ToB for Everyone!

[Kayden Prynn]

Basically, I had an idea to bring the ToB mechanics to all characters, and I thought I'd test it out here to see peoples' opinions. Sorry if this has been done before.

I have two versions of this idea:

Version 1

Every character gets to choose between 1 and 3 disciplines that they can learn maneuvers from, based on their BAB progression. (Multiclass characters use the progression they have the most of)

For example, a fighter could choose 3 disciplines, a rogue or cleric could choose 2, and a wizard could choose 1. A multiclass fighter1/rogue2 would only get to choose 2, as they have more average BAB than good. A multiclass Fighter1/Paladin1/Barbarian1/Monk2, on the other hand (just go with it) would be able to choose 3, as they have 3 levels with a good progression and only 2 with an average progression.

Version 2

Every class has 1 to 3 specific disciplines that it knows. PHB classes are as follows:

Barbarian-Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon, Iron Heart
Bard-White Raven, Diamond Mind
Cleric-Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon
Druid-Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw
Fighter-Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon
Monk-Setting Sun, Stone Dragon
Paladin-Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon, Iron Heart
Ranger-Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, Shadow Hand
Rogue-Shadow Hand, Tiger Claw
Sorcerer-Desert Wind
Wizard-Diamond Mind

With either version, Maneuvers Known and Readied, as well as Stances Known, and Recovery are all as a Warblade of their character level.

Any questions, clarifications, or suggestions?

[Malimar]

I have had almost exactly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529141-Tacking-Initiating-Progression-Onto-Low-Tier-Classes) this idea. (Nobody cared, probably because I posted it in the forum nobody cares about.)

I think some variation on this is a decent idea from a balance perspective and a fluff perspective.

Not so decent in that some players want to avoid the complexity of spellcasting-esque subsystems (I had one paladin player who got actively mad when I put a Crown of the White Ravens in some treasure and it meant he had to pick a maneuver to know).

[Mehangel]

Personally, I am against making wizards and sorcerer's even more powerful than they already are. My suggestion, Low BAB classes get 0, Mid BAB get 1, and High BAB get 3.

[noob]

While it is true it would benefit wizard significantly(due to some diamond mind maneuvers) it would matter only for wizards who took a lot of levels in wizard which are not the most powerful ones.
And desert wind have no synergy at all with sorcerer.
The ones who would benefit the most from those changes are the wizard(diamond mind works with concentration which wizards already get high and have stuff that takes immediate actions which wizards do not use that much(technically quicken spell takes a free action you can do once per turn and not a rapid action)) bard(Really cool disciplines: white raven basically gives an ally an extra turn once per battle),the fighter and the barbarian.

[Segev]

Basically, I had an idea to bring the ToB mechanics to all characters, and I thought I'd test it out here to see peoples' opinions. Sorry if this has been done before.

It has been done before. They called it "4th edition."

[Kayden Prynn]

Personally, I am against making wizards and sorcerer's even more powerful than they already are. My suggestion, Low BAB classes get 0, Mid BAB get 1, and High BAB get 3.

Eh, wizards and sorcerers aren't particularly likely to make a lot of use of it beyond stances and maybe a couple boosts. Although you do make me worry about what it could to druids and clerics, but I feel that it's a versatility upgrade first and a power upgrade second.

[noob]

It has been done before. They called it "4th edition."

I saw fourth edition stuff and it does not seems as brilliant as tob stuff.
If all fourth edition had tob level of cool(like so cool it kills stars) it would probably be more played.

[Segev]

I saw fourth edition stuff and it does not seems as brilliant as tob stuff.
If all fourth edition had tob level of cool(like so cool it kills stars) it would probably be more played.

The trouble is that ToB is cool for capturing the feel of a warrior using special techniques. It's not so cool for capturing the feel of a rogue using his skills to clever his way through things, or a mage using his magic judiciously to pretend he has far more power than he does.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally, I am against making wizards and sorcerer's even more powerful than they already are. My suggestion, Low BAB classes get 0, Mid BAB get 1, and High BAB get 3.
I dunno about a general rule like the above, but you definitely shouldn't give initiating to full casters. Maybe not even partial casters.

