the top of the Character Sheet and write Fighter", but they are much less likely to say, just swap the Fighter's Class feature Progression for the War Blade's, which seems to me to be just as good or better.


I have often asked that same question in the past. To me fluff is linked to roleplaying, and when people say that the fluff is unimportant, or you can just change it to whatever you want it makes me wonder what they consider roleplaying.

Reinforcements
2007-08-13, 03:09 PM
I have often asked that same question in the past. To me fluff is linked to roleplaying, and when people say that the fluff is unimportant, or you can just change it to whatever you want it makes me wonder what they consider roleplaying.
I don't understand what your objection is. Are you saying that changing the fluff given in the book (any book) to something else because you like it better/fits your character better/is cooler/whatever is somehow not roleplaying? If so - what? How does that make any sense?

Tormsskull
2007-08-13, 03:24 PM
I don't understand what your objection is. Are you saying that changing the fluff given in the book (any book) to something else because you like it better/fits your character better/is cooler/whatever is somehow not roleplaying? If so - what? How does that make any sense?

I'm saying that each of the classes, skills, feats, and abilities are created mechanically prepositioned upon their fluff. A divine protector PrC might get a special ability that allows him to throw a holy shield upon his aliies that protect them through the strength of his faith in his deity (+2 divine bonus to AC and saves). But to someone who thinks fluff is unimportant they will read +2 divine bonus to AC and saves only.

Often times the abilities are semi-"balanced" upon their fluff. An assassin gets a death attack because that's part of the assassin's fluff. The ability to kill someone with 1 fell swoop is instrinctly linked to the Assassin. Assassin's have to be evil. So core-only, it is required for a player to be evil in order to get a death attack (that mimics the assassin's).

Some player's will fight against this restraint, make a PrC that doesn't require an evil alignment, for example "Sniper". Then they will reword/rename the death attack ability and give it to their Sniper class. Then they will call it balanced because they will say that it follows the same mechanics as death attack.

So it makes me wonder what they consider roleplaying.

LotharBot
2007-08-13, 03:44 PM
In my mind, role-playing is all about CREATING fluff. I treat the fluff that's in the book as someone else's idea for role-playing a character using those mechanics, which I may or may not choose to use as a guideline.

If there's "balance fluff", I'd require a similarly balancing fluff replacement... if someone wants to be a good assassin, I'll require them have some character hindrance other than their alignment. They can be creative in selecting it, but they have to come up with something.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-13, 03:50 PM
In my mind, role-playing is all about CREATING fluff. I treat the fluff that's in the book as someone else's idea for role-playing a character using those mechanics, which I may or may not choose to use as a guideline.Really, role-playing games are about creating everything. The problem is just that people have a lot of crackpot ideas, and crackpot ideas applied to crunch have way more disastrous effects than crackpot ideas applied to fluff. Ergo, we tend to take the advice of professional game designers with the crunch (with a grain or shovel of salt, as the case may be) and rely on our groups to keep the fluff in check.

Matthew
2007-08-13, 04:30 PM
This is a minor quibble. A bit of a nitpick, really, but Gandalf can't use lightning. He uses fire, and that is because he is the Master of the Secret Fire, the Elven Ring Nenya (or was it Narya?). Outside of this, his power is mainly in the inspiring of others to prudent action and wise thought.

Of course, if you read the Silmarillion, it's quite apparent that many OTHER Maiar are capable of throwing fire and brimstone all around, but they're demigods.

In The Hobbit, Gandalf unleashes a magic that is described thus, p. 67:


...and when the Goblins came to grab him, there was a terrific flash like lightning in the cave, a smell like gunpowder, and several of them fell dead.

and then on p. 70


"Several of our people were struck by lightning in the cave, when we invited these creatures to come below; and they are dead as stones."

I think it would not be unreasonable to equate this with a D&D Lightning Bolt Spell (in fact, I am fairly sure this is the inspiration for it). There are potentially other explanations, but I think that 'magical lightning' is the most straight forward in this instance. Gandalf does do something similar in The Lord of the Rings in Moria, but the substance of that is even less certain.


Merlin doesn't know how to use fire, and in the Arthurian myths, I would surmise that such arts are unique to Dragons, Demons and their ilk.

Well, given that Merlin is Half Demon in some traditions (most traditions?), this does not strike me as particularly unlikely (as his magical power is rooted in his abnormal origin). However, the point is that he has access to significant magic that neither Arthur nor his Knights show any interest in acquiring.


Arthur himself isn't capable of shooting fireballs, but then again, no one is saying that Warblades or Crusaders would be able to do that as well.

Would Arthur be able to rouse himself from despair? Sure. Would he be able to give his followers renewed hope and vitality in the face of grevious wounds? Sure. He certainly sounds like a shoo-in for Crusader.

Well, he sounds like a Fighter to me. I cannot think of anything he does in the mythology that could not be emulated by Fighter. That is not to say it could not also be emulated by a ToB Base Class.


Many heroes, yes, but such heroes aren't normally mighty warriors beyond the level of normal men. Usually, such warriors emphasize other skills, or passive ways of resisting magic.

Sure, and that's when we get into the realm of expectations from D&D. If I want Heroes who are capable of Feats far and beyond those of normal Men (without magical gear), then I wouldn't chose Fighter to represent them. However, I expect the majority of D&D Fighter type Adventurers to have very mundane innate powers.


Of course he does. He knows how to influence his own fate - he just has to appeal to the right God. Magic in Greek mythology comes all from the gods, by blood or by favor. Odysseus doesn't have it in his blood, so he has to curry favor through other means, and as I read it, he was more or less successful on this in some instances.

Hmmn. That's not quite true. Achilles has divine blood, but he himself has no access to innate magic (his invulnerability being a result of outside forces), nor do Hector, Paris, Perseus, Jason or the overwhelming majority of Greek Heroes. They do have access to divine aid at the whim of their patrons, but that is not the same thing as innate magic or learning how to control magic. Medea, I think, would be a reasonable example of a mortal with magical powers in Greek myth.


True. That's my point. Mighty warriors know magic and have or seek influence in that sphere, whether to use it themselves or to resist its effects. Galahad is by no means unique. Sir Percival is said to have similar influence to a lesser extent, as did Sir Bors. And let's not forget those Knights who regenerated unless you did X, or grew stronger as the day waxed, or who could turn invisible, among other things.

Okay, I think you're going to have to start mentioning sources here (you appear to be looking primarily at Le Morte D'Arthur?). I don't recall Percival or Bors having those powers off hand. Gawain's sudden 'waxing and waning' thing is an odd one to be sure and its significance is often discussed. I'm pretty sure that invisible and regenerating Knights are the villains, rather than the heroes.


I think that it's unreasonable to say that Western mythology thinks that magic is rare, particularly when practically every story or myth of note has something markedly supernatural in it one way or the other. Frequently, there are many such instances in just one story.

Indeed, magic is not rare in western mythology. However, it is not usually a hallmark of the Heroes. Much more commonly it is associated with supporting characters (usually women), supernatural beings or villains.

Nightblade
2007-08-13, 04:58 PM
I think the inherent problem behind the Tome of Battle is not the "anime" feel it brings, or the "balancing" it brings to casters, but rather the fact that they can recharge their abilities after each encounter on top of near equal power at equal levels. A typical party is supposed to fight three encounters with a CR equal to the party level every day.

At 1st level, a Grey Elven Specialist (take your pick) Wizard with 18 base Int (20 after racial modifiers) will have 3 0-level spells per day and 4 1st-level spells per day and around 4-6 HP, maybe 7-9 if he has a Toad familiar. At 1st level, any given ToB base class will have at least 8 HP before adding your con, and have at least three maneuvers per encounter and a stance to boot. By the third encounter of the day, the Wizard is going to be struggling to make his or her spells count, and maybe plinking around with a crossbow or short bow. The ToB character will have the same number of maneuvers he or she had when the first encounter began.

When you get to level 5, a Swordsage can use Fan the Flames, and use a 6d6 fire damage ranged touch attack, or Shadow Garrote that deals 5d6 damage, or gain a +2d6 sneak attack, or how about +4d6 damage on a melee attack with +10 to confirm critical hits? What is the same Wizard doing? 5d6 Fireball or Lightning Bolt, reflex for half damage to an area. Sorcerers don't even have Fireball or Lightning Bolt by that point. Clerics are probably melee'ing behind their buffs for close to that. Druids are getting warmed up with Brown Bear form, Call Lightning, and Natural Spell.

