Why ban ToB?

[el minster]

My DM is banning Tome of Battle and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Can anyone provide insight on this subject?

[Cygnia]

Is this the only book or has he banned others? It may just be that he doesn't want to deal with extra bookkeeping of sources he doesn't have easy access to.

[Elricaltovilla]

Your DM is the only one who can truly answer that question. But the book was divisive when it released, and like many supplemental 3.5 books, it suffered a poor reputation due to people not really reading or understanding it properly and being used by "munchkins" to "powergame." Plenty of DMs disliked it because they felt it was too close to spellcasting, or they found the vaguely eastern flavor didn't jive with their perception of western fantasy, or they took issue with it "replacing" core classes. It's really a matter of opinion, unfortunately.

[Doctor Despair]

The most common reason I've found for DMs to ban things that aren't full-casters or abusive combos are:

* It's unfamiliar (and therefore presenting as either a lot of work to figure out, or fear that it will be overpowered)

* They have poor power-level assessment

Tome of Battle classes are objectively better than most of the standard martials, but still worse than casters. I'd say your best chance of convincing them to let you use it would be to draw up your full build, explain the abilties your character would have at various levels, and compare it to similar abilities that a wizard/cleric/druid would have access to at similar levels. If that doesn't work, just bite the bullet and pick a different class (or a different DM ;) ).

[One Step Two]

The first reason that usually comes to mind is that a new subsystem is something else to learn and then balance into gameplay. The DM may not have the time to analyze the material and balance encounters to account for the increased power-curve that the books adds to the game. It may not sound like a lot, but when at low levels, the most a Martial character can do is attack once per round, to being able to attack two enemies with a single maneuver, between normal attacks can throw off their ability to balance it.

The second is that the martial abilities may not mesh internally with the setting material they use, the often used "It's too anime" when it comes to the maneuver names is not without some merit, but then Eastern Style monks in a western medieval settings is something we've come to peace with.

The only true answer for your DM though is their own reasons! Have a chat with them about it, ask from the point of view why they are banning the material, and remember to come from a place for empathy, and suggest giving it a go in a one-shot to try and test it out if they have any misgivings about the power scale, and if at the end of the day they still don't like it... well it's hard to make people change their tastes, but 3.5 has tons of options out there. Of course if they have banned other material limiting those options, then I feel for your desire to try new things!

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Many groups who ban Tome of Battle do so because they have no ability to judge the power levels of the various classes, and thus they consider it overpowered because the classes presented there are significantly better than the (underpowered) PHB martials.

It's also possible that they just don't want to learn the rather simple maneuver and stance systems introduced in that book, i.e. laziness.

The only other reason I can think of is an irrational fear that it enables broken shenanigans like the 1d2 Crusader, which is also why groups are still banning psionics. That such shenanigans don't actually occur during play, or if they do they can be easily struck down, and that shenanigans that are just as bad or worse are available in core-only, means banning books for this reason is completely nonsensical.

Thus we can only conclude that the reason your DM banned the book was for no good reason.

[Chaos Jackal]

ToB was a divisive book. Those with a better grasp of the system generally liked it; those with skewed views on balance believed it to be overpowered junk or heavily disliked how it "made the core martials irrelevant", and there were also more than a few who, often regardless of mechanics, found the flavor too anime, or too eastern, or too magical.

A DM of mine, for example, hated ToB with a passion. He believed that it was full of broken classes that essentially replaced the core martials. Said DM, of course, thought that monks are good mage-killers, that Dwarven Defender is a great PrC, that factotums are overpowered, that Phantasmal Killer is a strong spell, and actively encouraged the new player who had made a sorceress to pick both Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

So your DM could be among those who think ToB was a book full of broken options. Or he could just dislike long weird names for attacking moves or anime (and while I dislike the anime culture, european swordsmanship manuals actually have plenty of weird names for moves, so it goes both ways).

Or he just hasn't played with the book before and finds adding another subsystem in the game to be troublesome. Could be as simple as that.

[Nifft]

In addition to the good theories above:

ToB maneuvers have flavor text which can evoke Wuxia, Martial Arts, and/or Anime.

Your DM might simply dislike the flavor, even though that's a fairly easy thing to change, and even though some of the flavor is straight-up Paladin or Warlord.

[Crake]

The issue I always heard mentioned was that tome of battle gives caster-level damage, but without caster-level sustainability issues. Not having to pick when you throw out the heavy damage does significantly change the nature of the game, and causes many standard encounters to become rather comical.

Of course, that's something the DM can solve by adjusting encounters, but for a DM who just wants to use encounters and monsters straight from the books with players that use fairly modest levels of optimization, tome of battle does a good job at throwing things out of whack.

[NomGarret]

As has been mentioned, there are a few reasons, some better than others. What other books are available is a good question to ask. It may be limited to what the DM has familiarity with, or it may be they plan on running a psionics game where everyone uses the XPH. I would hope they would have mentioned something like that by now.

Or it may be balance concerns, but beyond the big level, they may have heard of or experienced problems with individual maneuvers. Having problems with Iron Heart Surge is one thing, but it shouldn’t doom a book any more than a poorly written spell would.

[Gusmo]

Unfortunately I've found negative stereotyping be a cause more often than I would have otherwise assumed. It's basically one of those sad and bizarre cases of one type of nerd looking down on another type of nerd. Some people just have such strong negative feelings about fans of Japanese culture that they carry those over into banning the book. You'll often hear such detractors call it something like "The Tome of {scrubbed} Fighting Magic." This is still alien to me because I've never watched Dragon Ball Z or otherwise delved into popular Japanese culture or popular Westernized Japanese culture. Many of us are out there just trying to do our own thing and people foist their own baggage onto the situation.

[el minster]

He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

[Doctor Despair]

...

Also I think he hates how people dip the classes (people dip classes all the time; he can ban multiclassing or, perhaps more lawful evil-ly, actually use the XP-penalties associated with multiclassing if he wants to discourage that, not just blanket-ban ToB)
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum. (note to you, not the DM: it seems like he just doesn't like most sub-systems and is reaching for other excuses. I wouldn't force it on him if he really doesn't want them in his games and seems consistent in that choice. Now, if he lets a player use psionics and still bans you from initiator classes, I'd take issue with it again)

[Tvtyrant]

He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

Sounds like he doesn't know much about 3.5s mechanics and has strong opinions about what flavor classes should have. The best balanced classes are ToB, Binder, Incarnum and Totemist (well also Beguiler, Dread Necro and Warmage.)

[Crake]

Sounds like he doesn't know much about 3.5s mechanics and has strong opinions about what flavor classes should have. The best balanced classes are ToB, Binder, Incarnum and Totemist (well also Beguiler, Dread Necro and Warmage.)

Considering balance is a subjective spectrum, and not an objective truth, there's not really any such thing as a "best balanced class" without some kind of reference point.

[One Step Two]

He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

Okay, so the thing is, you can't tell him anything, it's his choice to make. You can discuss it with him, and try and find a middle ground, one point you can make is that you enjoy playing with him, but want to try new things in the game. Different subsystems can make things a little more difficult in the short term, but they can help diversify things to keep people interested in fun new stuff. Psionics for example is no different than spellcasting, just an alternative resource Power Points vs Spells per day is roughly numerically equivalent (outside of cheese), for example.

The Tome of Battle is a little more precarious, because of the per-encounter basis of the strikes. Perhaps one thing you can try is ask what he thinks about the Martial Study feat, gaining maneuvers as a fighter that way, are they still unbalanced then? Maybe you can reach a middle ground of trying out something new, and giving him a chance to see what it looks like in action without going full-blown into the book, testing the waters?

[Nifft]

Step 1: Play a Druid 20 using only DM-approved spells, feats, and Wild Shape forms.

1.a: DO NOT PUSH.

1.b: Ask for flavor stuff, like "what animals might I encounter in this new terrain?" and only then ask for new Wild Shape forms.

Step 2: Win D&D in spite of (1).

Step 3: When other players complain about optimization, point the group to the tier list (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=8740) and explain how (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11843) WotC did a bad job in balancing the core classes.

--- ==== ---

Good End: Enjoy a better game.

Bad End: Suffer through a group where the DM blames "optimization" for ruining his childhood because Fighters were good enough back then and now these anime video-game furry satanic heavy metal Karens are rabble rabble grumble grumble ...

True End: Become a DM yourself and run a better game.

[el minster]

...

Also I think he hates how people dip the classes (people dip classes all the time; he can ban multiclassing or, perhaps more lawful evil-ly, actually use the XP-penalties associated with multiclassing if he wants to discourage that, not just blanket-ban ToB)
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum. (note to you, not the DM: it seems like he just doesn't like most sub-systems and is reaching for other excuses. I wouldn't force it on him if he really doesn't want them in his games and seems consistent in that choice. Now, if he lets a player use psionics and still bans you from initiator classes, I'd take issue with it again)

He actually does use xp penalties!

[Chaos Jackal]

He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

Given the other books he's banned, he very much sounds like the type who dislikes any system outside the base ones. They're overpowered by default to him.

Just tell him that, in many ways, said systems are actually better crafted than the core ones. He probably won't buy it, but then again that's likely the case with most of your other arguments. People who have decided that new systems pollute, dilute and break their game are rarely dissuaded.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

First of all, anything and everything can be reflavored as you see fit. Shortly after CW was printed I ran a game in which someone played a Hexblade as a witch doctor from an island tribe of warriors. Orcs can be vikings. 100% of the built-in flavor text can be completely ignored and replaced on a whim. You can have four characters with identical builds but none using the same flavor as another, despite using identical game mechanics. The built-in flavor is one of the easiest things to change as it has no impact on game balance, banning something because of its flavor is just lazy.

Second, if he thinks ToB classes replace core martial classes, he hasn't met a CoDzilla. Play a Cleric or Druid that's good at melee combat and be sure to often point out how much better at that than a Fighter or Monk you are.

Third, if you've got a character in mind that relies on using one of those classes in a book he's banned, adapt the character concept to something that's allowed, or set it aside for another time. If he's just as unreasonable in other aspects and you're not enjoying the game, find another game to join. Nobody's forcing you to play with him.

[Yuki Akuma]

You aren't going to convince him his opinions are wrong. You're just going to annoy him by constantly arguing.

And don't intentionally break his game by playing an overpowered core class or something. Don't be a jerk.

[Cygnia]

^
|
What this poster says. If the GM is overall a good GM, don't force the issue or whine that you MUST play from a banned book. And, if the GM is bad, WALK AWAY.

[magicalmagicman]

You aren't going to convince him his opinions are wrong. You're just going to annoy him by constantly arguing.

This guy is right. DMs with lack of system mastery are blind to their own lack of system mastery and think all the changes they do are pro.

I had a DM add a Will Saving Throw to raise dead because he thinks level loss is no big deal and people will just suicide themselves after getting raise dead.

[Zarrgon]

As a DM that also often bans those books it is a simple enough reason: They all turn D&D into Anime/Cartoon/Martial Arts movies and TV shows. It changes D&D from swords and spells to like flying lightning ninjas.

Now some people like that, but some don't.

Also the rules are horrible. The Tome of Battle is the worst of the lot as they just said "hey lets give martials spells but call them maneuvers" . Psionics are also bad as it's...er...lets make a whole other magic system? I mean there is nothing "psionic" about the rules as they are exactly like the magic rules in effects as both "shoot fire" or "let a character fly".

And so many of the rules are vague and incomplete too.

[SLOTHRPG95]

[Insert obligatory comment here how not including a non-core option isn't the same thing as banning.]


Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.


He actually does use xp penalties!

Sounds like in addition to not liking/not being familiar with some of the more popular non-core systems, your DM might be worried about synergies between different sources of power. Or he might just be the sort who thinks dipping two levels of Fighter on a Rogue is OP since "it's free bonus feats," i.e. someone with low system mastery. Either way, you're (probably) not going to change his mind with further argumentation.

[InvisibleBison]

The Tome of Battle is the worst of the lot as they just said "hey lets give martials spells but call them maneuvers" .

You are wrong. There are some structural similarities between maneuvers and spells, but if you look at what the characters are actually doing, there's no similarity at all. A wizard waves her hands about, mutters some gibberish, and shoots a bolt of energy at a foe. A warblade swings her axe really hard and hits a foe for a lot of damage.

[el minster]

As a DM that also often bans those books it is a simple enough reason: They all turn D&D into Anime/Cartoon/Martial Arts movies and TV shows. It changes D&D from swords and spells to like flying lightning ninjas.

Now some people like that, but some don't.

Also the rules are horrible. The Tome of Battle is the worst of the lot as they just said "hey lets give martials spells but call them maneuvers" . Psionics are also bad as it's...er...lets make a whole other magic system? I mean there is nothing "psionic" about the rules as they are exactly like the magic rules in effects as both "shoot fire" or "let a character fly".

And so many of the rules are vague and incomplete too.

Fliying lightning ninjas are cool! : )

[Crake]

You are wrong. There are some structural similarities between maneuvers and spells, but if you look at what the characters are actually doing, there's no similarity at all. A wizard waves her hands about, mutters some gibberish, and shoots a bolt of energy at a foe. A warblade swings her axe really hard and hits a foe for a lot of damage.

I mean, some maneuvers, or even entire disciplines, are explicitly supernatural abilities.


You aren't going to convince him his opinions are wrong. You're just going to annoy him by constantly arguing.

You're never gonna convince anyone of anything with this attitude.


First of all, anything and everything can be reflavored as you see fit. [...] Orcs can be vikings. 100% of the built-in flavor text can be completely ignored and replaced on a whim.

Gonna be weird when that ranger with favoured enemy (Orcs) is dealing extra damage to that human viking you refluffed.

[gogogome]

I've had DMs who said they banned ToB because it felt "weird" and "out of place".

[Maat Mons]

@Zarrgon: What 3.5 psionics did was fix all the bad decisions that had gone into the base spellcasting system.

Prepared Casters: A character's capabilities shouldn't change from one day to the next. Spontaneous casters should be the only casters.
Spell Slots: Caster's eventually have 10 different pools of resources. 9yh-level spells are one pool, 8th-level spells are a separate pool, etc. These should have all been one big pool. The spell point variant should have been made the standard.
Lack of Scaling: I mean really, 9 Summon monster spells? What were they thinking? Just write one spell and let people put more power behind it as they level up.