Honestly, I'd suggest going the other way: expand the ToB classes to cover the key points of noncasters you want replaced. So you get something like:

Barbarian: Trade the Battle ____ line of features (Battle Clarity/Ardor/Cunning/Skill/Mastery) for damage reduction, and turn Rage (and its improvements) into Tiger Claw maneuvers/stances.
Bard: Is too strong on its own to add initiating, methinks. You could offer an ACF that trades its casting for Swordsage type initiating (with maybe 2/3 the maneuvers known/readied), based off... eh, call it Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon, and White Raven. Or make a Swordsage variant that runs off Cha and gets White Raven (with maybe a few new Inspire ____ maneuvers) in place of Setting Sun or Desert Wind, that oughta hit the same points.
Cleric, Druid: Do not give initiating. Just do not.
Fighter: Honestly, the Warblade is a pretty fine 1:1 replacement. Maybe trade Battle Clarity for heavy armor proficiency.
Monk: Unarmed Swordsage. Boom, done. If you want more, convert key Monk class features (Flurry, Stunning Fist, uhh... that's probably it) to Setting Sun maneuvers.
Paladin: Crusader. Boom, done. If you want to go farther, maybe trade Zealous Surge and Smite for Detect Evil, Smite Evil, and Turn Undead. The casting is trickier... you could probably cut the maneuvers known/readied down a bit in exchange for the casting, but I kind of want to unify the resources somehow. Maybe can you Ready a paladin spell in place of a maneuver, which can only be cast once and continues to take up a Readied Maneuver slot until you rest?
Ranger: Start with the Warblade, give up the Battle _____ features and bonus feats in exchange for Track, Favored Enemy, and Combat Styles. For spells, see the Paladin suggestions.
Rogue: Swordsage ACF that trades Desert Wind and Discipline Focus for Trapfinding, Trap Sense, the improved skill list/skill points, and maybe a 1d6/4 levels Sneak Attack progression.
Sorcerer, Wizard: Do not give initiating. Just no.

[Cosi]

I think the best version of this is just to gestalt non-casters with a ToB class of choice.


Every character gets to choose between 1 and 3 disciplines that they can learn maneuvers from, based on their BAB progression. (Multiclass characters use the progression they have the most of)

No, this is terrible. What happens to a character who starts out as a Fighter, then takes a bunch of Rogue levels? Do they lose their maneuvers from their third school? Can they just not select more?

Also, tracking by BAB is problematic because it gives Clerics and Druids more for no real reason. Better to just give it to classes that are bad explicitly.

[noob]

The trouble is that ToB is cool for capturing the feel of a warrior using special techniques. It's not so cool for capturing the feel of a rogue using his skills to clever his way through things, or a mage using his magic judiciously to pretend he has far more power than he does.
How about we reanimate the developers of ToB and ask them make a tome of sneaking : book of 9 cloaks and a tome of magic : book of 9 hats and them use them to replace core?

[Kayden Prynn]

No, this is terrible. What happens to a character who starts out as a Fighter, then takes a bunch of Rogue levels? Do they lose their maneuvers from their third school? Can they just not select more?

Also, tracking by BAB is problematic because it gives Clerics and Druids more for no real reason. Better to just give it to classes that are bad explicitly.

That... is something I did not think about. Also, the point of this is partly balance (which is why lower BAB gets less) but it's also to make combat more interesting and variable. Yes, Clerics and Druids are gonna be even more powerful, but so what? They're already absurdly powerful anyway. And it's similar to the way gestalt works. Yes, they have new options, but they still only have 1 standard, 1 move, and 1 swift andor 1 immediate action per turn Edit: Plus free actions to taste. They're not going to be able to do everything at once. And if everyone has initiating to some degree, it levels the playing field on that front. CoDzilla will remain CoDzilla, but really that's a totally different fix altogether.