Basically, the Tome of Battle steals the spotlight from other classes. The Crusader is like a Paladin (minus the code of conduct unless you pick Heironeous or Pelor as a patron deity) on steroids, the Warblade is the Fighter on steroids, and the Swordsage is like a monk turned mystic without monk weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with non-ToB classes? If your typical Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, etc is getting their toes stepped on by the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, then tell your DM to pull his head out of his ass. Guess what owns the latter: an anti-magic field. The cleric's buffs are toast, the Wizard's spells are useless, and though the Druid can still wild shape into some ridiculous creature, the DM can just as easily say "no" to the animal with an absurdly high strength and lots of extra "goodies". There are so many easy ways a DM can balance a game, it is stupid to think that just because WotC didn't make a "perfectly balanced game at all levels" that you need to buff up all other classes. You simply need to use a little ingenuity. When a DM can balance a 14th level game so that my character (Spiked Chain Fighter) and my friend's character (Wizard with something like an effective 30 Int for the purposes of determining bonus spells and save DC) are equally effective in battle, you know you've got a good game going.

Inyssius Tor
2007-08-13, 05:08 PM
Often times the abilities are semi-"balanced" upon their fluff. An assassin gets a death attack because that's part of the assassin's fluff. The ability to kill someone with 1 fell swoop is instrinctly linked to the Assassin. Assassin's have to be evil. So core-only, it is required for a player to be evil in order to get a death attack (that mimics the assassin's).

Some player's will fight against this restraint, make a PrC that doesn't require an evil alignment, for example "Sniper". Then they will reword/rename the death attack ability and give it to their Sniper class. Then they will call it balanced because they will say that it follows the same mechanics as death attack.

The Avenger. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) My god, it breaks the game so hard! :smallconfused:

Reinforcements
2007-08-13, 05:14 PM
The Avenger. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) My god, it breaks the game so hard! :smallconfused:
Bah! Clearly no one who cares about role-playing at all would ever come up with an entirely different fluff to use with a given set of mechanics in order to play a character that works in both terms.

Blue Paladin
2007-08-13, 05:44 PM
First of all, you're unconscious. Not allowed to be aware of anything.This is of great interest to the SRD and the part under the Listen check: "A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a –10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper." Unless you'd like to take the rather dubious position that a sleeping character is not unconscious?


Also, it's not widely believed that you can stop bleeding to death by inspiration, as far as I know...Obviously you're forgetting Jesse Ventura in Predator. "I ain't got time to bleed." If The Man Known As The Body And The Mind can stop bleeding because it is inconvenient, surely you can see how a man inspired (perhaps by the Gubernator himself) can be inspired to do no less.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-13, 05:46 PM
I think the inherent problem behind the Tome of Battle is not the "anime" feel it brings, or the "balancing" it brings to casters, but rather the fact that they can recharge their abilities after each encounter on top of near equal power at equal levels. A typical party is supposed to fight three encounters with a CR equal to the party level every day.
Yeah, that's why maneuvers are weaker than spells. Hey, a Warlock can use his powers all day, too! Must be broken, right? Oh, wait, no, Warlocks suck. A Fighter can use his bonus feats all day, while we're at it. If I make a fighter who takes reach improvers, Combat Reflexes, and feats that make him an AoO-monster, he can do that every fight... just like the Warblade can use his maneuvers every fight.
"I can use my powers all day!" isn't problematic unless the powers are.


At 1st level, a Grey Elven Specialist (take your pick) Wizard with 18 base Int (20 after racial modifiers) will have 3 0-level spells per day and 4 1st-level spells per day and around 4-6 HP, maybe 7-9 if he has a Toad familiar. At 1st level, any given ToB base class will have at least 8 HP before adding your con, and have at least three maneuvers per encounter and a stance to boot. By the third encounter of the day, the Wizard is going to be struggling to make his or her spells count, and maybe plinking around with a crossbow or short bow. The ToB character will have the same number of maneuvers he or she had when the first encounter began.
First level sucks. First level casters are fragile and don't have enough spells. We know. I'm not sure why you're comparing strong melee classes to casters at level one, but while we're at it, the Warblade might hit some guy or miss a guy, but that grey elven wizard is very likely to get his Color Spray off and drop two of'em. Sure, after three of'em, he's out--but going through four encounters a day at first level is just plain a bad movce anyway.
First level sucks. Any given dice roll matters a lot more than what your character is. Let's not talk about first level, huh? It's not representative of the game at large--even the low-level game.


When you get to level 5, a Swordsage can use Fan the Flames, and use a 6d6 fire damage ranged touch attack, or Shadow Garrote that deals 5d6 damage, or gain a +2d6 sneak attack, or how about +4d6 damage on a melee attack with +10 to confirm critical hits? What is the same Wizard doing? 5d6 Fireball or Lightning Bolt, reflex for half damage to an area. Sorcerers don't even have Fireball or Lightning Bolt by that point. Clerics are probably melee'ing behind their buffs for close to that. Druids are getting warmed up with Brown Bear form, Call Lightning, and Natural Spell.
No. No, no, no. If the wizard is using Fireball, that is his own fault, and he is going to be doing less damage than a Fighter or Barbarian anyway. Instead, how about, oh, let's check the SRD... Deep Slumber? Haste? Slow? Glitterdust? Yeah, those sound good, and competitive with "raar, +14 average damage on my attack, ONOZ!!1"
Sure, a Wizard can memorize Fireballs.
He can also memorize Hold Portal.
Both will, occasionally, come in useful... but they're sure as hell not going to make him shine unless the DM keeps on throwing encounters specifically designed for those spells at the wizard. (The kobolds are unable to break through the door because of your Hold Portal! All forty of them, conveniently clustered together, are having some kind of discussion. You have line of effect to them through the window. What do you do?)


Basically, the Tome of Battle steals the spotlight from other classes. The Crusader is like a Paladin (minus the code of conduct unless you pick Heironeous or Pelor as a patron deity) on steroids, the Warblade is the Fighter on steroids, and the Swordsage is like a monk turned mystic without monk weapons.
Steals the spotlight? Only by not sucking. The Warblade isn't "on steroids" until high levels--hell, the Fighter is demonstrably better at the low ones (you know, before Will saves and high-obility and all the other kinds of problematic enemies are common). I'll still play ToB classes, low levels or not, because they're much more fun to play than "AoO, trip, hit, step Power Attack for two, hit, step back".


Seriously, what the hell is wrong with non-ToB classes?
They suck. Well, not all of'em, but Fighter, Paladin, Ranger? Yeah.


If your typical Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, etc is getting their toes stepped on by the Cleric, Druid, Wizard, then tell your DM to pull his head out of his ass. Guess what owns the latter: an anti-magic field. The cleric's buffs are toast, the Wizard's spells are useless, and though the Druid can still wild shape into some ridiculous creature, the DM can just as easily say "no" to the animal with an absurdly high strength and lots of extra "goodies".
Oh, BRILLIANT.
"So, for your fourth encounter of the day... ANOTHER creature with an antimagic field on it. Even though Antimagic Field is a Personal-only spell only availible to 11th level plus spellcasters who'd be the last people who want to use it. Have fun competing with a physically powerful monster designed not to need magic items when you're deprived of yours, Ranger; Wizard, hey, serves you right for Glitterdusting all my hobgoblins."

"because you rule too much, I'm laying down the rule that you will be completely useless half the time from now on"? Not exactly good DMing. Besides which--if every other creature in your games has an AMF, your game... probably sucks. Antimagic Fields hurt melee classes almost as much as they hurt casters--if you engage in this kind of jerky DMing, the wizard will start preparing Overland Flight (unless you slap an AMF on a dragon, which is a TPK recipe, things in AMFs generally can't fly) and a crapton of Orbs of Acid and other instantaneous conjurations and act as a serviceable blaster, while the melee guys have to struggle with monsters they can't handle because in an AMF, their AC is crap and their AB and damage are nothing shiny, either.