[Gavinfoxx]

Tell your GM this:

"I can make a better (ie, more accurate) German Doppelsoldner using Tome of Battle than I can any other non third party book in 3.5e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelsoldner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht

Just make him a Greatsword wielding Iron Heart focused Warblade. Done. No magic at all, and the actual moves in the fighting style is actually reminiscent of real world renaissance martial arts that use the two handed sword, and it simulates the flow of fights well too (there are breaks where people do something else before they can do their tricks again, fights have a sort of flow to them which the maneuver recovery system simulates well).

What the book actually does is make melee combat interesting, with varied things to do in melee combat, and it lowers the power discrepancy between magic using characters and non magic using characters (D&D suffers from Linear Warriors, Quadratic Mage syndrome, quite clearly. While ToB doesn't remove this, it narrows the gap a little). You can be as magical or nonmagical as you want; it's a combined system. And it isn't like 3.5e isn't steeped in magic ALREADY for melee combat -- just look at how many of the Monk's powers are supernatural! And compare other melee classes that have lots of magic, including core system-based examples like Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, Duskblade, melee focused Bards, and so forth, not to mention several prestige classes that add magic to melee classes..."

[Kish]

It's entirely up to you if you don't want to play in a game with Tome of Battle banned. I might well make that decision.

But your DM has the right to ban it. Whether his reasons are good or bad, trying to argue him out of it will only annoy both of you. Decide whether you want to play in a game with his house rules, and if the answer is "no," bow out.

[el minster]

thanks, I'll tell him this.

[Biggus]

As a DM, I don't use Tome of Battle for two reasons. Firstly, I struggle to remember the vast number of rules and exceptions and special cases of the core books: I get something wrong most sessions. It's bad enough when you add in the numerous splatbooks that don't include a whole new rules subsystem to learn, so the ones that do (ToB, ToM, psionics, MoI) are right out. Maybe if you've played regularly for years and years you get to the point where you know it all backwards, but lots of DMs aren't at that point. Personally I know some areas of the rules very well but others only in outline.

Secondly, as has been mentioned, it has a very Anime flavour to it, which doesn't fit well into more European-style fantasy settings IMO. It might feel fine to some people, but to me it feels incongruous (just as psionics do: they're very much a sci-fi thing to my mind). If I was running a "fantasy kitchen sink"-style setting it would fit in fine, but in some campaigns it really doesn't (I'm currently running a game set in Britain in the dark ages for example). I know some people say "just refluff it", but since the entire book has a distinctly Anime feel, that'd be no small task.

[Ignimortis]

Considering balance is a subjective spectrum, and not an objective truth, there's not really any such thing as a "best balanced class" without some kind of reference point.

I'd say that "can deal with enemies presented in Monster Manuals at lower optimization levels while not breaking the game wide open at higher optimization levels" is a good starting point for balance, and in that case, those classes are indeed closest to being balanced (not necessarily fully there, since shenanigans with extra spells known exist, but still closer than either Wizard or Fighter).

[Kelb_Panthera]

As a DM that also often bans those books it is a simple enough reason: They all turn D&D into Anime/Cartoon/Martial Arts movies and TV shows. It changes D&D from swords and spells to like flying lightning ninjas.

Bad news, my dude; the single closest thing I've ever seen to D&D style casters in any medium is the "ninjas" in Naruto, particularly in the later arcs.

They have to gesture, they seem to have to declare their attacks in a strong clear voice, and a lot of "jutsu" have something that is the focus of the effect or is a material that is consumed in the performance of it. That's somatic, verbal, focus, and material components for their blatantly magical abilities. That's D&D spellcasting. You note that some "ninja" can perform some of their "jutsu" without such things? Yeah, that's metamagic. You'd describe virtually all of them in D&D terms as sorcerer based gishes.


Now some people like that, but some don't.

Making rulings based on personal taste is a thing. I try to avoid it but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. If that's what you're doing though, don't mince words and try to justify it. Just admit that's what you're doing and move on. It's essentiallly arbitrary but you're allowed to be arbitrary sometimes. If you do it too much you'll have a heck of a time finding players but... *shrug*


Also the rules are horrible. The Tome of Battle is the worst of the lot as they just said "hey lets give martials spells but call them maneuvers" . Psionics are also bad as it's...er...lets make a whole other magic system? I mean there is nothing "psionic" about the rules as they are exactly like the magic rules in effects as both "shoot fire" or "let a character fly".

And this is why you don't try to justify it. It makes you look silly when you say things that can be refuted.

There are bugs in all of the game's subsystems. There's no doubt of that. I do, however, mean -all- of the game's subsystems; not just the splat-book one. The core spellcasting subsytem has to be the worst of them for that by far. Various stripes of metamagic mitigation can easily get out of hand. There are combos that allow you to circumvent initiative, take extra turns worth of actions, and there are individual spells that allow you to just wholesale "nope" certain kinds of foes or root around in the DM's toolbox for a few minutes. Psionics gives you some of the same options (in at least one case better than magic) but not others. None of the others even come close.

As for ToB in particular, it's easily the least difficult to implement and troubleshoot. Its ability to "replace" the core martials is grossly overstated, for one thing. They don't hit particularly harder except at the lowest levels, for instance. And unless you're shearing off most of the rest of the standard suplements, they don't even offer martials the ability to do things they couldn't have done before. Seriously, a warblade is -very- little different to a straight fighter but for a bigger HD and fewer proficiencies when you actually apply seriously scrutiny. When you look at the feats and items sections of ToB that difference shrinks even further to being basically just higher level maneuvers and not even all of those.

Ultimately ToB did a lot more to consolidate and simplify interesting and high--power warrior type abilities than anything on the mechanics end.

Then there's the flavor. The whole, "Reshar gathers the martial arts of all the different schools into a single unified system with spiritual undertones," thing does run parallel to the aleged foundation of the southern shaolin temple. I can't really deny that. It is, however, the easiest part of the book to dispense with. It's literally all fluff and potential adventure hooks. The flavor tied to the actual mechanics is much more universal to fighting systems from all over the world. Flowery names are all over historial european martial arts texts, feats of prowess that laugh in the face of reality are writ large the legends of the celtic, greco-roman, and slavic peoples, and the itinerant warrior trope is a major feature of Arthurian legend.

The fact that the eastern versions of these ideas and tropes are more prominent in popular culture today is the only reason most people get this impression that ToB is "too anime." It's just fantastic in a more over-the-top sort of way than when the edition launched.



And so many of the rules are vague and incomplete too.

There are notable number of holes in ToM, certainly. ToB missed a couple too, though far fewer. Magic of Incarnum only really suffers from organizational issues; it could''ve been layed out better than it was. Psionics... psionics after the 3e changeover is written just as well and to the same degree of overall system balance as anything in the vancian magic subsystem. The only one that''s really incomplete though is ToM's truenaming. There's an important DC that had to be eratta'd in because they missed it on the final review before publishing. Everything else is complete, whatever else you might say about it; vague, weird, under/over--powered, etc.

Simple fact is; you don't have to like any of it. You don't have to use any of it. Just don't act like it's something it's not to try and justify those feelings and decisions.

[Elves]

I know some people say "just refluff it", but since the entire book has a distinctly Anime feel, that'd be no small task.

Just ban the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools and ban any Devoted Spirit maneuvers you think are too magical. Boom, the book is completely nonmagical and non-anime. Some vaguely anime-ish flavor text makes no difference.

That said, to OP, if you do want to play with this DM, there are so many different possible characters in 3e that you should just build something else and not something that will annoy him.

[Biggus]

Just ban the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools and ban any Devoted Spirit maneuvers you think are too magical. Boom, the book is completely nonmagical and non-anime. Some vaguely anime-ish flavor text makes no difference.


Thanks for the tip, I'll bear that in mind when I finally get round to having another look at it.

[Nifft]

Secondly, as has been mentioned, it has a very Anime flavour to it, which doesn't fit well into more European-style fantasy settings IMO. It might feel fine to some people, but to me it feels incongruous (just as psionics do: they're very much a sci-fi thing to my mind). If I was running a "fantasy kitchen sink"-style setting it would fit in fine, but in some campaigns it really doesn't (I'm currently running a game set in Britain in the dark ages for example). I know some people say "just refluff it", but since the entire book has a distinctly Anime feel, that'd be no small task.

It looks like you read about the Swordsage (the martial-arts replacement for Monk), and you ignored both Warblade and Crusader?

Crusader, the first class in the book, plays like a Paladin ought to play. If you think Paladin don't belong in your European-style fantasy then fair enough, but if that archetype would fit in then you're dismissing something excellent and appropriate just because it's associated with something else.

Warblade can build a better Conan than the Barbarian class. Shrug off wicked magic? Yep. Inspire an ally? Yep. Leap into position with remarkable athleticism? Oh yep indeed. That's not the only thing you can build with the class. It's also great for a Dwarf whose knowledge of stonework is so superb his axe can hew through a granite door, or a duelist whose focus allows him to shrug off supernatural effects with sheer martial focus, and likewise apply his focus to attacking and damaging his foes.

Swordsage is the mystical martial arts class -- which you already have one of in the core book, the Monk -- but the Swordsage is actually good at the job. You don't need to use it if you don't want Monks in your game. It sounds like this is the bit you're most familiar with so I'm not going to talk much about it.


tl;dr - if you're going to throw out a whole book just for having one Monk-like class, you need to burn your PHB right now.

[Ignimortis]

tl;dr - if you're going to throw out a whole book just for having one Monk-like class, you need to burn your PHB right now.

And that would achieve much more for bringing the game to a balanced state, too. Dark blue because I'm only partially kidding.

[el minster]

Just ban the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools and ban any Devoted Spirit maneuvers you think are too magical. Boom, the book is completely nonmagical and non-anime. Some vaguely anime-ish flavor text makes no difference.

That said, to OP, if you do want to play with this DM, there are so many different possible characters in 3e that you should just build something else and not something that will annoy him.

But paladins have cool magicc powers too. Maybe just make them supernatural abilities.

[Biggus]

It looks like you read about the Swordsage (the martial-arts replacement for Monk), and you ignored both Warblade and Crusader?

Crusader, the first class in the book, plays like a Paladin ought to play. If you think Paladin don't belong in your European-style fantasy then fair enough, but if that archetype would fit in then you're dismissing something excellent and appropriate just because it's associated with something else.

Warblade can build a better Conan than the Barbarian class. Shrug off wicked magic? Yep. Inspire an ally? Yep. Leap into position with remarkable athleticism? Oh yep indeed. That's not the only thing you can build with the class. It's also great for a Dwarf whose knowledge of stonework is so superb his axe can hew through a granite door, or a duelist whose focus allows him to shrug off supernatural effects with sheer martial focus, and likewise apply his focus to attacking and damaging his foes.

Swordsage is the mystical martial arts class -- which you already have one of in the core book, the Monk -- but the Swordsage is actually good at the job. You don't need to use it if you don't want Monks in your game. It sounds like this is the bit you're most familiar with so I'm not going to talk much about it.


tl;dr - if you're going to throw out a whole book just for having one Monk-like class, you need to burn your PHB right now.

I'll admit I haven't read the book in great detail (see the first point in my first post) and also that the Swordsage did seem like the worst of the three to me in terms of being Anime-like. But it's not just that: pretty much every page of the book seemed flavoured that way to some extent or other, which is why it seems like a big job to reflavour it.

[Gusmo]

I'll admit I haven't read the book in great detail (see the first point in my first post) and also that the Swordsage did seem like the worst of the three to me in terms of being Anime-like. But it's not just that: pretty much every page of the book seemed flavoured that way to some extent or other, which is why it seems like a big job to reflavour it.

That's you making that projection. As a player who knows nothing about Naruto or anything, I would much rather everyone took their baggage with them and let me create the character I want. My first exposure to this issue was trying to create Sheik/Zelda with a swordsage. Most of the room started babbling about all this stuff too, and it was so annoying I brought a new character the next session.

Edit: I will mention that I actually enjoy monks, another class which tends to have unfortunate baggage foisted onto it by others. So I thought this was finally an opportunity to play an unarmed martial artist without monk baggage. Out of the frying pan, and into the fire. :smallannoyed:

[Nifft]

I'll admit I haven't read the book in great detail (see the first point in my first post) and also that the Swordsage did seem like the worst of the three to me in terms of being Anime-like. But it's not just that: pretty much every page of the book seemed flavoured that way to some extent or other, which is why it seems like a big job to reflavour it.

The thing is, none of that is from anime.

It's from martial arts.

Anime does take inspiration from martial arts, but anime also takes inspiration from Disney -- and I bet you think Disney isn't identical to anime, because you were already familiar with Disney.


There really ought to be room in Western fantasy for skilled martial artists -- unless you're taking the stance that non-casters are worthless muggles who should be treated like NPCs, and that's effectively how the PHB segregates classes by magic access -- but if you want your game to include Hector and Perseus and Fafhrd and Captain America and Boromir and Batman, and you want the people playing those PCs to do awesome things, then you'll need rules which allow skilled martial artists to be awesome.

ToB has those rules.

[el minster]

The thing is, none of that is from anime.

It's from martial arts.

Anime does take inspiration from martial arts, but anime also takes inspiration from Disney -- and I bet you think Disney isn't identical to anime, because you were already familiar with Disney.


There really ought to be room in Western fantasy for skilled martial artists -- unless you're taking the stance that non-casters are worthless muggles who should be treated like NPCs, and that's effectively how the PHB segregates classes by magic access -- but if you want your game to include Hector and Perseus and Fafhrd and Captain America and Boromir and Batman, and you want the people playing those PCs to do awesome things, then you'll need rules which allow skilled martial artists to be awesome.

ToB has those rules.
but what about the part where you just keep making attacks at increasing penalties until you miss.

[Ignimortis]

but what about the part where you just keep making attacks at increasing penalties until you miss.