[Grod_The_Giant]

How about we reanimate the developers of ToB and ask them make a tome of sneaking : book of 9 cloaks and a tome of magic : book of 9 hats and them use them to replace core?
I mean, the basic structure of maneuvers and initiator classes would make a pretty good base for a crunchy RPG. Add some more noncombat abilities to the mix, make sure there's a wide variety of schools and of readied/recovery mechanics, and you'd have a pretty fun system.

[noob]

"1 standard, 1 move, 1 swift, and 1 immediate action per turn"
well they rather have 1 standard, 1 move and (one swift or immediate(spending an immediate action or a swift action prevents you from using the other one)) and 1 free action they can spend on a quickened spell(yes read 3.5 quicken spell: it use a free action and is capped to one use per turn which is why for example a conjuration master specialist can cast 3 spells in a turn without a problem since he gets swift action spells from his cap stone and the quickened spell do not use a swift action) which reach the same total but not for the same reasons.

[Greymane]

That... is something I did not think about. Also, the point of this is partly balance (which is why lower BAB gets less) but it's also to make combat more interesting and variable. Yes, Clerics and Druids are gonna be even more powerful, but so what? They're already absurdly powerful anyway. And it's similar to the way gestalt works. Yes, they have new options, but they still only have 1 standard, 1 move, 1 swift, and 1 immediate action per turn. They're not going to be able to do everything at once. And if everyone has initiating to some degree, it levels the playing field on that front. CoDzilla will remain CoDzilla, but really that's a totally different fix altogether.

Well, then you're failing in your "partly for balance" aspect of this design if you're just going to give maneuvers to some of the best classes in the system. If you DO actually want balance, Grod has some great ideas.

I remember a few years ago when I embarked on a project to do something very similar to this. I was running a game in a "pre-Reshar" world, and I wanted all of the disciplines to exist, but to be dependent on class and (to a lesser extent) a character's culture. Just going off memory, I had Fighters picking any two disciplines, Monks getting complete access to Setting Sun, Hobgoblins and Dwarves of almost any class got Iron Heart, full casters got nothing, etc...

I eventually abandoned it due to disinterest on the part of my players, and being generally unhappy about not finding a good way to make it work with multi-classing. Cosi has pointed out the biggest problem I ran into when I tried it. If you want multi-classing, you're going to need to figure out how that interacts with maneuver advancement.

[Ashtagon]

"1 standard, 1 move, 1 swift, and 1 immediate action per turn"
well they rather have 1 standard, 1 move and (one swift or immediate(spending an immediate action or a swift action prevents you from using the other one)) and 1 free action they can spend on a quickened spell(yes read 3.5 quicken spell: it use a free action and is capped to one use per turn which is why for example a conjuration master specialist can cast 3 spells in a turn without a problem since he gets swift action spells from his cap stone and the quickened spell do not use a swift action) which reach the same total but not for the same reasons.

According to Complete Arcane (chapter 4), a quickened spell is now an immediate action, not a free action.

Yes, I know the boilerplate sidebar text omits the paragraph about quickened spells in other books; that's probably because the feat is primarily relevant to classes that are the focus of that book.

(also, WotC can't proofread for toffee)

[Kayden Prynn]

Well, then you're failing in your "partly for balance" aspect of this design if you're just going to give maneuvers to some of the best classes in the system. If you DO actually want balance, Grod has some great ideas.

I remember a few years ago when I embarked on a project to do something very similar to this. I was running a game in a "pre-Reshar" world, and I wanted all of the disciplines to exist, but to be dependent on class and (to a lesser extent) a character's culture. Just going off memory, I had Fighters picking any two disciplines, Monks getting complete access to Setting Sun, Hobgoblins and Dwarves of almost any class got Iron Heart, full casters got nothing, etc...