There are so many easy ways a DM can balance a game, it is stupid to think that just because WotC didn't make a "perfectly balanced game at all levels" that you need to buff up all other classes. You simply need to use a little ingenuity. When a DM can balance a 14th level game so that my character (Spiked Chain Fighter) and my friend's character (Wizard with something like an effective 30 Int for the purposes of determining bonus spells and save DC) are equally effective in battle, you know you've got a good game going.
If your wizard's using Fireball a lot--sure, sounds like it'd be easy to balance.

Besides "durr, every encounter is an AMF"--which IS NOT a viable tactic for a DM to take, as it makes for a totally crappy game--how are you going to deal with the fact that more competent wizards are disabling encounters while fighters whack at them? That clerics and druids outfight fighters? That monks can't DO anything? Besides going through the class spell lists with a VERY good awareness of how the game works--which far from everyone has--and scratching a fifth of them out?
How are you going to deal with the fact that at high levels, enemies are vastly more mobile than the fighter, and often more potent in melee (since they're designed to fight an entire group of PCs)? By having every creature with superior mobility ignore it? Not that that's a winner, seeing as how you're better off as a fighter if you can't catch that flyby-attacking dragon, since if it full attacks you you go "splat".

Tome of Battle classes don't pull ahead of the regular ones until the regular ones are already lagging behind. They're not going to ruin your low-level game or outdamage your barbarian.

Besides, your reasoning is incomprehensible to me. "Clerics and Druids become more powerful in melee and are more versatile and have better defenses--but that's OK, the DM can balance them! Tome of Battle classes become more powerful in melee and are more versatile and have better defenses--but that's BAD!!!!" I mean, huh?

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-13, 06:07 PM
You'd be surprised at what the will to live and the right homeostatic mechanisms can do.
Yes. I would indeed be surprised by the ability to recover from wounds that would normally kill you because your mind, which is out of operation due to general damage, suddenly cares more about living because of events you cannot perceive. (The effect still works if you're magically guaranteed not to perceive anything, say both Blind and Deaf...)

That's a D&Dism. In reality, warriors try to familiarize themselves with all aspects of warfare so as not to be surprised and caught flat-footed, as it were, by an unknown element.

A Knight may not have practiced Archery, but he familiarized himself enough with it to know what it can do and how to deal with it.
Nothing I said was a D&Dism. What you're talking about now is entirely different. Of course anyone likely to encounter magic on the battlefield will want to know the practical basics, preferably both of the supportive and offensive sides (or anyone smart will. Many fictional/legendary characters are not at all smart). Possibly even to the extent of taking a couple ranks in Know:arcana, in D&D terms. That's at most a small diversion from whatever your actual specialization is. Actually using magic is an entirely different proposition.

Logic is as logic does. If the point of statting out these other Warblades was to make IHS seem like a special thing, then it's logical not to give them to everyone, no?
Yes, but then you've re-balanced the game on the basis of this re-fluffing of IHS. Which is all well and good, except that the benefit of using a widely accepted balanced mechanical system goes away if you hack it up like that. And you're giving the PCs an extra edge on NPCs, which they already have quite enough of...

Your request makes the fey more powerful than any fey could be by themselves. AS for the AMF, that's an controversial ruling and I prefer not to comment on it.
To the first: Only acceptable if you actually have a mechanic for how the fey gain the ability to cast Wish at no cost to themselves, when necessary, as a result of you asking for help. The entire process, not just the end of it. Mechanics that exist only for the convenience of PCs undermine the reality of the game.

To the second...Are you suggesting IHS should possibly be supernatural? I mean, beyond fluffing it as a magical intervention. No problem there...

I didn't say they had to master magic. Just acknowledge it and use whatever aspect of it they can.
But, and this seemingly cannot be sufficiently repeated, they aren't using magic at all. They are getting other people to use magic for them.

Of course in D&D, every PC acknowledges magic and benefits from as much of it as they can. For non-casters, that means magic items and buffs from the casters they associate with.

This is of great interest to the SRD and the part under the Listen check: "A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a –10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper." Unless you'd like to take the rather dubious position that a sleeping character is not unconscious?
I'll gladly take the position that they are two entirely different states, because a dying character, or one unconscious due to non-lethal damage, is most certainly not allowed to wake up due to a successful listen check.

Obviously you're forgetting Jesse Ventura in Predator. "I ain't got time to bleed." If The Man Known As The Body And The Mind can stop bleeding because it is inconvenient, surely you can see how a man inspired (perhaps by the Gubernator himself) can be inspired to do no less.
Or possibly I don't consider what I assume is an action movie to be a useful medical reference?

Reel On, Love
2007-08-13, 06:10 PM
Nothing I said was a D&Dism. What you're talking about now is entirely different. Of course anyone likely to encounter magic on the battlefield will want to know the practical basics, preferably both of the supportive and offensive sides (or anyone smart will. Many fictional/legendary characters are not at all smart). Possibly even to the extent of taking a couple ranks in Know:arcana, in D&D terms. That's at most a small diversion from whatever your actual specialization is. Actually using magic is an entirely different proposition.
It sure is.
That's why Fighters don't use magic items.

Kioran
2007-08-13, 06:19 PM
Besides, your reasoning is incomprehensible to me. "Clerics and Druids become more powerful in melee and are more versatile and have better defenses--but that's OK, the DM can balance them! Tome of Battle classes become more powerful in melee and are more versatile and have better defenses--but that's BAD!!!!" I mean, huh?

You want the short of it? Because for balancing, youīd potentially need to cut out portions of ToB as well. Itīs bad enough to handle Cores deficiencies. Picking up expansions, especially heavily "innovative"/different ones like ToB requires tons of work that most Splatbooks are, at least for me or my last DM, not worth it. Houseruling a little to create your stable camaign simply takes time, and few Splatbooks bring enough interesting stuff to be worth the investment of time you could also use to stat out NPCs or houserule interesting Monsters, Items, classes or races yourself. You probably wonīt even do worse than wizards, and it cists nothing.

Reel On, Love
2007-08-13, 06:24 PM
You want the short of it? Because for balancing, youīd potentially need to cut out portions of ToB as well.
Like what? I can see wanting to cut out White Raven Tactics, but that's about it.


Itīs bad enough to handle Cores deficiencies. Picking up expansions, especially heavily "innovative"/different ones like ToB requires tons of work that most Splatbooks are, at least for me or my last DM, not worth it. Houseruling a little to create your stable camaign simply takes time, and few Splatbooks bring enough interesting stuff to be worth the investment of time you could also use to stat out NPCs or houserule interesting Monsters, Items, classes or races yourself. You probably wonīt even do worse than wizards, and it cists nothing.

Making a ruleset as fun and viable as ToB would take me vastly more time than just grokking ToB. If you really think you "won't do worse than Wizards" with your homebrew--try it. For some people, that's true, but they're people with an acute understanding of the game and sense of balance (and for them, picking up expansions doesn't require tons of work, it's easy).

The only thing you really have to pay attention to is *your PCs*, and you have to do that regardless of the number of splatbooks availible.

Also, you're either overstating the effort involved in bringing in new material, or you just don't have much of a gift (or maybe liking) for the crunch of the game. I read through ToB's description of what maneuvers are, how you use/refresh them, twice, and then looked the classes over a couple of times and compared them to each other, went through the feats, and when through the table of maneuvers, and I had a pretty damn good idea of the book's balance. Not a perfect one (Crusaders are much better than I figured them being at first; Warblades aren't as good as I thought; Adaptive Style makes the Swordsage better than I thought), but a good general feel. After that, it's just a matter of dealing with stuff that's "too good" as it comes up and carefully--which you've got to do anyway.

I'm not trying to force you to use ToB, I'm pointing out that when Wossname says "the ToB classes steal the spotlight" and "you can just houserule your game into balance, it's easy!" he's wrong.

Kioran
2007-08-13, 06:36 PM
You are right in saying running a balanced game isnīt easy. It isnīt even necessesarily easier if you leave out ToB - there might be cases (with Spell compendium and all the completes) where almost anything in the ToB is better balanced than some builds people can up in 30 min. But in a running, and functioning, game, introducing ToB can easily upset the balance.

I know few other books where interchangeable spells/maneuvers simply read "next attack = +100 Damage" . So unless your game is already at a power-lvl which no Core Non full-caster can reach(many are, many arenīt), this books essentially offers anyone an easy and foolproof way of becoming much stronger. It requires hard work and much restraint gimping a ToB Char, whereas it takes hard work or brains too break most others. Of course few ToB Chars end up campaign smashers, but an unoptimized ToB-Char blows any other unoptimized Char straight out of the water.