That's just a better Full Attack, which means you're assaulting your enemy with everything you've got. It doesn't have to be anime-like "swords swinging so fast you can't even see them, only hear the clashes", although in my game, that's certainly how it works if the character got off more than six or seven attacks successfully.

[Gavinfoxx]

Keep on making multiple attacks at penalties at until you miss? Like a full attack action? Or how about the sorts of moves you can actually do with an actual real life sword to quickly adjust the direction of motion if they parry you to attack them from a different line of attack? Look up "winding" or "winden" in the German school of swordfighting.

[Biggus]

This subject seems to bring up a lot of hostility when people say they don't like it or don't want to use it. Most DMs I've played with have certain books/classes/monsters etc that they just don't like or don't feel fits into their campaign world; in my experience games where absolutely all material is allowed are the exception, not the rule. What is it about ToB that get people so riled up?


That's you making that projection.


IMO...to me it feels...to my mind...did seem like...to me...seemed

What part of what I said made you think what I was saying was anything other than how it feels to me?


The thing is, none of that is from anime.

It's from martial arts.


It's not just martial arts, it's Eastern martial arts specifically. And not just that, mystical martial arts. Anime is just a convenient catch-all term for it, you could call it wuxia or whatever. As I said, I've not read the book in great detail, but it seemed to me to be written almost entirely in a particular culturally-specific flavour.

[Ignimortis]

This subject seems to bring up a lot of hostility when people say they don't like it or don't want to use it. Most DMs I've played with have certain books/classes/monsters etc that they just don't like or don't feel fits into their campaign world; in my experience games where absolutely all material is allowed are the exception, not the rule. What is it about ToB that get people so riled up?


Mostly that banning it means the DM is fine with how bad and/or boring standard PHB martials are, and, by projection, fine with how casters are so much better in both departments to an extent it's better to play a cleric than a paladin or a fighter if you want to actually be a melee guy smashing people.

[Gusmo]

What part of what I said made you think what I was saying was anything other than how it feels to me?


Are you going to respond to the rest of my post? In any context where someone brings a character to table, and you impose your own fluff on it, that's going to piss people off. Especially when what you're projecting is based around negative stereotypes.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's not just martial arts, it's Eastern martial arts specifically. And not just that, mystical martial arts. Anime is just a convenient catch-all term for it, you could call it wuxia or whatever. As I said, I've not read the book in great detail, but it seemed to me to be written almost entirely in a particular culturally-specific flavour.


So, you should ban Hexblade, Paladin, Monk, Ranger, Bard, and Duskblade, because they have supernatural abilities that improve their martial arts in a mystic way, or spells that can self-buff in ways that are, essentially, Mystic Martial Arts?

[Chaos Jackal]

This subject seems to bring up a lot of hostility when people say they don't like it or don't want to use it. Most DMs I've played with have certain books/classes/monsters etc that they just don't like or don't feel fits into their campaign world; in my experience games where absolutely all material is allowed are the exception, not the rule. What is it about ToB that get people so riled up?

Probably because people don't mind it very much if some spells or some PrCs or even some non-core classes are out. These are the kind of things you like for flavor or for specific concepts or just for variety. You don't want them out, but you still have things to do with the rest of the books.

But ToB is the kind of book people often like because they feel it allows them to finally play something properly. In this case the battle master, the divine warrior and the mystical martial artist. Not just a specific character, or one more thing to add to the pool to make things more diverse, but to actually make a monk-like character, any monk-like character, who can hit on his attacks, or an effective fighter-type that isn't a full attacker, charger or tripper.

Removing ToB, for many, is the removal of the chance to finally go martial and not get bored out of their heads. And that is a much worse feeling than not getting three spells you wanted out of Frostburn or having to make a gish through Eldritch Knight or Abjurant Champion because Duskblade isn't allowed. Or even a mind controller who isn't psychic.

On the opposite side, ToB attracts the wrath of the conservative crew who can't or don't want to accept that the PHB is terribly imbalanced in the first place and reactively target other systems to explain how problems with the game arise from other sources. And that crew also happens to be quite confrontational when told the imbalance and problems are elsewhere.

Oh, and westernized eastern culture is another thing that people tend to feel strongly about. On both sides.

So ToB ends up mixing plenty of passion from both its defenders and its detractors.

[FaerieGodfather]

On Supplements:

You know, the simple fact that he's not familiar with the rules in a niche supplement and doesn't want to learn them is more than sufficient reason not to allow them.

I have a friend who only runs "core only" 3.0 and 3.5. I'll admit that I've fought with her about this-- not because I think she should be obligated to allow all the supplements, but because the first couple of times she offered, she said "D&D" at first and then didn't say "core only" until session zero.

Now we both know better; I don't ask to join her D&D games, and she doesn't ask me to.

I only run TSR D&D now. I am really flexible about what I allow, especially in Classic D&D, but if it's not something I whitelisted during session zero I am much more likely to try to build you the class you want-- out of the tools I already have-- than try to learn a new ruleset on the fly.

On Mechanics:

In addition to adding a new subsystem for GMs to have to learn... Book of Nine Swords commits a cardinal sin. Instead of improving the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin-- or doing anything with the Barbarian and Ranger-- it completely invalidates all of those classes. I would happily allow Book of Nine Swords or Path of War (but not both) material in a 3.PF game, but I am not likely to ever allow the base classes from those books.

Perfectly willing to negotiate adding initiator abilities to existing classes, though, making something between a Hybrid and a Gestalt out of them.

On Fluff/Flavor:

The fluff/flavor issue is tricky, because a lot of people have this false conception of D&D being a "Western Europe" thing-- Asian-style mystical martial arts have been part of D&D since before Advanced-- and also because people have a false conception of "Eastern versus Western" martial arts borne of comparing "modern" (19th century) military and sports training to the ancient martial traditions of Europe.

If you study a lot of Germanic and Slavic and Celtic folklore, powerful warriors had some explicitly magical and terrifying special abilities that just weren't available to wizards and witches and shamans. Study historical sources in HEMA, and some of those old fechtbucher made promises that would make Yellow Bamboo look like Tae Bo.

Point blank, a lot of people are uncomfortable with that flavor and they don't want it in their D&D. Third Edition was actually a big step away from this, compared to Advanced and Classic... Fourth leaned into it and provoked a massive backlash that led to Fifth utterly rejecting it. Official Pathfinder declined to reprint psionics or reprise anything like Book of Nine Swords, opening the door for Dreamscarred Press to both clean house-- and be banned by groups that only play with "official" material.

And there really are two camps on the reskinning/refluffing issue: some people think the mechanics are just mechanics, and the fluff can be reimagined to anything that could theoretically produce the same mechanical effect. Some people think the mechanics are intended to-- or, at least, should[/b]-- actually reflect the fictional reality of the game in some fashion, and that the fluff that justifies the mechanics [i]is part of the mechanics.

I'm firmly in the latter camp. I don't mind the former camp, and I'm willing to work with them to help them play the character they want to play... to a point. That point comes when they start ignoring/dismissing the fictional reality and the tone of the game they are asking me to run for them, and when they start demanding that I accommodate them.

Players are not obligated to play in games that are not suited to their tastes. Likewise, GMs aren't obligated to run the games their players want them to-- neither the whole rulesets nor the supplements.

There are a lot of bad reasons to ban various supplemental materials, and we've all seen them. But "I don't want to learn another complicated subsystem" and "this does not fit the flavor I want in this game" are-- either one-- perfectly valid and perfectly sufficient reasons to ban ToB/PoW.

[Nifft]

It's not just martial arts, it's Eastern martial arts specifically. And not just that, mystical martial arts. Anime is just a convenient catch-all term for it, you could call it wuxia or whatever. As I said, I've not read the book in great detail, but it seemed to me to be written almost entirely in a particular culturally-specific flavour.
Warblade and Crusader are not particularly Eastern by default.

Swordsage (the Monk equivalent) includes Eastern mystical martial arts, but of course so does the Monk. However, a Swordsage could be built with only Western-themed disciplines.

For example, you could use a Swordsage to build an exceptional rapier duelist, with Diamond Mind maneuvers to represent martial focus, Setting Sun to ward off attacks with a free hand, and Stone Dragon to showcase the brutal penetrating power of a thrust which ignores hardness and DR. That creates something like the Duelist PrC, except better because that PrC kinda sucks.

Is the Duelist PrC "too anime" for your table?

[martixy]

Ignorance.

[Elricaltovilla]

On Mechanics:

In addition to adding a new subsystem for GMs to have to learn... Book of Nine Swords commits a cardinal sin. Instead of improving the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin-- or doing anything with the Barbarian and Ranger-- it completely invalidates all of those classes. I would happily allow Book of Nine Swords or Path of War (but not both) material in a 3.PF game, but I am not likely to ever allow the base classes from those books.

Perfectly willing to negotiate adding initiator abilities to existing classes, though, making something between a Hybrid and a Gestalt out of them.



Good news for you on that front if you ever consider running 3.PF material. Path of War: Expanded has class archetypes for all the martial base classes that gives them access to maneuvers, should you ever find yourself interested in trying it out.

[thereaper]

Because people don't realize that Goku is a Sorceror who rolled an 18 for Str and Con. He flies, teleports, makes himself stronger, polymorphs into a more powerful state, and throws evocation magic at his enemies, all through the use of verbal and somatic gestures and an innate pool of supernatural power that he has an unusual talent for due to his unique ancestry.

[RNightstalker]

My DM is banning Tome of Battle and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Can anyone provide insight on this subject?


He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

Now we know why. I'd dig up another build you like or want to try that does fall under this DM's allowed materials. It's possible that those are just excuses to cover the real reason. There's already too much arguing in D&D. I'd pick another battle to fight.

[Red Fel]

There are a lot of valid positions here. "The mechanics are complicated for me to learn" is a fair one, because - like spellcasting - there are a lot of mechanics to learn. It's a new subsystem and if you, as DM, don't know a subsystem, you're absolutely right to refuse it at your table.

There are, however, two positions in this thread with which I take issue very specifically. Not that they aren't valid arguments, they are, but that there are very concrete facts which significantly undermine them.

First, to those who say that there are too many maneuvers to follow or understand, I say: Maneuver cards (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a). If you have any concerns about understanding what maneuvers do or how they work, require any player using them to use maneuver cards. That way, both you and the player know exactly what each one does. Problem solved.

Second, to those who take issue with the fluff, I respond: It is fluff. By definition, you can refluff it, and it is not so challenging an undertaking. Setting aside maneuver names - because you can ignore those - take the concept from classic swashbuckling films instead. Do you remember the dueling scene in Princess Bride? Let me quickly recap some dialogue for you:


Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah?
Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain.
Inigo: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?
Man in Black: Naturally, but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you?
Inigo: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have.
This is what ToB can feel like, refluffed. Instead of anime samurai and ninja, two polite swordsmen fencing and critiquing one another's maneuvers. Consider:

"You are using Tiger Claw against me, ah?"
"I find that an overwhelming offense can quickly subdue opponents."
"Naturally, you must expect me to defend with Stone Dragon."
"Naturally, but I find that Diamond Mind cancels out Stone Dragon. Don't you?"
"Unless the enemy has studied Iron Heart. Which I have."
Same concept, two studied swordsmen dueling with particular styles. And it holds up in a pseudo-European system. Compare a Scottish clansman wielding massive a claidheamh mór with a French aristocrat brandishing an épée. Compare a landsknechte trained on the zweihander with an Ottoman Turk swinging his kilij. These are different weapons, in different styles, requiring different training and techniques. This swordsman swings his massive blade like an axe, favoring power over all else; that one uses a blade for thrusting and piercing, this one for elegant spins and dazzling slashes. They've each been trained in unique styles, with different foci and objectives.

Shadow Hand is just... Yeah, I'll admit, that's super anime and tricky to refluff. Even if you do it as stabbing pressure points, it still has that feel. But the rest of them you can work with.

[Nifft]

Shadow Hand is just... Yeah, I'll admit, that's super anime and tricky to refluff. Even if you do it as stabbing pressure points, it still has that feel. But the rest of them you can work with.

Shadow Hand early levels is what Shadowdancer PrC tried to deliver, and that's from the DMG.

[AntiAuthority]

He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.

I'd recommend talking to your DM about this, maybe talking to other players and see how they feel about banning these books and if enough people agree, approach the DM as a group to air your complaints.

About being too anime... Your DM does realize Monks are in the game, right? Anime just heavily borrows from mythology (even if indirectly), so your DM might as well be saying "everything is too anime" since D&D was directly/indirectly inspired by mythology. If you think this'll help change his mind... Point him to the Cu Chulainn and Journey to the West videos by Overly Sarcastic Productions as for why "anime like moves" doesn't make sense, as those types of things are present in things that predate the medium by centuries/millennia. And yes, Wizards are also pulling from mythology, so they're pulling off "anime like moves" too, so he's basically playing a double standard.

Yeah... About them replacing already existing classes and him having a problem with you wanting to play something that feels useful... That sounds more like a him problem than anything with the book. If you're dead set on playing a martial class, you might want to bring this up to him, as you want to feel like you're not playing with a subpar class because of his hangups.

And about D&D being Western European Fantasy in regards to fluff/setting... It can be that thing, but that's not all it is. In the earlier versions of D&D, Monks and Psionics exist, showing it's not Sword & Sorcery. One of the first (or very first) D&D modules in existence had a BBEG that was an alien (possibly... Whatever he was, he wasn't native to their planet/dimension) and another one that Gygax had a hand in had the players go into an alien spaceship and fight malfunctioning robots. Nothing about these elements scream Sword & Sorcery to me, D&D's whatever you want it to be.

[Red Fel]

Shadow Hand early levels is what Shadowdancer PrC tried to deliver, and that's from the DMG.

Oh, yeah, no. Some of it, like the stealth stuff, is great. Other stuff, like literally teleporting or the Long Name Anime Death Touch of Murder, that's a bit trickier.

[Nifft]

Oh, yeah, no. Some of it, like the stealth stuff, is great. Other stuff, like literally teleporting or the Long Name Anime Death Touch of Murder, that's a bit trickier.

Shadowdancer also does the teleporting though, and so can a level 6 Warlock, and so can a Jaunter, and so can a Binder with Tenebrous. How is teleportation off-theme for Western shadowy PCs?