I eventually abandoned it due to disinterest on the part of my players, and being generally unhappy about not finding a good way to make it work with multi-classing. Cosi has pointed out the biggest problem I ran into when I tried it. If you want multi-classing, you're going to need to figure out how that interacts with maneuver advancement.

Eh... Both in options and in execution, the classes getting the most benefit are the ones who need it most. Full casters have options beyond their spells, but their spells will usually be better, so it really just gives them staying power in a longer adventure day (something I'm not opposed to). Meanwhile, the mundane characters are getting new options that improve what they could already do. C0Dzilla will always be CoDzilla, but fixing that was not the intent.

[ExLibrisMortis]

How about this:
1) Each class grants access to some number of disciplines. Casters grant 0, monk grants 9, etcetera. Classes grant full IL for the maneuvers derived from that class.
2) Each class gives maneuver points per level (2-6). The number of maneuver points is modified by a key ability score.
3) Each time you get a level in a class that grants disciplines, you can select maneuvers from those disciplines with a total maneuver level equal to your maneuver points plus key ability modifier.
4) You can ready 2 maneuvers at the time, plus 1/4th IL. Recovery mechanics are part of class features (e.g. monks recover one maneuver per successful Flurry attack past the first).
5) Like skill points, maneuver points are lost if they are not used.

For example, a monk just hit level 12. They have an initiator level of 12, qualifying for 6th-level maneuvers. Since monks get 6 maneuver points per level, modified by WIS and a choice of STR or DEX (monk 5 class feature), this monk gets a whopping 15 levels worth of maneuvers.

Barbarians, on the other hand, only get 2 maneuver points, modified by STR. A barbarian with less than 24 STR can't learn 9th-level maneuvers, because they never have 9 maneuver points available on level-up (you can still get 9ths with feats, and perhaps class features).



Not what you call an unexploitable system, but should give you quite a lot of flexibility. Make sure to introduce maneuver equivalents of Able Learner and so on.

[Segev]

How about we reanimate the developers of ToB and ask them make a tome of sneaking : book of 9 cloaks and a tome of magic : book of 9 hats and them use them to replace core?


I mean, the basic structure of maneuvers and initiator classes would make a pretty good base for a crunchy RPG. Add some more noncombat abilities to the mix, make sure there's a wide variety of schools and of readied/recovery mechanics, and you'd have a pretty fun system.

That's actually precisely the problem: they DID that for 4e.

But Initiator mechanics don't capture the feel of playing a non-warrior-type very well. They were well-chosen and well-designed for what they were created for. But just as we don't just give Fighters a prepared list of "sword attacks" they can cast one of per preparation each day, we shouldn't give wizards initiator-style "spells."

[Cosi]

That's actually precisely the problem: they DID that for 4e.

But Initiator mechanics don't capture the feel of playing a non-warrior-type very well. They were well-chosen and well-designed for what they were created for. But just as we don't just give Fighters a prepared list of "sword attacks" they can cast one of per preparation each day, we shouldn't give wizards initiator-style "spells."

Not quite. Grod's suggestion calls for different recovery mechanics, while 4e's are all the same. That said, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable resource management options that aren't "you have abilities you expend and recover" (like Power Points, Spontaneous Spell Slots, or At-Will), the broad idea that everyone should get a bunch of abilities with different rules for using them is a good one.

[Segev]

Not quite. Grod's suggestion calls for different recovery mechanics, while 4e's are all the same. That said, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable resource management options that aren't "you have abilities you expend and recover" (like Power Points, Spontaneous Spell Slots, or At-Will), the broad idea that everyone should get a bunch of abilities with different rules for using them is a good one.

That is my primary reason for preferring 3e and 5e to 4e, yes. I have no problem with initiator-style mechanics. I just want my mages, rogues, and fighters to all feel different via mechanics. And adding new flavors to each - psions with power points instead of spell slots, for instance - is good, too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's actually precisely the problem: they DID that for 4e.