Apart from additional Skill points thereīs little in ToB which is generally a good idea, which is why I have problems with the supllement and especially with so many heralding it as the Messiah of melee.....

Draz74
2007-08-13, 06:43 PM
Like what? I can see wanting to cut out White Raven Tactics, but that's about it.

Oh, there's a few others. The combo that lets you do infinite damage with one attack by using a 1d2-damage weapon, Aura of Chaos, and an ability that lets you re-roll 1's is an obvious example.

Iron Heart Surge could stand to be more specific, so that it doesn't nullify Epic spells and so on.

White Raven Tactics isn't even that bad if you can't use it on yourself. (Which WotC has ruled to be the case, even though it's inconsistent with some of their other rulings about what "allies" means.) I guess it's still a problem if you have two Crusaders using it on each other. :smallwink:

... OK, I guess those are the worst three offenders that I know of. Power-wise. There's another 20 maneuvers or so that I, personally, would want to ban or modify because I don't like them aesthetically. (Castigating Strike should definitely be supernatural.)

... so, all in all, there's not that much you need to be careful about, compared to most supplements! (Or the PHB!)

Reel On, Love
2007-08-13, 06:51 PM
You are right in saying running a balanced game isnīt easy. It isnīt even necessesarily easier if you leave out ToB - there might be cases (with Spell compendium and all the completes) where almost anything in the ToB is better balanced than some builds people can up in 30 min. But in a running, and functioning, game, introducing ToB can easily upset the balance.
How? If your game is functioning at high levels, obviously the base melee classes have *some*thing going on they don't theoretically, whether that's DM favor and "stupid" monsters, spellcasters using weak spells, or whatever. If it's functioning at low- or mid-levels, what's ToB gonna do?
If you're running a core game, yeah, a high-level ToB character is going to do better than a high-level Fighter, sure. But I have a hard time imagining a game in which a high-level Fighter is doing great.


I know few other books where interchangeable spells/maneuvers simply read "next attack = +100 Damage" . So unless your game is already at a power-lvl which no Core Non full-caster can reach(many are, many arenīt), this books essentially offers anyone an easy and foolproof way of becoming much stronger. It requires hard work and much restraint gimping a ToB Char, whereas it takes hard work or brains too break most others.
"+100 damage" at level 17 is a power level no core non-full caster can reach?
Except, you know, a mounted paladin. Or a full-attacking barbarian.
"One attack with +100 damage" can often be LESS damage than a full attack. The advantage there is mobility--you can move up and then still use that. And said mounted paladin (who can go anywhere anyone else goes, if he's a halfling or gnome) has that, too.


Of course few ToB Chars end up campaign smashers, but an unoptimized ToB-Char blows any other unoptimized Char straight out of the water.
God, I wish this complete myth would go away. No, an unoptimized ToB character is just as bad as an unoptimized Fighter--there was a comparison of a couple of unoptimized builds in one of the ToB-related threads here that showed that. At high levels, this is probably true, but at high levels your unoptimized melee characters are probably being kind of useless anyway--and if everyone really is unoptimized, even at high levels, the ToB character isn't going to be ahead by much (and won't be ahead of the spellcasters at all). At low- and mid-levels? Not true.


Apart from additional Skill points thereīs little in ToB which is generally a good idea, which is why I have problems with the supllement and especially with so many heralding it as the Messiah of melee.....
"Little in ToB which is generally a good idea"?
-Improved mobility for melee classes.
-TWF becoming viable for non-sneak-attackers.
-Limited ability to defend oneself against/overcome magic (Iron Heart Surge, Diamond Mind saving throw maneuvers, Wall of Blades vs. rays).
-Melee combat becoming more than just "attack. Attack. Attack." or "Trip. attack. Trip. Attack. Wooooo."
Seriously, the book does pretty much everything that melee needs and can reasonably have (for example, no flying under your own power, kthx--the two explicitly supernatural disciplines get air walk and hovering at level 15+, but they're, well, supernatural). What the hell do you think melee needs, if it's not the things ToB provides?

Reel On, Love
2007-08-13, 06:56 PM
Oh, there's a few others. The combo that lets you do infinite damage with one attack by using a 1d2-damage weapon, Aura of Chaos, and an ability that lets you re-roll 1's is an obvious example.
There's no ability that lets you reroll 1s in ToB, or in core, or in the first set of Completes. You need the Complete Scoundrel to make it work, and you need to be really trying to break the game. I don't think this is much of a worry, especially since "fixing" it is as easy as "ha, ha--no, you don't do infinite damage, wise guy."


Iron Heart Surge could stand to be more specific, so that it doesn't nullify Epic spells and so on.
Sure, it could--but even if you let it nullify AMFs and Grease spells, it's still reasonable. I don't think you're gonna run into a Dire Winter you can roar with effort at in a normal game.


White Raven Tactics isn't even that bad if you can't use it on yourself. (Which WotC has ruled to be the case, even though it's inconsistent with some of their other rulings about what "allies" means.) I guess it's still a problem if you have two Crusaders using it on each other. :smallwink:
Using it to get your *wizard* another turn is more effective than using it on yourself anyway (and actually, it is consistent--"allies" typically includes yourself "an ally" typically means someone other than you).
White Raven Tactics is still too strong for its level (Time Stands Still is kinda comparable, and it's ninth-level), but it's also not going to destroy your game.


... OK, I guess those are the worst three offenders that I know of. Power-wise. There's another 20 maneuvers or so that I, personally, would want to ban or modify because I don't like them aesthetically. (Castigating Strike should definitely be supernatural.)

... so, all in all, there's not that much you need to be careful about, compared to most supplements! (Or the PHB!)
Yeah, that was pretty damn easy. Fixing the PHB... that takes effort.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-08-13, 07:10 PM
Wait, wait, wait...

I have to ask...Do people really think that Anti-Magic field is a viable means of balance?

So if your barbarian is out-doing your fighter, do you break the barbarians legs halfway through every adventure?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-13, 07:17 PM
Wait, wait, wait...

I have to ask...Do people really think that Anti-Magic field is a viable means of balance?

So if your barbarian is out-doing your fighter, do you break the barbarians legs halfway through every adventure?

I make it a point to break the barbarian's legs halfway through every adventure anyway. Stupid foreigners!

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-08-13, 08:23 PM
I make it a point to break the barbarian's legs halfway through every adventure anyway. Stupid foreigners!

:smallbiggrin:

Sign: DO NOT WALK HERE. LEGS WILL BE BROKEN.

Barbarian: *blank stare* Me no read. Arr.

*Walks forward*

*Legs Break*

Barbarian: OWWW! WHY THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN!?

LotharBot
2007-08-14, 01:04 AM
When you get to level 5..... What is the same Wizard doing? 5d6 Fireball or Lightning Bolt, reflex for half damage to an area.

When a DM can balance a 14th level game so that my character (Spiked Chain Fighter) and my friend's character (Wizard with something like an effective 30 Int for the purposes of determining bonus spells and save DC) are equally effective in battle, you know you've got a good game going.

It helps that your wizard is using damage spells. Effective wizards don't bother with them.


in a running, and functioning, game, introducing ToB can easily upset the balance.

Of course... if you have a running, balanced game, don't muck with it.

If you're starting a new game and you have competent players who will make effective casters, ToB is a good way to go to create some semblance of balance between melee and casters. It unfortunately leaves skillmonkeys in the lurch, but it's a step in the right direction. If your players play nerfed casters, maybe Core is fine.

Matthew
2007-08-14, 02:39 AM
Perhaps so, but I like the maneuvers mechanic a lot better... lets you upgrade as the game goes on, in the same way as casters upgrade their spells. And it gives you a lot more flexibility in any given encounter. Having just finished a 1-20 campaign, anything that gives the axe-wielding melee type more flexibility than "I leap-attack it, power attacking for 9" is a good thing in my book.

A fair comment, though you could always use the retraining rules to get more or less the same effect. Mechanical variety is certainly desirable if you're playing combat encounters that essentially come down to the same mechanical decisions a lot. Mind, I suspect ToB has a 'best' path as well.