Five Finger Shadow Enervation Heart Stab Bad-Touch Icy McNasty is the sort of name you'd expect to see in martial arts films, and you can see the equivalent naming sensibility in Kill Bill (for example). There are certainly anime which also borrow from martial arts, but martial arts isn't anime just like Kill Bill isn't anime, and neither is Bad-Touch Icy McNasty.

It's no more anime than the 1e Monk's fabled attack, Quivering Palm:


The last ability gained, and perhaps the most terrible power, is that fabled attack which enables the monk to set up vibrations in the body of the victim, and the monk can then control such vibrations so as to cause death to occur when the monk stops them. Known as the “quivering palm”, the monk merely touches his victim to set up the deadly vibrations. (...)


Anime has borrowed "special attack" names from martial arts for coolness points, but anime also borrowed big eyes from Disney for cuteness points, and it would be unreasonable to decry every Disney character as being "anime" for using the traits anime borrowed from Disney.

It's similarly unreasonable to criticize martial arts for using the traits which anime borrowed from martial arts.

[Xervous]

There is the side detail of Naruto’s creator originally pitching it as Sages, rather than the Ninjas branding it ran away with.

Makes me wonder what people generally think the premier samurai weapon was...

Tangents aside, ToB and others are eye opening to the fact that some base 3.5e classes are the scrapings out of an otyugh hole. When such revelations come along assaulting what some hold as sacred cows reactions can be less than enthusiastic.

[Nifft]

There is the side detail of Naruto’s creator originally pitching it as Sages, rather than the Ninjas branding it ran away with. IIRC that show was basically D&D wizards with some ninja flavor crystals thrown on top, but I mostly remember the fight scenes so maybe I'm wrong.


Makes me wonder what people generally think the premier samurai weapon was...
1 - Wealth (including diet and education)
2 - Being on a Horse
3 - Yelling at Peasants (social position)
4 - Bow
5 - Katana
6 - Honor
7 - Poetry


Tangents aside, ToB and others are eye opening to the fact that some base 3.5e classes are the scrapings out of an otyugh hole. When such revelations come along assaulting what some hold as sacred cows reactions can be less than enthusiastic.
Yeah, this is misdirected resentment at ruining some childhood memories because this edition's version of those classes kinda sucks.

It's not a reaction you can necessarily reason them out of, either, since it's an emotional reaction.

But you might be able to re-direct it onto better targets.

[Darrin]

We see these "ban ToB!" discussions quite often. From what I can tell, the most stubborn opponents to ToB basically boil down to "I don't like it!", which is particularly frustrating because there's not much you can do rhetorically except maybe drill-down into their personal biases and see if you can elucidate the sources of their hypocrisy.

At Gary Gygax's own table, he had a "no gunpowder" rule. As I understand it, Gygax didn't like gunpowder because it ruined in his mind the flavor of the genre he was trying to evoke: "High Fantasy". However, the existence of this rule is utterly perplexing, considering how often his group went adventuring into other "worlds" and mixed different genres into the game. The original "Temple of the Frog" (which I understand was largely Arneson's creation) featured aliens, spaceships, antimatter rifles, the "Solar Federation", etc. Gygax's own Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is full of sci-fi elements, which can be explained away somewhat as Gygax creating interest and attracting D&D players into trying Metamorphosis Alpha. He even sent one of his players to Barsoom, and Castle Greyhawk somewhat infamously includes the bridge crew of Star Trek's Enterprise (no gunpowder but phasers and tricorders are ok? Hmm.)

When Gygax did a crossover into the Wild West, Don Kaye brought back a pair of "six-shooters" for his Murlynd character. Gygax was insistent that there was still "no gunpowder" in Greyhawk, but created a loophole specifically for Don Kaye: his revolvers were NOT using gunpower, but were magic wands that produced a loud sound and shot out magic projectiles that worked much like bullets (but were totally not bullets, definitely definitely not bullets). You'd think that after successfully merging so many genres into D&D, Gygax might have learned his lesson, and maybe loosened up his "head canon" a bit, but he did not. When he wrote Lejendary Journeys, he included a homage to his dear friend, "Kaydon's Thunderous Bolters", which worked very much like Murlynd's old six-shooters, but yet again he made it very clear that these devices fired their projectiles via magic, not gunpower.

As you've pointed out, the objection to not allowing "anime-style" martial-arts attacks in D&D is ludicrous. They've existed in the game for as long as monks have been in the game. Also, the monk completely *SUCKS* at it, so much so it is hard to describe how badly the class is designed with just words. It feels like the Monk designer saw half of a Hong Kong martial arts movie, created the class from that, and blatantly tried to ignore the rich tradition of Wuxia and martial arts movies we've all come to know and love. We already have several decades of Japanese RPGs showing us exactly how you can add "sword techniques" and special magic attacks to fighters and it absolutely does not harm the "fantasy" genre at all.

So it sounds like your DM has a "no gunpowder" rule, and while it's important to respect the DM's right to declare what can or cannot be included in his campaign world... I think you might try pointing out that the practice of RPGs involves building a cooperative narrative that is shared with the players. And while fighters hopping around casting "spells" with their swords might ruin his sense of immersion, it's hurting your enjoyment as a player. Try approaching this discussion with something like, "Look, I know you don't personally like this book all that much, but I enjoy it immensely, and it would really mean a lot to me if I could use this as part of my character."

[el minster]

Shadowdancer also does the teleporting though, and so can a level 6 Warlock, and so can a Jaunter, and so can a Binder with Tenebrous. How is teleportation off-theme for Western shadowy PCs?


Five Finger Shadow Enervation Heart Stab Bad-Touch Icy McNasty is the sort of name you'd expect to see in martial arts films, and you can see the equivalent naming sensibility in Kill Bill (for example). There are certainly anime which also borrow from martial arts, but martial arts isn't anime just like Kill Bill isn't anime, and neither is Bad-Touch Icy McNasty.

It's no more anime than the 1e Monk's fabled attack, Quivering Palm:



Anime has borrowed "special attack" names from martial arts for coolness points, but anime also borrowed big eyes from Disney for cuteness points, and it would be unreasonable to decry every Disney character as being "anime" for using the traits anime borrowed from Disney.

It's similarly unreasonable to criticize martial arts for using the traits which anime borrowed from martial arts.

Shadow dancers teleportation is extremely limited.

[Elves]

Calling it martial spells is also a misnomer. Nothing is inherently spell-like about the power format used for spells and maneuvers. You could apply it to anything. That's exactly what they did in 4e.


Basic Attack
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee
Target: One creature

As part of this maneuver, make a melee attack at your highest base attack bonus.


Flurry of Blows
Level: Monk 1
Initiation Action: 1 full-round action
Range: Melee
Target: One or more creatures
Saving Throw: No

Make a full attack using your unarmed strike or a monk weapon. As part of this full attack, you may make an extra attack at your highest base attack bonus, but every attack is made at a -2 penalty.


Etc.

[Nifft]

Shadow dancers teleportation is extremely limited.

Sure, but the limit is different than what Shadow Hand gives.

Shadowdancer can use dimension door up to 160 ft. each day with no limitation about bringing friends along.

Shadow Hand grants teleportation up to 50 ft. at a time, self-only, with some delay between uses.


IMHO Shadow Hand is more fun for a PC, but it also has limits. They're just limits which are better designed specifically for use in combat.

[Xervous]

1 - Wealth (including diet and education)
2 - Being on a Horse
3 - Yelling at Peasants (social position)
4 - Bow
5 - Katana
6 - Honor
7 - Poetry

Oh shush, I was expecting people who don’t understand the “he’s a good swordsman” insult.

[Chaos Jackal]

1 - Wealth (including diet and education)
2 - Being on a Horse
3 - Yelling at Peasants (social position)
4 - Bow
5 - Katana
6 - Honor
7 - Poetry

You mean it's not their ruby nightmare katana?

[el minster]

Sure, but the limit is different than what Shadow Hand gives.

Shadowdancer can use dimension door up to 160 ft. each day with no limitation about bringing friends along.

Shadow Hand grants teleportation up to 50 ft. at a time, self-only, with some delay between uses.


IMHO Shadow Hand is more fun for a PC, but it also has limits. They're just limits which are better designed specifically for use in combat.

Yeah but you could just get a 1 a day use magic item instead of dipping shadow dancer

[Nifft]

You mean it's not their ruby nightmare katana? In the deepest fires of the earth, this ruby has been folded over a thousand times.


Yeah but you could just get a 1 a day use magic item instead of dipping shadow dancer By 10th level it's up to 16/day, and it moves the whole party.

[el minster]

By 10th level it's up to 16/day, and it moves the whole party.

only 10 feet!!

[Nifft]

only 10 feet!!

The bars on a jail cell are how thick?

The lich's wall of force is how thick?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

At Gary Gygax's own table, he had a "no gunpowder" rule. As I understand it, Gygax didn't like gunpowder because it ruined in his mind the flavor of the genre he was trying to evoke: "High Fantasy". However, the existence of this rule is utterly perplexing, considering how often his group went adventuring into other "worlds" and mixed different genres into the game. The original "Temple of the Frog" (which I understand was largely Arneson's creation) featured aliens, spaceships, antimatter rifles, the "Solar Federation", etc. Gygax's own Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is full of sci-fi elements, which can be explained away somewhat as Gygax creating interest and attracting D&D players into trying Metamorphosis Alpha. He even sent one of his players to Barsoom, and Castle Greyhawk somewhat infamously includes the bridge crew of Star Trek's Enterprise (no gunpowder but phasers and tricorders are ok? Hmm.)

When Gygax did a crossover into the Wild West, Don Kaye brought back a pair of "six-shooters" for his Murlynd character. Gygax was insistent that there was still "no gunpowder" in Greyhawk, but created a loophole specifically for Don Kaye: his revolvers were NOT using gunpower, but were magic wands that produced a loud sound and shot out magic projectiles that worked much like bullets (but were totally not bullets, definitely definitely not bullets). You'd think that after successfully merging so many genres into D&D, Gygax might have learned his lesson, and maybe loosened up his "head canon" a bit, but he did not. When he wrote Lejendary Journeys, he included a homage to his dear friend, "Kaydon's Thunderous Bolters", which worked very much like Murlynd's old six-shooters, but yet again he made it very clear that these devices fired their projectiles via magic, not gunpower.

This isn't actually as confusing or hypocritical as it might seem at first glance. There are several different sections in the 1e DMG regarding crossovers between settings (including the infamous Boot Hill and Gamma World conversion rules), and in those sections Gygax talks about the kinds of crossovers he's run in his own games (including an Alice in Wonderland crossover on top of the ones you mentioned) and encourages making crossovers with all sorts of settings. However, the two points he makes repeatedly are that (A) the game works best (at least in his opinion) when the game's baseline assumption is "realms [of] fantasy as found in swords & sorcery or myth" and incorporates cowboys and aliens and such only in isolated dungeons or as part of brief side adventures, rather than trying to throw everything into a single totally-kitchen-sink setting and (B) incorporating nonstandard monsters/classes/items/etc. can be a lot of work for a DM on both the mechanical and the setting side and DMs "will be hard pressed [to incorporate such elements] unless you rely upon other game systems to fill the gaps."

It's kind of like how--speaking of Star Trek--the crew of the Enterprise constantly runs into one-off aliens and technologies that make for a great episode or two but would dramatically impact the show if they stuck around for longer than that. Voyager did the equivalent of "bringing gunpowder from Boot Hill to Greyhawk" when it picked up a bunch of high-tech stuff from the Borg like ablative armor generators and transwarp conduits and such and brought it all back to the Federation in its final few episodes...and ever since then Star Trek has been focusing on endless prequels instead of trying to set things after Voyager (with the exception of Picard and Discovery, which basically ignore all of the post-Voyager tech developments) because dealing with that kind of shake-up to the setting's previous technology base makes it hard for writers to come up with new threats and challenges for the protagonists.

So I feel it's plenty reasonable to try to restrict the kinds of unintended/out-of-genre influences one lets into the game, for conservation of detail and easing the DM workload if nothing else. But of course that point doesn't really apply to incorporating ToB because, as has been pointed out already, even if you feel it's "too anime" the monk and sorcerer were doing their thing long before ToB came around.

[el minster]

The bars on a jail cell are how thick?

The lich's wall of force is how thick?

There are somany easier ways to do that

[Nifft]

This isn't actually as confusing or hypocritical as it might seem at first glance. There are several different sections in the 1e DMG regarding crossovers between settings (including the infamous Boot Hill and Gamma World conversion rules), and in those sections Gygax talks about the kinds of crossovers he's run in his own games (including an Alice in Wonderland crossover on top of the ones you mentioned) and encourages making crossovers with all sorts of settings. However, the two points he makes repeatedly are that (A) the game works best (at least in his opinion) when the game's baseline assumption is "realms [of] fantasy as found in swords & sorcery or myth" and incorporates cowboys and aliens and such only in isolated dungeons or as part of brief side adventures, rather than trying to throw everything into a single totally-kitchen-sink setting and (B) incorporating nonstandard monsters/classes/items/etc. can be a lot of work for a DM on both the mechanical and the setting side and DMs "will be hard pressed [to incorporate such elements] unless you rely upon other game systems to fill the gaps."

It's kind of like how--speaking of Star Trek--the crew of the Enterprise constantly runs into one-off aliens and technologies that make for a great episode or two but would dramatically impact the show if they stuck around for longer than that. Voyager did the equivalent of "bringing gunpowder from Boot Hill to Greyhawk" when it picked up a bunch of high-tech stuff from the Borg like ablative armor generators and transwarp conduits and such and brought it all back to the Federation in its final few episodes...and ever since then Star Trek has been focusing on endless prequels instead of trying to set things after Voyager (with the exception of Picard and Discovery, which basically ignore all of the post-Voyager tech developments) because dealing with that kind of shake-up to the setting's previous technology base makes it hard for writers to come up with new threats and challenges for the protagonists.