But Initiator mechanics don't capture the feel of playing a non-warrior-type very well. They were well-chosen and well-designed for what they were created for. But just as we don't just give Fighters a prepared list of "sword attacks" they can cast one of per preparation each day, we shouldn't give wizards initiator-style "spells."


Not quite. Grod's suggestion calls for different recovery mechanics, while 4e's are all the same. That said, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable resource management options that aren't "you have abilities you expend and recover" (like Power Points, Spontaneous Spell Slots, or At-Will), the broad idea that everyone should get a bunch of abilities with different rules for using them is a good one.
Exactly this. 4e's problem wasn't the at-will/encounter/daily system, it was that the powers (and overall structure) were so homogeneous from class to class. In am ideal world,
Different classes would have different readied/recovery mechanics, like the ToB classes do. The Barbarian gets a few maneuvers known but gets them back by hitting or killing dudes; the Rogue has a mid-size pool and can only recover in stealth, but doesn't expend maneuvers when sneak attacking; the Wizard gets a lot of maneuvers but has to study their spellbook to recover any. That sort of thing-- a different FLOW of special abilities in combat for different classes.
Individual schools would be more varied. Shadow Hand is a good example of what I'd like to see-- not just "stab for damage" but stealth and mobility powers, along with varied combat effects. A "Strength" school could have a bunch of Stone Dragon type stuff, but also boosts that let you leap for dozens/hundreds/thousands of feet, stances that give you the ability to lift and break huge objects, or to toil with superhuman speed and endurance. That sort of thing.

I started brainstorming such a project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291015-quot-Tome-of-D-amp-D-quot-maneuvers-for-everything!)at one point, though I never got far.

[ImperatorV]

I started brainstorming such a project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291015-quot-Tome-of-D-amp-D-quot-maneuvers-for-everything!)at one point, though I never got far.

This looks pretty cool. I might look into making something along these lines at some point.

[Zaq]

Exactly this. 4e's problem wasn't the at-will/encounter/daily system, it was that the powers (and overall structure) were so homogeneous from class to class. In am ideal world,
Different classes would have different readied/recovery mechanics, like the ToB classes do. The Barbarian gets a few maneuvers known but gets them back by hitting or killing dudes; the Rogue has a mid-size pool and can only recover in stealth, but doesn't expend maneuvers when sneak attacking; the Wizard gets a lot of maneuvers but has to study their spellbook to recover any. That sort of thing-- a different FLOW of special abilities in combat for different classes.
Individual schools would be more varied. Shadow Hand is a good example of what I'd like to see-- not just "stab for damage" but stealth and mobility powers, along with varied combat effects. A "Strength" school could have a bunch of Stone Dragon type stuff, but also boosts that let you leap for dozens/hundreds/thousands of feet, stances that give you the ability to lift and break huge objects, or to toil with superhuman speed and endurance. That sort of thing.

I started brainstorming such a project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291015-quot-Tome-of-D-amp-D-quot-maneuvers-for-everything!)at one point, though I never got far.

As a strong supporter of 4e, I respectfully disagree that the powers all feel the same. The vast majority of classes (at least the normal classes; Essentials classes are mostly dumb) truly feel different, even if you're using powers with superficial similarities.

This is partly because the class features mostly actually matter: this stands out especially strongly among the defenders, just for example. All defenders have some kind of mark-and-punish mechanism, but they all feel wildly different and play very differently. The Warden wants to get as many enemies near her as possible, since she can mark everyone around her as a free action, but then she relies mostly on her powers to keep them nearby; a Fighter can only mark enemies she attacks (so usually one or maybe two at a time, though there are exceptions here), but she can wickedly punish enemies who are stupid enough to try to slip away just from her class features alone; a Swordmage needs to spend a nontrivial action (minor action, versus free action or part of another action) to put a special mark on someone, but she doesn't need to renew said mark every turn (unlike the other two defenders mentioned here), and she can also punish that mark from across the damn map, leaving her free to go harass someone else (arguably even encouraging her to run away from the mark, forcing the mark to come chase after her or suffer her wrath). Even if those classes use similar powers (which they don't, for the most part, but let's pretend), their baked-in features support entirely different styles of defending, and then you add in feats and items and paragon paths and suchlike to play to your strengths and give you tricks that your counterparts don't have, and those classes do not end up feeling at all similar.