Since I ignore the fluff anyway, in my mind, they're equivalent actions (with the minor exceptions you listed a few posts later.) But it's less work to put a sticky note that says "fighter" at the top of the Warblade page than it is to copy the entire class feature progression from ToB into the PHB.

Also, I'm assuming everyone here is experienced enough that they create their own fluff for every character they build. Given my expressed disapproval for the warblade fluff, I think it's easy to infer that I expect people to use the warblade mechanics and whatever fluff they feel is appropriate.

I think that's where we differ in perspective. I don't regard D&D as a collection of mechanics that I can add my own fluff to. I regard it as a collection of mechanics and fluff that I can alter in conjunction with one another.

Tormsskull
2007-08-14, 06:13 AM
The Avenger. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) My god, it breaks the game so hard! :smallconfused:

To you what "breaks the game" (so hard even!) I am sure is totally different than what breaks the game to me. But luckily D&D is a game where you don't have to play with people who play the game totally different than you do.



Bah! Clearly no one who cares about role-playing at all would ever come up with an entirely different fluff to use with a given set of mechanics in order to play a character that works in both terms.


Ooo, the classic, "I'll ignore your points and use sarcasm" technique. Well-played good sir, well-played.

Roxlimn
2007-08-15, 07:48 AM
Matthew:



I think it would not be unreasonable to equate this with a D&D Lightning Bolt Spell (in fact, I am fairly sure this is the inspiration for it). There are potentially other explanations, but I think that 'magical lightning' is the most straight forward in this instance. Gandalf does do something similar in The Lord of the Rings in Moria, but the substance of that is even less certain.


It wouldn't be unreasonable at that but "the smell of gunpowder" seems to something of a direct reference to a fiery source - a hint of his Elven Ring's orientation even there. Of course, lightning in LoTR could very well be a manifestation of fire anyway, so it's probably pointless to split hairs over it.



Well, given that Merlin is Half Demon in some traditions (most traditions?), this does not strike me as particularly unlikely (as his magical power is rooted in his abnormal origin). However, the point is that he has access to significant magic that neither Arthur nor his Knights show any interest in acquiring.


That doesn't mean that they're not at all interested in acquiring and using magical might and influence. They're just not interested in Merlin's style of magic, which would be understandable given his demonic taint.



Well, he sounds like a Fighter to me. I cannot think of anything he does in the mythology that could not be emulated by Fighter. That is not to say it could not also be emulated by a ToB Base Class.


In Le'Morte D'Arthur, there are many instances where a knight is on his last legs and then suddenly regains his strength and advantage, going on to win. It could be argued that this would merely be meaningless fluff or shameless DM manipulation, but it seems more fun to model the ebb and flow of combat advantage through Maneuvers.



Sure, and that's when we get into the realm of expectations from D&D. If I want Heroes who are capable of Feats far and beyond those of normal Men (without magical gear), then I wouldn't chose Fighter to represent them. However, I expect the majority of D&D Fighter type Adventurers to have very mundane innate powers.


If I wanted to play mundane heroes with mundane powers, I wouldn't pick D&D as a system of choice in the first place. D&D Fighters can survive falls from incredible heights with a surety of survival. That's hardly mundane.



Hmmn. That's not quite true. Achilles has divine blood, but he himself has no access to innate magic (his invulnerability being a result of outside forces), nor do Hector, Paris, Perseus, Jason or the overwhelming majority of Greek Heroes. They do have access to divine aid at the whim of their patrons, but that is not the same thing as innate magic or learning how to control magic.


It depends. In the Greek setting, that's just about the extent that mortals can depend on in terms of magic. Circe and Medea could do "real" magic, but don't they have divine blood, too? All magic in Greek mythology can ultimately be credited to the Gods, so if you're mortal, your way to influence that would be by having a patron. D&D Clerics are not so different from this paradigm.

It's still magic. It's still being "used" by you, at least as far as the context of Greek magic goes.



Okay, I think you're going to have to start mentioning sources here (you appear to be looking primarily at Le Morte D'Arthur?). I don't recall Percival or Bors having those powers off hand. Gawain's sudden 'waxing and waning' thing is an odd one to be sure and its significance is often discussed. I'm pretty sure that invisible and regenerating Knights are the villains, rather than the heroes.


I do not have my sources at the moment, but I seem to recall that both Percival and Bors were waylaid by demons during the Quest for the Grail, they being two of the three who were fated to find it. They repelled the illusions and sundry effects the demons employed on them through faith and virtue.

Even where regenerating knights and invisible knights were villains or what-not, their very presence at all shows that magic and military prowess in Arthurian myth were not at all a dichotomy. You use what you could get, and you got as much as you could. Mastering the arts of war did not imply a neglect of any magical effect you could get your hands on.



Indeed, magic is not rare in western mythology. However, it is not usually a hallmark of the Heroes. Much more commonly it is associated with supporting characters (usually women), supernatural beings or villains.


Not at all. As I said, Grimm's heroes were usually blessed with all manner of outrageous abilities. Heroes are granted abilities that allow them to see through trickery and illusion, free themselves from enchantment and spell, and even allow them classic magic like change form, fly, or cause their swords to grow warm or cold.

Arthurian myth is not all that big on this, but D&D is rather far from Arthurian myth, and even then Arthurian myths contain many warriors who do not shy away from magical powers if they had means and capability to obtain them, whether through faith or learning.

Ulzgoroth:



Yes. I would indeed be surprised by the ability to recover from wounds that would normally kill you because your mind, which is out of operation due to general damage, suddenly cares more about living because of events you cannot perceive. (The effect still works if you're magically guaranteed not to perceive anything, say both Blind and Deaf...)


Being unconscious, even in D&D, doesn't mean that you can't be communicated with. Indeed, the dream spell requires you to be unconscious. Apart from that, this is fluff! FLUFF! I could say that your mind is locked away in some "unconscious land" that Crusader power call you from and it would still be completely by the rules.

Is it a little unreal? Not really. People who lose consciousness from drowning or impact occasionally relate a sensation of passage of time or even various dream-like memories. Let's not even go to things like near-death experiences, and even more fantastic tropes like the Shores of Death in Earthsea and the calling of the near-death that Aragorn seems eminently capable of doing.

If you continually try to find fault with the ability, then you'll find what you're looking for. Likewise, if you try to make it work, you'll be able to do that, too.



Nothing I said was a D&Dism. What you're talking about now is entirely different. Of course anyone likely to encounter magic on the battlefield will want to know the practical basics, preferably both of the supportive and offensive sides (or anyone smart will. Many fictional/legendary characters are not at all smart). Possibly even to the extent of taking a couple ranks in Know:arcana, in D&D terms. That's at most a small diversion from whatever your actual specialization is. Actually using magic is an entirely different proposition.


Why? Apart from utterly changeable fluff, what makes it so hard to believe that a warrior who takes time to learn the basics of how to shoot a bow would also take the time to learn the basics of how to enhance his sword magically?

Because magic is hard and takes lots of time to learn? Says who? No one. It's all fluff.

A bow is real. An enchantment is real. You take the time to get the basics down pat. Why ignore magic in particular?



Yes, but then you've re-balanced the game on the basis of this re-fluffing of IHS. Which is all well and good, except that the benefit of using a widely accepted balanced mechanical system goes away if you hack it up like that. And you're giving the PCs an extra edge on NPCs, which they already have quite enough of...


Sorry. I just don't agree with this.

1. I don't think that taking or not taking IHS makes or breaks Warblades.
2. I don't really believe in an adversarial system against my players, so giving them extra advantages that I can always take into account in encounter design doesn't seem like all that terrible.



To the first: Only acceptable if you actually have a mechanic for how the fey gain the ability to cast Wish at no cost to themselves, when necessary, as a result of you asking for help. The entire process, not just the end of it.


Oh? How do the Efreet pashas grant Wish to those who defeat them and yet not have the ability to freely do it themselves?

It doesn't matter. I don't have to explain magical procedures to my players because it's magic. While a certain amount of consistency is a good thing, I don't really have to spin complex magical theories just to make an effect like IHS work.

Heck, we don't even know why relativistic physics behaves the way it does. We just take it on faith because we can see the results. If real life is so mysterious, why am I required to make magic any the more understandable?



Mechanics that exist only for the convenience of PCs undermine the reality of the game.