So I feel it's plenty reasonable to try to restrict the kinds of unintended/out-of-genre influences one lets into the game, for conservation of detail and easing the DM workload if nothing else. But of course that point doesn't really apply to incorporating ToB because, as has been pointed out already, even if you feel it's "too anime" the monk and sorcerer were doing their thing long before ToB came around.
Agreed.

Looking at the older "alien" modules, what I see are items that break the rules, but have limited charges -- and can't ever be recharged.

In play, those might function congruently with the Star Trek "single-episode power" gear. You'd get a special rule-breaking thingy, but it's so constrained in operation that you can't leverage it to break or even significantly change the setting.


ToB very much is a setting-changer. It's a good change in my opinion, because I like Zorro and Conan and Grey Mouser and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon -- rules which allow non-wizards to be awesome are good for my games.

But that's because I can recognize the feats of Zorro and Conan and Grey Mouser in the ToB mechanics, and I didn't mind mixing a bit more Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon into my game. If the aesthetics of the latter were inappropriate, I'd have to do some work to extract the Swordsage -- no, wait, I'd just ban the Swordsage and the Monk. Done. Easy fix.



There are somany easier ways to do that

Don't try to move the goalposts. I showed that the limitations on the two powers were different.

We all already know Shadowdancer isn't a good class, but that's not related to my point.

[Rhyltran]

1 - Wealth (including diet and education)
2 - Being on a Horse
3 - Yelling at Peasants (social position)
4 - Bow
5 - Katana
6 - Honor
7 - Poetry



You forgot the Yari before Katana ;)

[Red Fel]

Shadowdancer also does the teleporting though, and so can a level 6 Warlock, and so can a Jaunter, and so can a Binder with Tenebrous. How is teleportation off-theme for Western shadowy PCs?

It comes back to the "guy at the gym" fallacy, essentially. You expect an explicitly magical class, like a Binder, to be able to do magical stuff. But a guy with a sword - or even a super-sneaky guy with a knife - to be teleporting willy-nilly? That's just wacky.

I agree with you, for what it's worth. It should still be a sell. But from a practical perspective, especially with a predisposed DM, it's a harder one.


Five Finger Shadow Enervation Heart Stab Bad-Touch Icy McNasty is the sort of name you'd expect to see in martial arts films, and you can see the equivalent naming sensibility in Kill Bill (for example). There are certainly anime which also borrow from martial arts, but martial arts isn't anime just like Kill Bill isn't anime, and neither is Bad-Touch Icy McNasty.

To be fair, while I always remembered cool attack names from my favorite wuxia films, I never remembered them being quite so long. Buddha Palm, Cotton Belly Defense, Iron Shirt, etc. - they were poetic, reasonably descriptive, but brief. An attack name longer than five words feels more modern to me - more like another genre impersonating wuxia.

And yes, I know, not all martial arts films are wuxia. But I have standards.


It's no more anime than the 1e Monk's fabled attack, Quivering Palm:

Anime has borrowed "special attack" names from martial arts for coolness points, but anime also borrowed big eyes from Disney for cuteness points, and it would be unreasonable to decry every Disney character as being "anime" for using the traits anime borrowed from Disney.

It's similarly unreasonable to criticize martial arts for using the traits which anime borrowed from martial arts.

And what does a D&D Monk have anything to do with martial arts? They're not even proficient in unarmed strikes!

[Nifft]

You forgot the Yari before Katana ;)
https://i.imgur.com/dM7mVrT.png


It comes back to the "guy at the gym" fallacy, essentially. You expect an explicitly magical class, like a Binder, to be able to do magical stuff. But a guy with a sword - or even a super-sneaky guy with a knife - to be teleporting willy-nilly? That's just wacky.

I agree with you, for what it's worth. It should still be a sell. But from a practical perspective, especially with a predisposed DM, it's a harder one. I'd like to think that Guy-At-The-Gym fallacy is not a central tenet of Western fantasy.


To be fair, while I always remembered cool attack names from my favorite wuxia films, I never remembered them being quite so long. Buddha Palm, Cotton Belly Defense, Iron Shirt, etc. - they were poetic, reasonably descriptive, but brief. An attack name longer than five words feels more modern to me - more like another genre impersonating wuxia.

And yes, I know, not all martial arts films are wuxia. But I have standards. I think the name length is also to disambiguate the maneuvers.

Like, your character might literally be wearing an iron shirt (a "chain shirt" with iron as its material). You need to disambiguate the maneuvers from each other, from real equipment, and from all the spells which have colonized the design namespace.

It's the same reason late-edition spells got longer names -- Visions of the Omniscient Eye, as an example -- while early-edition spells got simpler names like Dream.

[Elves]

The animeness or craziness of TOB is way overstated. You don't even have to reach for comparisons to uber-heroes of legend. Like I said earlier, ban Shadow Hand and Desert Wind and perhaps select Devoted Spirit maneuvers, and at that point even the swordsage is completely non-magical and non-anime and is as accurate a game representation as any of a "guy at the gym" mundane melee fighter. The Setting Sun capstone is the only thing I can think of that would strain credibility.

People just get conditioned to correlate a certain game rules format presentation with a certain type of thing depicted, when there's no actual correspondence.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In addition to adding a new subsystem for GMs to have to learn...

This is a valid criticism.


Book of Nine Swords commits a cardinal sin. Instead of improving the Fighter, Monk, and Paladin-- or doing anything with the Barbarian and Ranger-- it completely invalidates all of those classes. I would happily allow Book of Nine Swords or Path of War (but not both) material in a 3.PF game, but I am not likely to ever allow the base classes from those books.

This is not.

The feats, items, and prestige classes all make the book's subsytem available to characters of -all- base classes. While you're generally better off dipping one of the base classes than meeting the PrCs' maneuver requirements with martial study/stance you still have that option.

Want a few maneuvers on a wizard? 5 levels of Jade Phoenix Mage will cost you -one- caster level and three feats to get you 5 maneuvers and 2 stances, an extra 5 hp over what you'd have had as a straight wizard, and 3 extra points of BAB.

TWF ranger? Bloodclaw master is right there, my dude. C'mon.

If you're a rogue and you're not looking -hard- at how to get some shadow hand maneuvers what are you even doing?

Probably the single greatest paladin build -ever- is one that includes ruby knight vindicator.

Then there's the nonsense "replacement" argument. Maybe, -maybe- that argument half-ass holds water for the swordsage & monk. Fighter/ warblade though, nah fam. A well built fighter can have every bit as many tricks as a warblade and makes the enemies fall down just fine. Crusader/ paladin? Get the hell out of here. There's nothing a crusader can do that a paladin can't do better.

Like I said, ToB didn't really give martials anything new. It just consolidated and streamlined it all so you don't have to have a 3.5 PhD to do all those things.

[Gusmo]

Regarding firearms, at least they are almost entirely absent from 3rd edition. Stormwrack has some stuff, and I'm sure there other other mentions, but it's basically negligible. It's the difference between removing an entire category and selected parts of a category. The problem with ToB is that we're dealing with martial weapons and martial arts, and it's very weird to say that some martial weapons and martial arts are stupid, don't fit or otherwise have no place at the table, but other martial weapons and martial arts are totally fine. Melee combat, armed and unarmed, has existed in probably all cultures across the globe throughout history. Yet if you bring a character built for unarmed combat to a D&D table, a disturbing number of people immediately bust out Eastern stereotypes.

[Zarrgon]

@Zarrgon: What 3.5 psionics did was fix all the bad decisions that had gone into the base spellcasting system.

Yea, it's too bad they did not make it a new system though instead of just copying D&D magic.



As for ToB in particular, it's easily the least difficult to implement and troubleshoot.


A big problem is ToB was made for so players could be annoying:

The player will just goof off until some combat happens, then they will crazily demand that they used just the right maneuver or stand thingy one second before the combat started. And lots of DMs allow this.



Psionics... psionics


Psionics is even worse with the silly Focus mechanic and the player that demands their character is "focused" all the time.

I would never let a character "do over" and like let them cast Stoneskin or drink a potion of barkskin one round before the fight starts AFTER their character gets hit and they whine "but I was goofing around and forgot".

And yet far too many players of a martial or psonic character will demand this.



As you've pointed out, the objection to not allowing "anime-style" martial-arts attacks in D&D is ludicrous.

But why?

Like most DMs I like a set type of game with set things like style, flavor, etc. I like X, my game is about X; I don't like Y and my game is not about Y.


Calling it martial spells is also a misnomer. Nothing is inherently spell-like about the power format used for spells and maneuvers. You could apply it to anything. That's exactly what they did in 4e.


Are the "Not Spells" a collection of set actions that you can "Not Cast" to effect the game? Why yes they are! A spellcaster knows set spells that they can cast, a ToB class knows a set of things they can use: exactly the same format. Again, they just copied a bunch of spells and refluffed the magic into "not magic".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yea, it's too bad they did not make it a new system though instead of just copying D&D magic.

... You know that psionics stems from 2e, right? It's as much D&D as anything else in 3e. The 3.5 changeover streamlined and rebalanced some things and made it way less of a weird PiTA. You can go back to the attack and defense modes and psychic combat things if you really want something different but good luck making it work in a way that doesn't bog things down.


A big problem is ToB was made for so players could be annoying:

The player will just goof off until some combat happens, then they will crazily demand that they used just the right maneuver or stand thingy one second before the combat started. And lots of DMs allow this.

That's not a system problem, it's a player problem. You solve that by being firm with the problematic player. Being in a stance when combat begins is logically suspect but mechanically trivial. Anything else in the system requires actions -in combat- and there's nothing any player can do about that except lie to you. If that's happening the system and its bits are the least of your problems by far.


Psionics is even worse with the silly Focus mechanic and the player that demands their character is "focused" all the time.

The idea that a person who can bend reality with a thought could hold a small charge of psychic energy in his head for as long as he's conscious is too much for you, really? Even if that doesn't make sense to you, it's still mechanically trivial to a degree even greater than the stance thing. By itself, all it does is let you take 15 on a concentration check. If you're worried about metapsionics, this is actually a significant limiting factor that casters don't have.


I would never let a character "do over" and like let them cast Stoneskin or drink a potion of barkskin one round before the fight starts AFTER their character gets hit and they whine "but I was goofing around and forgot".

Again, thats a player issue not a system one. Tell 'em flat, "you forgot, too bad. Don't forget next time."


And yet far too many players of a martial or psonic character will demand this.

Like I said, you have a problem with players not the system.


But why?

Like most DMs I like a set type of game with set things like style, flavor, etc. I like X, my game is about X; I don't like Y and my game is not about Y.

Cool. Nobody's objecting to that. You can make pure taste choices as a DM and that's perfectly valid. It's your erroneous and falacious arguments to justify that taste to which people are objecting.


Are the "Not Spells" a collection of set actions that you can "Not Cast" to effect the game? Why yes they are! A spellcaster knows set spells that they can cast, a ToB class knows a set of things they can use: exactly the same format. Again, they just copied a bunch of spells and refluffed the magic into "not magic".

That's just an argument against discrete abilities altogether. A fighter with a bunch of active use feats has an array of things he knows how to do that he can use. By this definition, things like kiai shout, goad, greater multishot, and a whole host of other feats are just refluffed spells. Unless you have a problem with tactical and style feats, you don't have a valid argument against maneuvers.

[Nifft]

... You know that psionics stems from 2e, right?

1e actually ;)

It's the first appendix in the PHB, and every monster in the first Monster Manual had a line about its psionic capabilities.

[Elves]

Are the "Not Spells" a collection of set actions that you can "Not Cast" to effect the game? Why yes they are! A spellcaster knows set spells that they can cast, a ToB class knows a set of things they can use: exactly the same format.

Right, exactly. The format is neutral, unrelated to whether the action it describes is magical or not. It's just a way of presenting a particular game action you can take.

[el minster]

Right, exactly. The format is neutral, unrelated to whether the action it describes is magical or not. It's just a way of presenting a particular game action you can take.


Precisely !!!

[Darrin]

Like most DMs I like a set type of game with set things like style, flavor, etc. I like X, my game is about X; I don't like Y and my game is not about Y.


That's fine. You're welcome to like X or not like Y.

However, if the players sitting at your table are saying, "We really like Y. We'd love to be able to use Y in this game," perhaps that might be something a good DM would put under consideration? Presumably, you're all sitting at the table where all participants have entered into a social contract to play a collaborative game, and the opinions and desires of all the players are considered valid and important. If the DM is saying, "I don't like Y and I don't care if you like it, it's not happening here, there's the door!" then I would advise the DM to perhaps re-examine whether that's a valid stance that benefits everyone's enjoyment.

[eunwoler]

I think there are a number of good reasons to ban TOB. Not a blanket ban but personal choice by DM and game and players of course

Functional reasons

1. You're playing a game with core Martials. You want to play regular Fighters, Barbarians but you're going to be overshadowed in every way by ToB

2. Another unique resource system to keep track of. Might be time consuming for DMs to integrate

3. The power level is less flexible (also a good thing for alot of people) from suboptimised to optimised

4. It's frontloaded. Might not level appropriately with non TOB classes

Thematic reasons

1. It feels too much like a refluffed spellcaster. Hell, the maneuvers even go from 1 to 9. Alot of people who play martials prefer a rigidly different identity, perhaps they prefer martials that mainly enhance existing mundane features rather than adding entirely new combat menus.

2. The way the maneuvers work can feel gamey. Why can't you attempt a particular maneuver over and over ad infinitum? Is there a reason you can only perform this particular ability ever so often?

3. Less flexible class identity. The eastern flavor, the names - regardless of whether you're Lin Xia of the White Ravens or Bigg Oof the dumb Orc you're somehow initiated into the White Raven school of fighting specifically.