4e, like 3.5, is made up of a whole lot of little moving parts. The format of the powers makes some of those moving parts look superficially similar, but the whole (of a given character or of the overall feel of the game) is far greater than the sum of the parts, even if those parts aren't all different for the sake of being different. They did a good job actually making the pieces fit together, and you feel both like you have choices and like your choices have a noticeable effect on what you're able to do (contrast with 5e, which is terrified of its players accomplishing anything that the GM doesn't hand them).

That being said, Grod, I like the other parts of your post, and this isn't really directed at you specifically. Those ideas are genuinely cool. But I occasionally feel the need to stand up and defend 4e, even if it's cool to hate on it (or to act like it was some kind of tragically flawed misadventure rather than a legitimately entertaining and complex system with flaws that are definitely no deeper than 3.5's) nowadays.

[Elricaltovilla]

I started brainstorming such a project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?291015-quot-Tome-of-D-amp-D-quot-maneuvers-for-everything!)at one point, though I never got far.

I too had a similar idea but it never made it to the forums because as soon as I started tinkering with the system I realized there were a ton of sacred cows I wanted to kill. Then I got mixed up with Path of War and the whole project mostly became abandoned.

I had 4 base classes with maneuver summaries for most of their "disciplines" done somewhere.

[Florian]

I too had a similar idea but it never made it to the forums because as soon as I started tinkering with the system I realized there were a ton of sacred cows I wanted to kill. Then I got mixed up with Path of War and the whole project mostly became abandoned.

I had 4 base classes with maneuver summaries for most of their "disciplines" done somewhere.

That´s so. If we´d start to write up the rules and execution for a more "mystic reality", we´d have to kill some "sacred cows" along the process. IMHO, problem is that a good number of people still cling to "our" reality as a go-to to "ground" their perception of in-game reality performance and expectations and that leads us ultimately nowhere.

[Elricaltovilla]

That´s so. If we´d start to write up the rules and execution for a more "mystic reality", we´d have to kill some "sacred cows" along the process. IMHO, problem is that a good number of people still cling to "our" reality as a go-to to "ground" their perception of in-game reality performance and expectations and that leads us ultimately nowhere.

I meant sacred cow game mechanics specifically. Things like AC, the skill system, the need for +1/2/3/etc. enchantments for the game's core math. If I was actually going to go through and replace all the stuff I didn't like in the game the only thing that would likely remain the same is that the system uses dice. :smalltongue:

[noob]

I meant sacred cow game mechanics specifically. Things like AC, the skill system, the need for +1/2/3/etc. enchantments for the game's core math. If I was actually going to go through and replace all the stuff I didn't like in the game the only thing that would likely remain the same is that the system uses dice. :smalltongue:
Why use dice?

[Elricaltovilla]

Why use dice?

Because I like rolling them. No joke.

[Florian]

No joke.

Understood. Still a problematic point. Using a simulations core that can only create pass/fail results, this´ll be tough.

[Elricaltovilla]

Understood. Still a problematic point. Using a simulations core that can only create pass/fail results, this´ll be tough.

You could just use gated success results. The simplest being "For every X points by which you exceed [target number] you gain [additional benefit(s)]." It's wordy, but it works.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That being said, Grod, I like the other parts of your post, and this isn't really directed at you specifically. Those ideas are genuinely cool. But I occasionally feel the need to stand up and defend 4e, even if it's cool to hate on it (or to act like it was some kind of tragically flawed misadventure rather than a legitimately entertaining and complex system with flaws that are definitely no deeper than 3.5's) nowadays.
Fair enough. It's not my preferred system, but it did a lot of interesting things and I had a lot of fun when I was using it. Didn't mean to be too disparaging.