The mechanic is IHS, and it's the same for every Warblade, PC or otherwise. The fluff is that fey do it. It's not mechanics, so it's pointless to attack it on those grounds.

Really. You're about the only person I know of who faults fluff by citing mechanics.



To the second...Are you suggesting IHS should possibly be supernatural? I mean, beyond fluffing it as a magical intervention. No problem there...


I have no problem either way, actually. I just label it Ex for the mechanical effects such a ruling does.



But, and this seemingly cannot be sufficiently repeated, they aren't using magic at all. They are getting other people to use magic for them.


That's magic in Ancient Greece. It's not the same in D&D and indeed, that's what I've been saying over and over again.



Of course in D&D, every PC acknowledges magic and benefits from as much of it as they can. For non-casters, that means magic items and buffs from the casters they associate with.


For what it's worth, the Sha'ir, the Cleric, the Shaman and the Druid (among many classes) also "don't do magic by themselves." They call on their respective patrons to do it for them. This is especially true and front-center obvious for the Sha'ir and the Shaman, although those are considered "caster" classes.


If getting other beings to do magic for you isn't "really magic," then Clerics and similar casters aren't really "doing magic."

Matthew
2007-08-15, 08:30 AM
That doesn't mean that they're not at all interested in acquiring and using magical might and influence. They're just not interested in Merlin's style of magic, which would be understandable given his demonic taint.

Interestingly, Arthur's sister in Le Morte D'Arthur learns her magic in a Nunnery! Honestly, though, I quite agree that Arthur's Knights are not disinterested in magical aid (such as via faith in God or magical items), but they just don't seem interested in learning it as a craft, despite having access to potential teachers. This could be the result of several possible things, including the general disapproval of 'magic' within the context of their community.


In Le'Morte D'Arthur, there are many instances where a knight is on his last legs and then suddenly regains his strength and advantage, going on to win. It could be argued that this would merely be meaningless fluff or shameless DM manipulation, but it seems more fun to model the ebb and flow of combat advantage through Maneuvers.

Absolutely, I agree. However, they don't heal themselves or anything of that sort or perform outlandish Xena type tricks. Mostly their renewed vigour is a result of love, either divine or corporeal in source. That's just the nature of martial Christian mythology. It could as easily be a Manoeuvre as a sudden spate of good die rolls, makes no odds to me.


If I wanted to play mundane heroes with mundane powers, I wouldn't pick D&D as a system of choice in the first place. D&D Fighters can survive falls from incredible heights with a surety of survival. That's hardly mundane.

Well, they can and they can't. They can at high levels, but they can't at low levels. In previous editions, they generally just couldn't. That said, D&D is a fairly flexible system and I think it should remain so, giving Players the option to choose relatively mundane Characters, if they want to.


It depends. In the Greek setting, that's just about the extent that mortals can depend on in terms of magic. Circe and Medea could do "real" magic, but don't they have divine blood, too? All magic in Greek mythology can ultimately be credited to the Gods, so if you're mortal, your way to influence that would be by having a patron. D&D Clerics are not so different from this paradigm.

Circe, I think, is a Deity of some sort, Medea probably has some sort of divine ancestory, but her magic is learned, rather than inherited. In any case, you would be pushed to find a Greek Hero who learned magic as she does (but then you're making a case to exclude Wizards from Hellenic Male Player Character choices.


It's still magic. It's still being "used" by you, at least as far as the context of Greek magic goes.

Yes, but only to the same degree as picking up and using a magic sword, in my opinion.


I do not have my sources at the moment, but I seem to recall that both Percival and Bors were waylaid by demons during the Quest for the Grail, they being two of the three who were fated to find it. They repelled the illusions and sundry effects the demons employed on them through faith and virtue.

Very possible, have to check into it.


Even where regenerating knights and invisible knights were villains or what-not, their very presence at all shows that magic and military prowess in Arthurian myth were not at all a dichotomy. You use what you could get, and you got as much as you could. Mastering the arts of war did not imply a neglect of any magical effect you could get your hands on.

Well, actually, Balin and co have nothing but disdain for the Invisible Knight because of the method he chooses to attack. Magic and villains tend to go hand in hand, mainly because of the association of magic with diabolical goings on.


Not at all. As I said, Grimm's heroes were usually blessed with all manner of outrageous abilities. Heroes are granted abilities that allow them to see through trickery and illusion, free themselves from enchantment and spell, and even allow them classic magic like change form, fly, or cause their swords to grow warm or cold.

I can't really comment on Grimm, I'm afraid. It sounds quite interesting, but unfortunately is out of my time period.


Arthurian myth is not all that big on this, but D&D is rather far from Arthurian myth, and even then Arthurian myths contain many warriors who do not shy away from magical powers if they had means and capability to obtain them, whether through faith or learning.

Absolutely, and this is where it becomes a matter of D&D Mythology, rather than anything else. My understanding of D&D Mythology in the form of the novels that it has propagated (FR, GH and DL) is that ToB type abilities are unusual. They could be fluffed away easily enough, I suspect, but my perception is that most Characters in these books are very Mundane (Caramon, Sturm, Tanis, Kitaria, Bruenor [Though you have that whole Hammer making thing], Wulfgar, etc...).

Roxlimn
2007-08-15, 08:55 AM
Matthew:



Interestingly, Arthur's sister in Le Morte D'Arthur learns her magic in a Nunnery! Honestly, though, I quite agree that Arthur's Knights are not disinterested in magical aid (such as via faith in God or magical items), but they just don't seem interested in learning it as a craft, despite having access to potential teachers. This could be the result of several possible things, including the general disapproval of 'magic' within the context of their community.


That doesn't seem to be the case, actually. Most of the time, Knights do what they can with what they have. Mages in Arthurian mythology guarded their store of learning quite jealously, so it isn't like the Knights could ask Merlin to mentor them.

Goodly magical beings like the Lady of the Lake were also unfortunately out of reach for almost anyone. You might learn it at a Nunnery, but Knights wouldn't be able to do that. Arguably, living out your life as a hermit could lead to your acquiring some kind of magical power one way or another, and it wasn't unheard of for Knights to do this, or for them to acquire supernatural influence or ability (of the holy kind, of course) because of it.



Absolutely, I agree. However, they don't heal themselves or anything of that sort or perform outlandish Xena type tricks. Mostly their renewed vigour is a result of love, either divine or corporeal in source. That's just the nature of martial Christian mythology. It could as easily be a Manoeuvre as a sudden spate of good die rolls, makes no odds to me.


And hitpoint renewals in D&D could easily reflect a resurgence of love! It's all the more appropriate for a Crusader, who can only "heal" himself as long as he's attacking - ie, he hasn't given up.

While Crusaders don't do Xena-like tricks, some Knights actually could be charged with doing this, what with the leaping to the fray and suddenly being behind their opponent and what not, although these can easily be interpreted in a less ridiculous sense.

Now don't get me wrong. I like random strings of improbably good die rolls as much as the next guy, but if you're going to count on that to give you the kind of reliable reversals Arthurian Knights seem routinely capable of creating, then you'll be out of luck.

Much better to use Maneuvers for that.



Well, they can and they can't. They can at high levels, but they can't at low levels. In previous editions, they generally just couldn't. That said, D&D is a fairly flexible system and I think it should remain so, giving Players the option to choose relatively mundane Characters, if they want to.


ToB doesn't squeeze out those guys. With the right fluff, you could create a totally "mundane" seeming Warblade, no problem. I daresay you could do the same for a Crusader.

ToB CAN be magical, and most D&D warriors should be, but if they want a Conan that's properly "shifted" to D&D mechanics, that's doable, too.



Circe, I think, is a Deity of some sort, Medea probably has some sort of divine ancestory, but her magic is learned, rather than inherited. In any case, you would be pushed to find a Greek Hero who learned magic as she does (but then you're making a case to exclude Wizards from Hellenic Male Player Character choices.


Whatever. It may or may not be true. It doesn't matter. The point is, almost all if not all magic in Greek Mythology is tied to the Gods, so the only way a Greek hero who isn't divine can make it happen for him is to seek divine allies. That's consistent with the setting. It doesn't mean that the warriors themselves live in the mundane and can only influence mundane events and do mundane actions. Through divine influence, a Greek hero also had magic!



Yes, but only to the same degree as picking up and using a magic sword, in my opinion.