4. And yes, the annoying 'too anime' complaint. I personally do find merit with this. Mainly the naming conventions of what you get but also visualising and imagining your PC doing a spinning, dancing movement which somehow massively amplifies your attack power is something that doesn't necessarily glue with medieval fantasy

[Gusmo]

4. And yes, the annoying 'too anime' complaint. I personally do find merit with this. Mainly the naming conventions of what you get but also visualising and imagining your PC doing a spinning, dancing movement which somehow massively amplifies your attack power is something that doesn't necessarily glue with medieval fantasy

Examples of spinning and dancing, or other such objectionable movements? I would love a count if anyone is up to it. This just rings so hollow to me. The whole crusader and warblade class entries have pretty much none of what you describe from recollection and another quick glance. The swordsage has about as much as the monk or ninja class, perhaps even less than either. Page for page, the book seems to have as much Eastern flair as Complete Warrior to me. The artwork throughout the book looks pretty much the same as most 3.5 books to me. But again, I've never seen a Bruce Lee film or much Japanimation. I'm just a guy who, for instance, wants to make an unarmed swordsage and not have everyone assuming it means my character is some Kung Fu schlock nonsense, or make a warblade version of Game of Thrones characters without people assuming I'm a samurai.

Edit: minor Game of Thrones spoilers, here's some twirling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBIyOYbzvxs&t=2m56s). The Mountain would make a reasonable warblade and Oberyn would make a reasonable swordsage. Is this the sort of objectionable movement you're speaking of? Would it somehow become more objectionable if the fighters were wearing Kabutos, or perhaps had spiky hair, orange robes and headbands?

[upho]

Then there's the nonsense "replacement" argument. Maybe, -maybe- that argument half-ass holds water for the swordsage & monk. Fighter/ warblade though, nah fam. A well built fighter can have every bit as many tricks as a warblade and makes the enemies fall down just fine. Crusader/ paladin? Get the hell out of here. There's nothing a crusader can do that a paladin can't do better.

Like I said, ToB didn't really give martials anything new. It just consolidated and streamlined it all so you don't have to have a 3.5 PhD to do all those things.This. At least in a game which allows the relevant options (none of which - IIRC - are found in EPH, CP, ToM or MoI). And PoW has archetypes for the PF core martials as Elric pointed out, and these can easily be backported to 3.5.

But to be fair, I'm pretty certain that the "you don't have to have a 3.5 PhD"-bit means these facts also makes for a poor argument in a large majority of games/groups, AFAICT typically because nobody in the group has ever seen a "PhD-martial" (or more rarely because such martials are seen as cheesy and/or OP anyways). IOW, the fact that ToB "merely" removes the need for the PhD is in practice typically precisely the reason why the martial PCs with ToB options have quite significantly more useful mechanical abilities than those who don't.

Speaking of, while ToB's mechanical impact would typically be a good fact-based argument for allowing it, that impact unfortunately doesn't exactly make ToB any less controversial to someone without quite a bit of experience and system mastery. Instead, it seems the argument is often turned on its head as ToB appears OP when erroneously compared only to the UP (non-PhD) martials found in other sources. So a player looking to change their DM's/group's negative opinions about ToB (such as the OP) typically has to not only be able to show how the book's fluff and flavor can be adapted to suit with their game, but also to have sufficient system mastery to prove why and how the book's mechanical impact is actually good for their game.


But why?Maybe because martial heroes in classic western literature do plenty of stuff just as fantastic? Because the highly non-fictional European medieval martial arts schools and traditions include plenty of names and terms just as colorful as those of the eastern counterparts? And because it's very difficult or even impossible to reflect those fantastic and non-fictional elements mechanically without ToB?


Like most DMs I like a set type of game with set things like style, flavor, etc. I like X, my game is about X; I don't like Y and my game is not about Y.Then I have to ask what you believe is a fitting style and flavor of martial heroes in your game, because it's apparently not inspired primarily by western or eastern heroic fantasy/myths or martial arts, but nevertheless it (I assume) includes the monk class and the very "high fantasy" wizards, sorcerers, magic items and creatures found in those sources. Basically, it seems to include Merlin, Circe, Durandal, hydras and dragons, but no Arthur, Achilles, Roland, Beowulf or Heracles, not to mention it has detailed mechanics for turning bat-poop into great fiery explosions and even for directing the flow of time, but no mechanic for something as simple as a parry-and-riposte martial arts move.


Are the "Not Spells" a collection of set actions that you can "Not Cast" to effect the game? Why yes they are! A spellcaster knows set spells that they can cast, a ToB class knows a set of things they can use: exactly the same format. Again, they just copied a bunch of spells and refluffed the magic into "not magic".Seems this is completely missing the point. A full attack is part of "a set of things" a core fighter can use, as is a Whirlwind Attack and a Spring Attack (if he has the feats). Does that mean that full attack, Whirlwind Attack and Spring Attack are "just copied" from "a bunch of spells" with the magic refluffed into "not-magic"?

And if not, what exactly makes these things distinctively less "a set of refluffed spells" available to the fighter than the maneuvers available to a crusader are?


He said he doesn't like
1. fluff (I told him this can be changed)
2. anime like moves (I told him spellcasters have been doing this for ages)
3. Replaces monk, fighter, and paladin (I told him those classes are horrible)
Also I think he hates how people dip the classes
Any other points to tell him?
Also he has banned Tome of Magic, Psionics, and Magic of Incarnum.Well, I recommend you try your best to keep away from trying to prove him wrong, as he's not only highly unlikely to accept any arguments based on facts which he's not already familiar with and understands, but also less likely to change his opinions if he feels you're attacking them or criticizing him as a DM. Instead, I recommend you try to show him stuff that you believe he might be interested in, preferably from sources he won't regard as partial. For example, he might start to think differently about ToB's fluff and flavor if you introduce him to HEMA and related stuff (this documentary (https://youtu.be/J35E7eOX4dY) makes for a decent intro), as it appears he doesn't yet know much about the kind of martial arts it seems he wants to see in his game.

[Kesnit]

1. You're playing a game with core Martials. You want to play regular Fighters, Barbarians but you're going to be overshadowed in every way by ToB

This is a player choice. Some players are perfectly fine to say "I hit it with my pointy stick" every round. If the player is OK with it, why should the DM care if someone else is playing ToB?

On the other hand, some players want to play martial characters, but want to do more than say "I hit it with my pointy stick." Keeping track of maneuvers is a lot easier than trying to juggle a spellbook, so saying "oh, just play CoDzilla instead" does not always work. (By "spellbook," I mean a list of spells a caster can prepare and cast. I once put together a spell list for a Cleric using all splat books. Just going to 4th level and leaving off spells that did HP damage - fluff reasons - the file was almost 50 pages long.)


2. Another unique resource system to keep track of. Might be time consuming for DMs to integrate

Why is the DM keeping track of it? Does the DM also track every spell a caster prepares and casts?

Explaining to the DM what your character can do is a good thing. But once that happens, the player runs the PC. If the DM has any questions, the player can show the DM the maneuver used.


3. The power level is less flexible (also a good thing for alot of people) from suboptimised to optimised

That is a reason to use ToB. As I said above, some players want to play a martial character but want to do more than just hit things.


4. It's frontloaded. Might not level appropriately with non TOB classes

It's frontloaded in the same way caster classes are. Taking 1 level of a ToB class gives you access to first level maneuvers, the same way caster classes give you access to 0 and 1st level spells. If you want more maneuvers/spells, you take more levels.


1. It feels too much like a refluffed spellcaster.

And this is bad why?

Although I would dispute this. Swordsage, by nature of some of the schools, can be played mystical. Crusader and Warblade? Not so much. You can build a more mystical Crusader or Warblade, but those classes are a lot more grounded in "reality." (In a word where someone can stop time with a few words, "reality" loses its meaning.)


Hell, the maneuvers even go from 1 to 9. Alot of people who play martials prefer a rigidly different identity,

So those people don't play ToB classes...


perhaps they prefer martials that mainly enhance existing mundane features rather than adding entirely new combat menus.

So they don't play a ToB class...


2. The way the maneuvers work can feel gamey. Why can't you attempt a particular maneuver over and over ad infinitum? Is there a reason you can only perform this particular ability ever so often?

Fighter (to Wizard): Hey, there's a major fight coming up. Can you make me big so I can fight better?
Wizard: Sorry, I don't have that spell prepared right now.
Fighter: But you did it in the last fight
Wizard: I only prepared it once today.

Is it "gamey" that casters can only prepare and cast so many spells? That prepared casters have to prepare a spell multiple times if they want to cast it multiple times? Other class abilities (like a Dragon Shaman's breath weapon) are on timers.


3. Less flexible class identity. The eastern flavor, the names - regardless of whether you're Lin Xia of the White Ravens or Bigg Oof the dumb Orc you're somehow initiated into the White Raven school of fighting specifically.

In history, fighting styles really did travel as fighters did. And people did travel to learn new fighting styles.

But as others have pointed out, names are fluff. You don't like your Orc using "White Raven" maneuvers? So call them "Tough Mind," or whatever you think fits the fluff you want.

[eunwoler]

This is a player choice. Some players are perfectly fine to say "I hit it with my pointy stick" every round. If the player is OK with it, why should the DM care if someone else is playing ToB?

On the other hand, some players want to play martial characters, but want to do more than say "I hit it with my pointy stick." Keeping track of maneuvers is a lot easier than trying to juggle a spellbook, so saying "oh, just play CoDzilla instead" does not always work. (By "spellbook," I mean a list of spells a caster can prepare and cast. I once put together a spell list for a Cleric using all splat books. Just going to 4th level and leaving off spells that did HP damage - fluff reasons - the file was almost 50 pages long.)



Why is the DM keeping track of it? Does the DM also track every spell a caster prepares and casts?

Explaining to the DM what your character can do is a good thing. But once that happens, the player runs the PC. If the DM has any questions, the player can show the DM the maneuver used.



That is a reason to use ToB. As I said above, some players want to play a martial character but want to do more than just hit things.



It's frontloaded in the same way caster classes are. Taking 1 level of a ToB class gives you access to first level maneuvers, the same way caster classes give you access to 0 and 1st level spells. If you want more maneuvers/spells, you take more levels.



And this is bad why?

Although I would dispute this. Swordsage, by nature of some of the schools, can be played mystical. Crusader and Warblade? Not so much. You can build a more mystical Crusader or Warblade, but those classes are a lot more grounded in "reality." (In a word where someone can stop time with a few words, "reality" loses its meaning.)



So those people don't play ToB classes...



So they don't play a ToB class...



Fighter (to Wizard): Hey, there's a major fight coming up. Can you make me big so I can fight better?
Wizard: Sorry, I don't have that spell prepared right now.
Fighter: But you did it in the last fight
Wizard: I only prepared it once today.

Is it "gamey" that casters can only prepare and cast so many spells? That prepared casters have to prepare a spell multiple times if they want to cast it multiple times? Other class abilities (like a Dragon Shaman's breath weapon) are on timers.



In history, fighting styles really did travel as fighters did. And people did travel to learn new fighting styles.

But as others have pointed out, names are fluff. You don't like your Orc using "White Raven" maneuvers? So call them "Tough Mind," or whatever you think fits the fluff you want.

Yes. As I said all the reasons I said come down to table and DM choice they're not strict. These are reasons a table would prefer to play without not put a global ban around

[Unavenger]

Apart from anything else, it doesn't fix the "Linear warriors, quadratic wizards" problem. It just moves the linear warriors line up, which (ignoring the level of optimisation where wizards are universally teleporting around the battlefield as an immediate action or whatever) makes for extremely sad low-level wizards and extremely sad high-level swordsages, which I suppose is an advance on fairly sad low-level wizards, very sad mid-level fighters and really really really sad high-level fighters, but not by much. I'm currently running a game with a Path of War character who rarely takes damage during sessions and universally kills more stuff than anyone else in the party (EDIT: And is also somehow one of the best healers most of the time), and I'm aware that ToB can do the same thing. Depending on the level of the game, I can absolutely see not wanting that.

But obviously everyone who's against ToB/PoW has never played with it or whatever. :smallannoyed:

[Albions_Angel]

By the end of the first page, the Playground had established why this particular DM banned ToB, and that OP would likely be unable to convince them to change their mind.

I want to answer the question in the title from a personal perspective.

Why I used to not play with ToB:


No one in my old group had the book and they had disliked 4th ed enough to not want to touch it
The group was low optimisation, where martials were relatively effective and casters were low op blasters or gishes - when I ran and introduced ToB, the floor of those classes was higher than the average op level, and the one player that dipped a class ended up forcing a large imbalance in the party power level (not the system power level mind you) - this led to an argument
After that first attempt, I felt I did not know the book well enough to allow it - the previous situation taught me that.



Other books I used to not play with

Psionics - partly flavour (yes you can change the flavour, but then you might as well just play a wizard), partly not knowing the books well enough and players not having access to them (several were not internet savvy so the SRD was not used)
MoI - I liked the flavour, but it took me years to understand it well enough to play a character, let alone allow others to run wild with them
Most 3.0 content - at the time, too much to wade through and fix



I now play with a new group, and while I allow all those books in my world (even the 3.0 stuff now that I have had time to go through and fix it all, and even start rewriting basic classes) I do still restrict Psionics and ToB.

Why allow ToB and Psionics just to restrict their use?

My new group have never played 3.5e. They have only once played Pathfinder (I ran a 1 shot). They are all 5e vets. Some like complex mechanics. Others actively disengage as soon as things get complicated (in my Pathfinder 1shot, one of my players, who I know dislikes complexity, picked a cleric. I sat down and chatted at length. I didnt try to put them off, but did warn them it wasnt as simple as a 5e cleric. They said they understood. Over the 3 weeks until I ran, I repeatedly offered to help them build it. They declined. They showed up with what they though was a finished cleric. It had no domains or domain spells, no feats, and incorrect regular spells all pulled from the wizard list). I know that if not careful, introducing a complex system like ToB, or a system that is simple but easily misunderstood (how many times have we seen people investing more power points than their level on this forum to "go nova" as a psion?) can leave some players vastly above the power level they would normally play at, while other players actively avoid any engagement with those systems and could become upset. Does it matter that a core Druid can effectively run through a campaign for 4 on their own? Not when the druid player doesnt take entangle, natural spell, a decent animal companion, and only wildshapes into birds it doesnt.

Gating ToB and Psionics in a region of the world that is difficult to get to, and almost never starting a campaign there allows me to judge the party power level and either take them there for dipping and rerolls when I think they are ready, or get used to them enough to suggest a campaign specifically in that part of the world. I am open and clear about this ahead of time and none of them have an issue with it (getting them to play 3.5e itself is the stumbling block).