I too had a similar idea but it never made it to the forums because as soon as I started tinkering with the system I realized there were a ton of sacred cows I wanted to kill. Then I got mixed up with Path of War and the whole project mostly became abandoned.
I had 4 base classes with maneuver summaries for most of their "disciplines" done somewhere.

That´s so. If we´d start to write up the rules and execution for a more "mystic reality", we´d have to kill some "sacred cows" along the process. IMHO, problem is that a good number of people still cling to "our" reality as a go-to to "ground" their perception of in-game reality performance and expectations and that leads us ultimately nowhere.
Eh, there's certainly a balance that could be struck between "everyone is an initiator" and "write an entirely new system." My personal preference towards 3.5 fixes/rewrites has always been to make things as modular as possible. That's how I did Giants and Graveyards, anyway. Make rewritten classes the bulk of the thing, so they can be seamlessly slotted into existing material; add optional houserules to makes skills and feats a little less punishing; toss in an automatic bonus progression if the Christmas Tree effect bothers you... do it right and you can still use most of the existing material.

[Elricaltovilla]

Eh, there's certainly a balance that could be struck between "everyone is an initiator" and "write an entirely new system." My personal preference towards 3.5 fixes/rewrites has always been to make things as modular as possible. That's how I did Giants and Graveyards, anyway. Make rewritten classes the bulk of the thing, so they can be seamlessly slotted into existing material; add optional houserules to makes skills and feats a little less punishing; toss in an automatic bonus progression if the Christmas Tree effect bothers you... do it right and you can still use most of the existing material.

Yes there is a balance. But I'm not always so good at finding it. It gets to the point where all the problems I see with the rules as written get in the way of things so much that I just stop wanting to bother trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[Nifft]

Yes there is a balance. But I'm not always so good at finding it. It gets to the point where all the problems I see with the rules as written get in the way of things so much that I just stop wanting to bother trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The balance point is where you put it.

Do you want a T1/T2 game? Then ToB isn't going to help sufficiently.

Do you want a T2/T3 game? Then ToB can help lots! Either replace T4/T5 classes with ToB, or (as recommended above) use gestalt rules for T4/T5 + ToB to create a T3 character.

Do you want a T3/T4 game? Then ToB can fit in directly, without any need for special rules or changes.

[Elricaltovilla]

The balance point is where you put it.

Do you want a T1/T2 game? Then ToB isn't going to help sufficiently.

Do you want a T2/T3 game? Then ToB can help lots! Either replace T4/T5 classes with ToB, or (as recommended above) use gestalt rules for T4/T5 + ToB to create a T3 character.

Do you want a T3/T4 game? Then ToB can fit in directly, without any need for special rules or changes.

We're talking about the balance point between 3.5/PF as written and a wholly new system that does away with much of 3.5/PF's design artifacts, not the balance point of a campaign within 3.5/PF.

[Cosi]

Different classes would have different readied/recovery mechanics, like the ToB classes do. The Barbarian gets a few maneuvers known but gets them back by hitting or killing dudes; the Rogue has a mid-size pool and can only recover in stealth, but doesn't expend maneuvers when sneak attacking; the Wizard gets a lot of maneuvers but has to study their spellbook to recover any. That sort of thing-- a different FLOW of special abilities in combat for different classes.

I still think this is too restrictive. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable resource management mechanics that don't really fall into a "you have a list of things you can do, and a way to get them back". There are edge cases like At-Will and Encounter power schedules which largely work, but are a little hack-ish with "recover instantly" and "never recover". But there are also things that just don't work, notably most point-based things (like Incarnum, SoP, Psionics, or the Factotum) and any kind of Rage Meter (which is arguably a power point set up, I guess).

Also, you can't really transplant powers from one resource management system to another without thinking about consequences. A no-save stun in fine on a Crusader who gets it once an encounter (if that) but broken on a Warlock who gets it at will.