That's what the setting gives you. Arguably, a D&D Wizard is ALSO just "picking up a magic sword." The magic isn't in him. He's just using what's already there.



I can't really comment on Grimm, I'm afraid. It sounds quite interesting, but unfortunately is out of my time period.


I can understand that, but if you're going to be making broad generalizations about Western mythology, you HAVE to account for the Grimm tales. They're a very important piece of Western mythology. I don't claim to be exhaustive, but as far as I can tell, mentioning the coverage of my experience, what I say seems to hold true.

In a body of myth where warriors walked seven leagues with a stride and fired arrows unerringly into apples barely visible with the naked eye, is a Warblade really all that unusual?



They could be fluffed away easily enough, I suspect, but my understanding is that most Characters in these books are very Mundane (Caramon, Sturm, Tanis, Kitaria, Bruenor...


Such characters are shaped by the rules that predate and direct them. Arguing that a Warblade is inconsistent with Tanis is the same thing as saying that the Warblade isn't the same as the 2e Fighter, which it assuredly is not.

ToB classes are unlike anything ever in D&D fighting mechanics. That's a given. I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that in the context of D&D taken as a whole, in broad strokes, they're a good fit.

Matthew
2007-08-15, 09:31 AM
That doesn't seem to be the case, actually. Most of the time, Knights do what they can with what they have. Mages in Arthurian mythology guarded their store of learning quite jealously, so it isn't like the Knights could ask Merlin to mentor them.

I'm not really sure Merlin could do if they did! On the other hand, they never ask either, and some Knights (the villainous ones) clearly have access to magic somehow. There is certainly a perceptable difference between 'sorcery' and 'faith'. A clearer example might be the Middle English Richard Coeur de Lyon where Saladin is depicted as a Sorcerer to richard's Noble Knight.


Goodly magical beings like the Lady of the Lake were also unfortunately out of reach for almost anyone. You might learn it at a Nunnery, but Knights wouldn't be able to do that. Arguably, living out your life as a hermit could lead to your acquiring some kind of magical power one way or another, and it wasn't unheard of for Knights to do this, or for them to acquire supernatural influence or ability (of the holy kind, of course) because of it.

And yet Lancelot/Galahad was raised and tutored by her, but offered no magical abilities. I think it is a mistake to conflate magic with divine favour.


And hitpoint renewals in D&D could easily reflect a resurgence of love! It's all the more appropriate for a Crusader, who can only "heal" himself as long as he's attacking - ie, he hasn't given up.

Yep, many things could.


While Crusaders don't do Xena-like tricks, some Knights actually could be charged with doing this, what with the leaping to the fray and suddenly being behind their opponent and what not, although these can easily be interpreted in a less ridiculous sense.

Now don't get me wrong. I like random strings of improbably good die rolls as much as the next guy, but if you're going to count on that to give you the kind of reliable reversals Arthurian Knights seem routinely capable of creating, then you'll be out of luck.

Much better to use Maneuvers for that.

I wouldn't be inclined to agree, but we would have to start really scouring the texts to discuss this aspect and probably come up with multiple interpretations.


ToB doesn't squeeze out those guys. With the right fluff, you could create a totally "mundane" seeming Warblade, no problem. I daresay you could do the same for a Crusader.

ToB CAN be magical, and most D&D warriors should be, but if they want a Conan that's properly "shifted" to D&D mechanics, that's doable, too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they couldn't or that ToB is bad or anything. I just don't really see it as necessary. As I said, I can sympathise with the view that magical worlds should have magical heroes, I just don't think there is much of that going on in conventional mythology.


Whatever. It may or may not be true. It doesn't matter. The point is, almost all if not all magic in Greek Mythology is tied to the Gods, so the only way a Greek hero who isn't divine can make it happen for him is to seek divine allies. That's consistent with the setting. It doesn't mean that the warriors themselves live in the mundane and can only influence mundane events and do mundane actions. Through divine influence, a Greek hero also had magic!

But what form it takes is what is at issue here, I think.


That's what the setting gives you. Arguably, a D&D Wizard is ALSO just "picking up a magic sword." The magic isn't in him. He's just using what's already there.

Well, that is arguable. Complete Mage is certainly of that view, probably as a result of the contrasting Sorcerer/Wizard fluff. PHB and Complete Arcane were less specific about the source of power.


I can understand that, but if you're going to be making broad generalizations about Western mythology, you HAVE to account for the Grimm tales. They're a very important piece of Western mythology. I don't claim to be exhaustive, but as far as I can tell, mentioning the coverage of my experience, what I say seems to hold true.

In a body of myth where warriors walked seven leagues with a stride and fired arrows unerringly into apples barely visible with the naked eye, is a Warblade really all that unusual?

Sure, I usually mean medieval and ancient mythology when I think about mythology, I just don't know jack about Grimm, I'm afraid (though I suppose it must be late medieval?).


Such characters are shaped by the rules that predate and direct them. Arguing that a Warblade is inconsistent with Tanis is the same thing as saying that the Warblade isn't the same as the 2e Fighter, which it assuredly is not.

Rules which were shaped by the settings, though. I think it is important to recognise that a lot of the negative ToB viewpoint does come from what went before, a D&D Mythology. Dark Sun has a quite different idea of normality from Dragonlance and we see it in the fluff and the mechanics.


ToB classes are unlike anything ever in D&D fighting mechanics. That's a given. I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that in the context of D&D taken as a whole, in broad strokes, they're a good fit.

ToB is a mechanical and descriptive departure from conventional D&D Mythology with regard to Martial Classes. For that matter, so is a lot of 3e, which I think is part of the reason it rubs some people the wrong way. That said, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. I probably wouldn't use it for conventional D&D, but that's just a matter of taste.
As I say, my only real objection is with how your thesis relates to medieval and ancient mythology, because I don't see these 'heroes' as being very similar to ToB fluff or in need of ToB mechanics.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-15, 10:33 AM
Being unconscious, even in D&D, doesn't mean that you can't be communicated with. Indeed, the dream spell requires you to be unconscious. Apart from that, this is fluff! FLUFF! I could say that your mind is locked away in some "unconscious land" that Crusader power call you from and it would still be completely by the rules.

Is it a little unreal? Not really. People who lose consciousness from drowning or impact occasionally relate a sensation of passage of time or even various dream-like memories. Let's not even go to things like near-death experiences, and even more fantastic tropes like the Shores of Death in Earthsea and the calling of the near-death that Aragorn seems eminently capable of doing.
The dream spell requires the recipient of the message to be asleep. This is not the same state as the one you attain by being knocked out. This is quite clear from the rules, even if you somehow dispute it's realism.

Also, whatever it is the crusader does it has to affect targets that are blind, deaf, unconscious, under the effects of silence, or possessed of non-abilities. Without being magical, unless you change it to an (Su) effect. Because the maneuver works in such circumstances without any difficulty at all, as written.

I'll go a bit longer about 'meaningless fluff' later...

If you continually try to find fault with the ability, then you'll find what you're looking for. Likewise, if you try to make it work, you'll be able to do that, too.
I can make it work, though not in a way I like...I just have to add the (Su) tag to it, and everything is fine. I have yet to see a non-supernatural description of the ability that actually fit its properties.

Why? Apart from utterly changeable fluff, what makes it so hard to believe that a warrior who takes time to learn the basics of how to shoot a bow would also take the time to learn the basics of how to enhance his sword magically?

Because magic is hard and takes lots of time to learn? Says who? No one. It's all fluff.

A bow is real. An enchantment is real. You take the time to get the basics down pat. Why ignore magic in particular?
It's perfectly believable. There are plenty of ways for them to do it. However, if they add magic to their repertoire, they are doing what I mentioned a few posts back (and you immediately changed topic on) and diluting their focus on the mechanical use of weapons to study at least some limited part of the manipulation of magical energies. Unless you make the manipulation of magical energies a trivial skill, which carries logical consequences of its own, this will cut into their sword time.

By analogy, knowing what a tank looks like, and roughly what it can do to you, is part of every modern infantryman's training. This doesn't take anything noticeable away from their other training, because it amounts to maybe a couple pages of information to remember, and it's necessary to be effective on the battlefield. Driving, commanding, gunning, or repairing a tank are not part of an infantryman's training, because they are substantial skillsets that he simply doesn't need to do his job.

Sorry. I just don't agree with this.