If I was playing with you guys, I could sit down in session zero and say "look, just talk to each other and me when you make your characters so we all have fun". But I cant do that with groups who have never played the system before, or whose experience of 3.5e is that wizards are weak and useless and need to stand behind the paladin for protection, because they dont know what to expect. And if they are not having fun, then I am not doing my job.

[Chaos Jackal]

Gating ToB and Psionics in a region of the world that is difficult to get to, and almost never starting a campaign there allows me to judge the party power level and either take them there for dipping and rerolls when I think they are ready, or get used to them enough to suggest a campaign specifically in that part of the world. I am open and clear about this ahead of time and none of them have an issue with it (getting them to play 3.5e itself is the stumbling block).

If I was playing with you guys, I could sit down in session zero and say "look, just talk to each other and me when you make your characters so we all have fun". But I cant do that with groups who have never played the system before, or whose experience of 3.5e is that wizards are weak and useless and need to stand behind the paladin for protection, because they dont know what to expect. And if they are not having fun, then I am not doing my job.

Not disputing your experience, I'm just genuinely curious. Have you never encountered the opposite with new groups, as in, players who are below even your curve when playing a martial? It's really easy to make a fighter that is flat-out terrible, for example, and a rogue without UMD and good skill distribution can be borderline useless. And if you screw up a monk, which you very easily can, then you'll probably end up with a character that can literally do nothing, including hitting with their attacks.

I've seen it happen in a game with a similar group; first-timers, all low op, a blaster sorc with a spell selection that could be used as a dictionary definition for redundancy, a rogue with some weird multiclassing which I don't remember exactly other than it not being very functional, and a sword-and-board fighter that was about as strong as an NPC warrior, except he had a really high Con score. I played two sessions with them, basically guest-starring as they were near the end of the campaign. I played a fighter myself, as I didn't wanna invest a spellcaster's worth of effort for one or two nights, and I made a straightforward trip build. No chain tripping or Jack B. Quick or anything, a core, bare-bones tripper. I ended up having the DM privately tell me to hold back a bit, especially in regards to the other fighter (who was kind of the protagonist in his story) and that, if I didn't mind, he'd give killing blows on important enemies to the other players, since I was just a guest and he didn't want them feeling left out just as the campaign was reaching its climax. And I did that with a flail and Improved Trip.

Now, that's maybe a bit extreme of an example, but the point stands. I've seen it happen again, not as badly or obviously, but still to a point where the players ended up rerolling or getting half the character rebuilt for free, or given extra powers from the DM to compensate. 3.5 martials might not be terribly complex, but it's still easy to mess up. It's easy to pick a bunch of trap feats, to optimize for a suboptimal trick, or to generally make your life even harder than it already is.

Now, the ToB classes? On the surface, they might seem more "complex" than core martials, but at least the basic chassis is solid enough to allow a new player to do fine without bothering too much. A warblade is good straight out of the can; even if you don't know the best maneuvers or the best feats, it's still functional, and still wrecks face. There's plenty of room for optimization still, but at least you can't drop a tier and end up hanging out with the samurais because your feats are Dodge, Tough and Endurance and you didn't pick Power Attack.

Bottom line is, you can't screw up an initiator. They might look harder to learn than a core martial, but what they get works, and maneuvers are usually decent enough to keep them going. From that perspective, ToB is actually better for new players. Is it something you haven't considered, or has experience dictated that it wouldn't actually make things better?

[Thunder999]

Maneuvers do feel a bit gamey, spells have the excuse that preparing individual uses is just how magic works, justified by stuff like fitting mostly cast spells into your head or asking your deity for each use of a spell in advance, but maneuvers are usually not magical and literally just a way of hitting things, why can't you do it twice?

[DeTess]

Maneuvers do feel a bit gamey, spells have the excuse that preparing individual uses is just how magic works, justified by stuff like fitting mostly cast spells into your head or asking your deity for each use of a spell in advance, but maneuvers are usually not magical and literally just a way of hitting things, why can't you do it twice?

Just as easy to justify as spells imho. "The sublime way is focused on maintaining momentum and movement. The exit point of one maneuver is perfect for entering another, but suboptimal for repeating itself."

To put it in simpler terms: you're better of following up a right hook with a left hook than to try and do another right hook. You could do so, but it'd take more time to reset your stance to do so (which, in game, is represented by the recharge mechanics).

[Albions_Angel]

Honestly, I have never had someone build a character SOO bad that it was not functional. I know its possible (in fact, its hard to build a Truenamer that IS functional). But I think your definition of what is awful and unworkable and mine are vastly different.

I have seen sword and board fighters be the main damage dealer in a party. I have seen core unarmed strike monks pull their own weight. I have seen redundant blaster sorcerers delete encounters. And I have never seen a new player look at a rogue's massive amount of skill points and not also think "Oh, rogues, they stealth and break into things and dodge attacks"

I have seen a guy build a bard as his first char, with a whip, and continually forget to inspirational boost and sing, but we just reminded him and he would then remember to do it. Even he did ok, though he was the weakest party member (that was my first ever game too, I was a CA ninja because the party when I started already had a Wildshape Ranger, a mounted Druid, a War Cleric, a Paladin focusing on spellcasting and healing, a rogue and a scout. The Ranger, Druid, War Cleric and Paladin all took turns running the game in the same world with the same general story. The Rogue and the Scout fell out and left and then the Bard joined.

As with most games, my games (both played and run) tend to start at level 1, and run to about level 10 or so. For most of that, smacking something with a stick is enough. The games have been combat focused and story driven. There has never been a need for diplomancers or social characters really. So I would argue with the idea that its easy to build a non-functional martial character.

Also, yes, ToB characters are fairly simple, but they suffer from a few issues. The first is the floor. Its just higher. Level for level, round for round, they deal more damage more effectively with more survivability than standard characters. The second is decision paralysis. Just as casters are the most powerful characters, yet low op groups have trouble keeping them alive long enough pick useful spells, new players expecting to roll a dice and swing a sword take a look at all the options and freeze up. Many turn away at that point. Those that dont end up almost automatically more powerful AT LOW OP (this is clearly not true for higher optimisation where you can be a commoner and still beat up gods). The final issue is that even if players do engage, it was the test bed for 4e. Most new players these days are 5e converts. 3.5e is already insane in the amount of options open to them. To then complicate that by requiring a deck of cards for every encounter has, in my experience, severely put people off.

Now, ToB and 4e work really well on roll20 because of virtual card decks. The issue then is the character sheets on roll20 for 3.5e are awful.

A final note. Even if a player did build themselves into a corner, its my job to make sure they have fun too. That everyone has fun. I once planned a campaign which would have included a bunch of fire immune stuff (this was in 5e btw. I didnt enjoy and the campaign didnt last long, but the players liked it). One player wanted to play a phoenix sorcerer type thing. Only fire spells. Were they totally useless? No, because I replaced most of the fire immune things. I kept a few and those then became epic moments where the rest of the party tried to deal with it while the sorc started to think outside the box (burning the rope of a chandelier to drop it for example). Admittedly harder to do if a MARTIAL builds themselves poorly, but not impossible. So they cant hit high AC, but they took cleave? Ok, fewer massive minibosses, more hoards of mooks. Got a tripper that is ending encounters before the ubercharger can do anything? Good luck tripping all 3 giant scorpions at once. What I cant do is balance that if it gets too out of whack. ToB characters tend to be so naturally versatile in combat that I cant adjust things or shut them down, and part of that is my own lack of understanding. Once I have digested it more and more, i might add it in. Though with so many books already, no one I have played with thinks they are, or will be, missing out.

[ChaosStar]

Now, ToB and 4e work really well on roll20 because of virtual card decks. The issue then is the character sheets on roll20 for 3.5e are awful.

Then don't use the Roll20 for anything other than just playing the game. Keep your own damn sheets, that's what my group does and it works just fine.

[Gnaeus]

Apart from anything else, it doesn't fix the "Linear warriors, quadratic wizards" problem. It just moves the linear warriors line up, which (ignoring the level of optimisation where wizards are universally teleporting around the battlefield as an immediate action or whatever) makes for extremely sad low-level wizards and extremely sad high-level swordsages, which I suppose is an advance on fairly sad low-level wizards, very sad mid-level fighters and really really really sad high-level fighters, but not by much. I'm currently running a game with a Path of War character who rarely takes damage during sessions and universally kills more stuff than anyone else in the party (EDIT: And is also somehow one of the best healers most of the time), and I'm aware that ToB can do the same thing. Depending on the level of the game, I can absolutely see not wanting that.

But obviously everyone who's against ToB/PoW has never played with it or whatever. :smallannoyed:

I get it. There are a few PoW (Really, ToB can’t do the same things, PoW is stronger) powers that feel overpowered to me. There are black seraph maneuvers that do more than level x D6 AOE damage of an unresistable type that also does extra damage to good things and carry debuff riders. That’s going to make any but a highly optimized blaster caster feel terrible. And with some TOB classes you can spam that every round and recover it as a swift or move.

It’s not actually stronger than common tier 1 tricks. Planar binding, or wild shaping into an aberration that casts from a different plane, or whipping up a legion of commanded Incorporeal undead. But if your group bans or gentlemen’s agreements those or hasn’t discovered them It feels very strong. My group started out stalker (DSP), arcanist, magus, rogue/cleric and is now stalker(DSP), vizier (DSP), dragon (DSP), rogue/cleric/warlord (DSP). And we rock combats brutally.

We aren’t actually stronger than a party with T1s. We can’t teleport or scry or stuff like that. And my group wasn’t abusing the more abusable spells anyway. In our case it plays great. It’s like a whole new game and whenever a new character comes in we are all “wow what’s this thing going to do”. But we really are at the very top edge of Tier 3 and it would be hard to enter at this point as anything other than DSP or an optimized full caster.

[Unavenger]

It’s not actually stronger than common tier 1 tricks. Planar binding, or wild shaping into an aberration that casts from a different plane, or whipping up a legion of commanded Incorporeal undead.

The more games I play, the more I'm convinced that those are things that just don't happen in 99% of games (with the exception of "Planar binding" which I occasionally see used to bind something vaguely reasonable). There is a limited amount of point in having things that are balanced around, out of the box, going blow-for-blow with high-optimisation casters, and it's worse when it's not clearly labeled as designed to do that. I'm certain there are games where every wizard is the literal master of the universe or whatever, but the worst I've seen in any game I've actually played is "Elven generalist domain wizard casts lots of spells and some of them are Polymorph," which is strong but not devastating.

[el minster]

Personally, I feel that path of war characters are to powerful, but Tome of Battle, that's like the definition of tier three right there.

[Zanos]

Well, if the standard for balance at a given table is fighters and rogues on the frontlines backed by healbot clerics and fireball wizards, banning ToB is pretty reasonable.

[el minster]

Well, if the standard for balance at a given table is fighters and rogues on the frontlines backed by healbot clerics and fireball wizards, banning ToB is pretty reasonable.

That standard for balance is unbalanced.

[DeTess]

That standard for balance is unbalanced.

Actually, that's the standard the game has been balanced to, and when no one deviates from it it works. It's just that it's fairly easy for casters to overperform if they spend some time reading up on their spell options, and there is nothing stopping them from doing way better.

[Elkad]

It also adds its own collection of broken things. And they start right at the beginning.

Put in an adamant door so the level 3 guys have to go around or find the key?
Mountain Hammer says go through it. No muss, no fuss.

I fixed that with a house rule (reduces dr or hardness by IL), but, especially as a new DM, it's one more thing you have to predict, adjudicate, announce (and possibly justify) to your players.

Grabbing a new rule system and making it work adds a level of complexity a lot of DMs just don't want to deal with.

[Zanos]

It also adds its own collection of broken things. And they start right at the beginning.

Put in an adamant door so the level 3 guys have to go around or find the key?
Mountain Hammer says go through it. No muss, no fuss.

I fixed that with a house rule (reduces dr or hardness by IL), but, especially as a new DM, it's one more thing you have to predict, adjudicate, announce (and possibly justify) to your players.

Grabbing a new rule system and making it work adds a level of complexity a lot of DMs just don't want to deal with.
Bash through an adamantine door? That's heresy. It's easily worth tens of thousands of gold, just get someone in there to unscrew the hinges.

And I think there are some 2nd level spells that will easily remove an adamantine door as an obstacle.

[Gusmo]

Nonmagical doors of any material were no real obstacle to a level 3 party before ToB came out. Beyond bypassing doors, it was already very easy to break objects (IE, anything else using hardness/HP rules), mountain hammer just became one more club in the golf bag.

[InvisibleBison]

It also adds its own collection of broken things. And they start right at the beginning.

Put in an adamant door so the level 3 guys have to go around or find the key?
Mountain Hammer says go through it. No muss, no fuss.

So does knock, though. If your adventure breaks because a character used a level-appropriate ability for its intended purpose, the problem is with your adventure, not the ability.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think there are a number of good reasons to ban TOB. Not a blanket ban but personal choice by DM and game and players of course

There are a couple but they're not the ones typically brought up or are only mentioned in passing.


Functional reasons

1. You're playing a game with core Martials. You want to play regular Fighters, Barbarians but you're going to be overshadowed in every way by ToB

This is only true in a game where the available resources are -sharply- limited. Even just the completes largely invalidates it.

I've done the math though, and I'll dig up the old thread* if you insist, and I can tell you with certainty that the difference in capability between the warblade and fighter is -much- smaller than is commonly touted. There's virtually no difference in average damage output and the only reason a warblade ends up with more special attacks is because people tend to overspecialize their fighters. The barbarian -still- does more damage than either of them, and substantially so if Complete Champion is in play. The ability to reliably move and full attack in the same turn makes using maneuvers a net loss in damage output.


2. Another unique resource system to keep track of. Might be time consuming for DMs to integrate

This is mostly valid. Personally, I trust and expect my players will know how their own characters work and won't intentionally mislead me. If you've got a lot of newbs or people that -frequently- make mistakes, I can see how this would perhaps become more headache than it's worth if you're not already familiar.