1. I don't think that taking or not taking IHS makes or breaks Warblades.
2. I don't really believe in an adversarial system against my players, so giving them extra advantages that I can always take into account in encounter design doesn't seem like all that terrible.
The DM is not the adversary of the players. The NPCs, in many cases, are. Playing them as extras who do nonsensical things just for plot/player convenience, in my opinion, undermines the entire basis of the game.

1 might be right, though considering the import of Save or Suck I don't know...but is this really only about IHS?

Oh? How do the Efreet pashas grant Wish to those who defeat them and yet not have the ability to freely do it themselves?

It doesn't matter. I don't have to explain magical procedures to my players because it's magic. While a certain amount of consistency is a good thing, I don't really have to spin complex magical theories just to make an effect like IHS work.

Heck, we don't even know why relativistic physics behaves the way it does. We just take it on faith because we can see the results. If real life is so mysterious, why am I required to make magic any the more understandable?
The point isn't making up underpinnings of the magic system. You can do that if you want to, but as you point out it isn't necessary.

However, you have now explained how IHS might work, in a way that implies certain creatures (or a certain collection of creatures) have an ability not normally attributed to them. That's fine. It isn't fine if you don't complete consistency by actually specifying the ability, though. It's absolutely viable for the fey to be able to do for others something they can't do for themselves. But they do need to possess a mechanic for doing so.

The mechanic is IHS, and it's the same for every Warblade, PC or otherwise. The fluff is that fey do it. It's not mechanics, so it's pointless to attack it on those grounds.

Really. You're about the only person I know of who faults fluff by citing mechanics.

I have no problem either way, actually. I just label it Ex for the mechanical effects such a ruling does.
What is fluff? Why is it meaningless? 'Fluff' does not contain numbers, dice, and keywords, it seems clear. But things that you are terming 'fluff', and other things often branded as such, include descriptions of how an effect occurs. Those are not irrelevant to mechanics. An effect is not defined only by the set of dice rolls it entails.

If an effect is based on language, it doesn't work if the words are incomprehensible or unheard. If a maneuver requires that you flourish your weapon, and your weapon is currently embedded in stone, you can't do that. If you cast Magic Missile, a specific number of missiles are generated. If you activate a command word item, you have to actually say the command word. Casting animate dead leaves you with 'worthless, burnt out shells' of Black Onyx gems. If the fey do something, it is necessary that some fey, somewhere, actually do that thing. If something is (Ex), then it in no way relies on magic to function. You can only produce a result with stone shape that you can mold out of soft clay (without eschew materials). You cannot cast grease without handling pork rind or butter (likewise).

By default, you can use clerical magic without a patron god. Some settings change this. Whether you can or you can't, it impacts on the how things will work in the game. If you decide that all sorcerers do in fact get their power from draconic blood, this impacts on how things work in the game. There is very, very little that you can say that has no impact at all on how things actually work.

That's magic in Ancient Greece. It's not the same in D&D and indeed, that's what I've been saying over and over again.
There is a fundamental difference between things that you do, and things that someone else does. I don't understand how this can be unclear. Having gods for friends may be the closest possible thing to magic Odysseus can do, but that just means that Odysseus can't do magic. Through no possible fault of his own, if no mortal can.

For what it's worth, the Sha'ir, the Cleric, the Shaman and the Druid (among many classes) also "don't do magic by themselves." They call on their respective patrons to do it for them. This is especially true and front-center obvious for the Sha'ir and the Shaman, although those are considered "caster" classes.

If getting other beings to do magic for you isn't "really magic," then Clerics and similar casters aren't really "doing magic."
I don't know anything about Sha'ir, and I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'shaman' (Spirit Shaman?). However, Druids and Clerics do indeed do magic themselves. Their magical abilities are determined by personal traits, and their spells come from them, not from anyone else. When a cleric casts a spell, it does not cause a god to use a spell-like ability to produce the effect. In fact, I'm pretty sure some gods have cleric levels...

It is true that their abilities depend on a source outside themselves, which can be cut off by actions of their own (and in some cases by the actions of others). Nonetheless, when the druid casts Dominate Animal, the effect is generated by and sourced from the druid.

Roxlimn
2007-08-15, 10:34 AM
Matthew:



I'm not really sure Merlin could do if they did! On the other hand, they never ask either, and some Knights (the villainous ones) clearly have access to magic somehow. There is certainly a perceptable difference between 'sorcery' and 'faith'. A clearer example might be the Middle English Richard Coeur de Lyon where Saladin is depicted as a Sorcerer to richard's Noble Knight.


Shrug. The focus, of course, is different because such tales ascribe certain characters to villainy and certain to heroism, and the forms their magics would take would conform to these values.

Just because they name one "magic" and the other "virtue" doesn't mean that one is less supernatural than the other, or even that one is more dependent on patron than the other.



And yet Lancelot/Galahad was raised and tutored by her, but offered no magical abilities. I think it is a mistake to conflate magic with divine favour.


In D&D, divine favor IS magic. If Maneuvers can be said to be magical, then I don't see where divine favor can be said to be distinct.



I wouldn't be inclined to agree, but we would have to start really scouring the texts to discuss this aspect and probably come up with multiple interpretations.


My point is simple. If, as you allege, that these occurrences could simply be the result of extraordinarily lucky rolls, then count how many occur in myths and tell me if it's possible to reliably recreate such situations on the basis of luck alone.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they couldn't or that ToB is bad or anything. I just don't really see it as necessary. As I said, I can sympathise with the view that magical worlds should have magical heroes, I just don't think there is much of that going on in conventional mythology.


And I think differently. To avoid getting hung up on terminology, replace "magic" with "supernatural." That way, you don't get tripped up on the trappings.

"Supernatural worlds" should have heroes who use "supernatural" means. Conventional mythology is steeped in the supernatural, and most of its heroes drip it from beginning to end.

You can't swim in a supernatural pool without getting wet.



But what form it takes is what is at issue here, I think.


I'm telling you to account for the form. Greek mythology is not the same as D&D mythology so we have to make allowances. Given these allowances, Greek heroes in their world are just as supernatural as any ToB class would be in D&D!



Well, that is arguable. Complete Mage is certainly of that view, probably as a result of the contrasting Sorcerer/Wizard fluff. PHB and Complete Arcane were less specific about the source of power.


"Shaping the energies around you" certainly implies that it's not in you. Even Sorcerers don't actually have supernatural power innately in them. They just instinctively know how to use it.

Warlock would be closer to that score, but wouldn't a Warlock cleave rather close to what Merlin is like?

A warrior being one who uses magic external to him is not much different from a Wizard or a Cleric who ALSO uses magic that's external to him.



Sure, I usually mean medieval and ancient mythology when I think about mythology, I just don't know jack about Grimm, I'm afraid (though I suppose it must be late medieval?).


It's a nice spread. The collection is said to have initially been collated in the late medieval period, but the tales vary from immediate post-Roman trappings to Late Medieval with firearms.

Certainly, the iconic Grimm warrior-hero could be said to be a mail-clad heavy cavalry soldier with a conical helm.



Rules which were shaped by the settings, though. I think it is important to recognise that a lot of the negative ToB viewpoint does come from what went before, a D&D Mythology. Dark Sun has a quite different idea of normality from Dragonlance and we see it in the fluff and the mechanics.


The settings were shaped by the rules just as much as the rules were shaped by the settings. Possibly more.

If you could read any prose from before 2e, you would understand. FR even made a big deal of the 2e rules change, heralding it as the Time of Troubles. That certainly doesn't speak much of your thesis.

If you allege that ToB doesn't correlate well with prose written with previous editions in mind, then you would be right. It's self-evident that ToB is new, and not liking it on that basis, while understandable, is not reasonable.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-15, 10:42 AM
My point is simple. If, as you allege, that these occurrences could simply be the result of extraordinarily lucky rolls, then count how many occur in myths and tell me if it's possible to reliably recreate such situations on the basis of luck alone.
Why do you assume that freak chance isn't a major factor in myths, just like in so many other stories? Just about every Tom Clancy book has at least one completely unpredictable random event that is critical to the plot. When you write a story, you're fudging every single roll. When playing D&D, you let the dice fall where they may, so one in a million chances don't come up every time.

(Unless, of course, you cheat [as a player] or fudge [as a DM], and thus don't.)