3. The power level is less flexible (also a good thing for alot of people) from suboptimised to optimised

The floor is higher. If you optimize the crusader and warblade the same way you would a fighter or barbarian, you'll get similar results toward the ceiling. It's technically true that the window is narrower but it's not by much and it's not true enough to matter.


4. It's frontloaded.

This is true. Up until level 6, the crusader and warblade hit a little harder than the fighter and match the standard barbarian in damage (whirling frenzy variant still hits harder) and they have a few more interesting things they can do. After that, the observations I outlined above become increasingly true as levels progress.


Might not level appropriately with non TOB classes

I don't know what this means. If it means they outpace the standard martials in some way, then no. They keep abreast with them just fine and certainly get more choices for what to do on any given turn if you overspecialize your fighters but you've got to screw up a standard warrior pretty badly to fall below the floor for martial adepts.


Thematic reasons

1. It feels too much like a refluffed spellcaster. Hell, the maneuvers even go from 1 to 9. Alot of people who play martials prefer a rigidly different identity, perhaps they prefer martials that mainly enhance existing mundane features rather than adding entirely new combat menus.

It really, really doesn't. Its presentation is structured similarly but they feel nothing alike in play except for a swordsage focused on desert wind and shadow hand. Most swordsage builds and virtually all crusader and warblade builds feel just like fighters, monks, rangers, or low-op paladins in play.

When you look at the maneuvers, virtually all of them -are- enhancements to standard attacks and combat maneuvers, desert wind and shadow hand excepted. Even substantial portions of both of those disciplines are still just "make an attack. If it hits, do normal damage plus [effect]." For the other seven disciplines, there's very little that is or should be supernatural or doesn't simply modify stuff that a fighter or barbarian could do the same way a whole host of feats do.


2. The way the maneuvers work can feel gamey. Why can't you attempt a particular maneuver over and over ad infinitum? Is there a reason you can only perform this particular ability ever so often?

Maneuvers, at least in fluff, are supposed to represent doing something more complex than standard attacks. If you perform one, it either leaves you or your opponent in such a position that you can't really attempt to do it again without repositioning and/or shift in your stance to line things back up.

Easy RL example, try chasing a tornado kick or spinning back fist/elbow with another of the same and see if it doesn't leave you -badly- exposed to your opponent, if you're even in a position to try and deliver it at all. At the same time, you could follow either with the other quite easily and without any extra risk over using spinning attacks in the first place.

I mean, theoretically you -could- use the same attack over and over and over but setting an easily read pattern for your foe to pick up on is generally a poor strategy. The recharge mechanics and inability to spam maneuvers can, and IMO should, be read as a mechanical abstraction to these combat principles that not everyone knows or should be expected to know.


3. Less flexible class identity. The eastern flavor, the names - regardless of whether you're Lin Xia of the White Ravens or Bigg Oof the dumb Orc you're somehow initiated into the White Raven school of fighting specifically.

Again, flowery names for various types of attack are -not- a uniquely eastern thing. Any HEMA practitioner can tell you that.

And there are only so many ways to move a humanoid body and swing a sword. A roundhouse kick from muay thai, tae kwon do, and karate are all similar enough that we call them all a "roundhouse" even though there are subtle differences. Bigg Oof and Lin Xia may both be using what we call the battle leader's charge but that doesn't mean that, in the game world, there aren't differences too subtle for the abstraction to quantify. Each of the nine disciplines is a collection of similar, related maneuvers. They're only a cohesive fighting system if you choose to adopt the book's default fluff.


4. And yes, the annoying 'too anime' complaint. I personally do find merit with this. Mainly the naming conventions of what you get but also visualising and imagining your PC doing a spinning, dancing movement which somehow massively amplifies your attack power is something that doesn't necessarily glue with medieval fantasy

What are you even on about here? The only discipline to which "spinning, dancing movement" readily applies is desert wind. There's definitely no spinning or dancing in stone dragon, given how the entire discipline actually requires you to keep your feet firmly planted on the ground and most of the stances require you move no more than 5 ft in a round. For the rest, that's fluff -you- are applying to the maneuvers. The default fluff is that Devoted Spirit is driven by fervor, diamond mind by clear thought and concise movement, iron heart is a highly technical discipline that requires very precise movements, setting sun is technically a grappling style, shadow hand is stealth assassin trickery (and movement is anathema to stealth), tiger claw is based in ferocity and flurries of attacks, and white raven is less of a fighting style than it is a set of tactical and strategic principles being applied to good effect.

Also, a -lot- of western fantasy and mythology involves ridiculous over-the-top nonsense no real life warrior could even hope to emulate. Even just the core warriors outstrip reality by mid-level with basically no effort.


This. At least in a game which allows the relevant options (none of which - IIRC - are found in EPH, CP, ToM or MoI). And PoW has archetypes for the PF core martials as Elric pointed out, and these can easily be backported to 3.5.

They're not. They're mostly in the completes, OA, and PHB2. I don't know PF so I can't speak to any of its material.


But to be fair, I'm pretty certain that the "you don't have to have a 3.5 PhD"-bit means these facts also makes for a poor argument in a large majority of games/groups, AFAICT typically because nobody in the group has ever seen a "PhD-martial" (or more rarely because such martials are seen as cheesy and/or OP anyways). IOW, the fact that ToB "merely" removes the need for the PhD is in practice typically precisely the reason why the martial PCs with ToB options have quite significantly more useful mechanical abilities than those who don't.

You misunderstand. The PhD comment was for having the kind of deep, extensive knowledge to do -all- of what ToB offers. To do any of it requires far less knowledge and the fairly common sources I mentioned above.


Speaking of, while ToB's mechanical impact would typically be a good fact-based argument for allowing it, that impact unfortunately doesn't exactly make ToB any less controversial to someone without quite a bit of experience and system mastery. Instead, it seems the argument is often turned on its head as ToB appears OP when erroneously compared only to the UP (non-PhD) martials found in other sources. So a player looking to change their DM's/group's negative opinions about ToB (such as the OP) typically has to not only be able to show how the book's fluff and flavor can be adapted to suit with their game, but also to have sufficient system mastery to prove why and how the book's mechanical impact is actually good for their game.

Those comments I made above on damage dealing; the comparison that I made was with sources restricted to core + ToB. The more splat you add, the harder it gets for ToB to keep up. The major advantage of ToB over not-ToB is in that the former guarantees you have more options than just the bog-standard ones available to all characters.

People suck at complex math and detailed comparison. They see that one attack with 12d6 extra damage (ancient mountain hammer) and call "hax" without ever considering that the average damage for that hit compares -very- closely to the results of a full attack made by the same or a very similar character and while you can do the former every other round at most, the latter is available every round you have a foe in reach. Once you have -any- means of swift action movement or pounce, the difference in damage dealing capability favors the full attack.

Now special attacks are another matter. You actually have to go looking for those. While anyone can trip a foe, you have to spend resources to be able to do damage with it and move your foe from his space; OA's great throw or setting sun's mighty throw. Being able to sunder or disarm a foe's weapon and attack them in the same move; the combat brute tactical feat's sundering cleave maneuver or iron heart's disarming strike. As a martial adept you're more likely to see several of these than anything but a fighter.

The comparison between crusader and paladin is just laughable in anything -but- a core+ToB game though. With just complete champion and the spell compendium the paladin surges so far ahead that it's ridiculous.

[upho]

Also, yes, ToB characters are fairly simple, but they suffer from a few issues. The first is the floor. Its just higher. Level for level, round for round, they deal more damage more effectively with more survivability than standard characters. The second is decision paralysis. Just as casters are the most powerful characters, yet low op groups have trouble keeping them alive long enough pick useful spells, new players expecting to roll a dice and swing a sword take a look at all the options and freeze up. Many turn away at that point. Those that dont end up almost automatically more powerful AT LOW OP (this is clearly not true for higher optimisation where you can be a commoner and still beat up gods). The final issue is that even if players do engage, it was the test bed for 4e. Most new players these days are 5e converts. 3.5e is already insane in the amount of options open to them. To then complicate that by requiring a deck of cards for every encounter has, in my experience, severely put people off.FWIW, I recognize much of what you say here and also that most of your reasons for not including ToB seem sound. And I think it's very easy for experienced players to forget just how numerous and complex the basic 3.5/PF combat mechanics alone are, or for example just how insanely bloated and trap-ridden the cleric spell list might seem to a new player trying to quickly find useful spells to prepare.*

But in the same vein, I believe ToB also has decidedly less risk of ruining the fun for the player and their group than full casters do. Notably because ToB doesn't give nearly as many options in play and isn't nearly as riddled with hidden traps or OP/broken win-buttons. So I'm pretty darn certain most people would've been far more hesitant about including full casters than ToB in their games if neither had been core, especially in a group of new players.


A final note. Even if a player did build themselves into a corner, its my job to make sure they have fun too. That everyone has fun.
/snip/
What I cant do is balance that if it gets too out of whack. ToB characters tend to be so naturally versatile in combat that I cant adjust things or shut them down, and part of that is my own lack of understanding. Once I have digested it more and more, i might add it in. Though with so many books already, no one I have played with thinks they are, or will be, missing out.Once you've become more familiar with ToB's mechanics, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll find it more difficult to adapt your game for them than for those already found in core. That said, IME you do have to adapt your game, at least once your players have learned to avoid weak options and how to make good use of their PCs' abilities in play.

I haven't run a game with ToB since the playtest version of the PoW warder was released almost seven years ago and I'm now far more familiar with PoW, but I think both versions of initiators typically have two strengths which separate them from other classes and which are important to keep in mind when designing encounters. First, obviously at least primarily melee focused initiators can typically get more out of their move actions, as their offensive power is rarely tied to full-round actions while largely remaining just as dependent on positioning as that of other melee focused combatants. So it's typically a good idea to consider encounter elements which challenges this strength, such as interesting terrain features or monster abilities which restrict movement more than what for example difficult terrain, reach and basic AoOs does. Second, the arguably most unique strength of initiators are counters, and while these are far less common and less powerful in ToB than they are in PoW, they still need to be taken into account. Most notably, counters tend to make targeted standard or full-round action single attacks (especially melee) considerably less reliable offense against initiators - or even more harmful for the attacker than for the targeted initiator. So beyond having the opposition rely less on such single attacks, it's often a very good idea to give the martially inclined foes a few counters as well. Typically, this also has the advantage of making the combat less of a static numbers-slug with sporadic fluke effects caused by die rolls, and more of dynamic tactical challenge in which the outcome is more dependent on how each combatant chooses to act and each side's ability to work as a team.

...

*I was personally reminded of this a few years back in the beginning of my still ongoing PF campaign, when my regular group of grognards gained a new member who had never played any kind of RPG before. And as RPG nerds since childhood who had played make-believe with little dolls together as adults for more than 20 years, the old players had the brilliant idea that our poor noob should play a magus as her very first PC, and the GM (me) didn't have the brains to advice against it... :smallredface:

And of course, despite having quite a bit of talent for gaming in general, our new player had to be led by the hand by the other players for several sessions before she got a decent grip on her PC's more basic combat mechanics, and she still isn't able to make good use of her PC's versatile tactical abilities in new combat situations without guidance, much less how to update her default list of prepared spells to new environments and strategic objectives. Thankfully, the grognard assisting her ensures her build is the most highly optimized in the party and has tweaked a few mechanics to reduce the number of fiddly bits and risk of choice paralysis in play, so her PC is able to contribute and her decisions to have a meaningful impact on the game and story.

[Zanos]

I think most of the anime accusations from ToB come from the Swordsage being able to shoot darkness and fire out of his hands by punching real hard. Nothing makes me roll my eyes faster than a character that uses martial arts to summon shadows to strangle you. And all the teleporting.

The Warblade and the Crusader fall pretty firmly into Charles Atlas territory, though.

[Gusmo]

All of the fire and shadow stuff is just generic fantasy to me, and I have no idea why it gets pigeonholed like it does. Minor Chronicles of Riddick spoilers (edit: actually, spoilers ramp up after the 2 minute mark, be cautious as necessary), here's some shadow movements in a sci-fi setting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMcfE7kz84). I guess I could come up with some fire examples too...but do I really need to? All of the fire based stuff in maneuvers is so common in so many types of fantasy that I can't believe this keeps coming up in discussion after all these years.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It also adds its own collection of broken things. And they start right at the beginning.

Put in an adamant door so the level 3 guys have to go around or find the key?
Mountain Hammer says go through it. No muss, no fuss.

I fixed that with a house rule (reduces dr or hardness by IL), but, especially as a new DM, it's one more thing you have to predict, adjudicate, announce (and possibly justify) to your players.

Grabbing a new rule system and making it work adds a level of complexity a lot of DMs just don't want to deal with.

You cannot possibly be serious?

A -door-. You example for broken is the ability to bypass a door. Tell me something; did you put that adamant door in an adamant wall? 'Cause if you didn't the core bypass is an adamantine shuriken. Just take out the stone around the hinges or the whole door frame if you have to. Also, that's a nice fat lump of high-value metal they're now leaving within instead of continuing the dungeon right this minute unless you've put them under time-pressure. As has already been pointed out, unless it has a whole bevy of locks or is an absolutely -enormous- door, knock already beat this and is dirt cheap to keep on a scroll. Guidance of the avatar cast on the party rogue has a solid shot at straight picking the lock.

A locked door is a trivial obstacle at level 3 -long- before ToB comes into play.

You can do a dungeon that challenges higher level characters in a way that demands they interact with the puzzles rather than bypass them but it doesn't look -anything- like a traditional, set-in-the-ground dungeon. After a certain point, you can't even put it on the material plane without some pretty wild considerations or severely restricting what the PCs can do to a degree greater than even restricting them to core only options.

[Zanos]

All of the fire and shadow stuff is just generic fantasy to me, and I have no idea why it gets pigeonholed like it does. Minor Chronicles of Riddick spoilers (edit: actually, spoilers ramp up after the 2 minute mark, be cautious as necessary), here's some shadow movements in a sci-fi setting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMcfE7kz84). I guess I could come up with some fire examples too...but do I really need to? All of the fire based stuff in maneuvers is so common in so many types of fantasy that I can't believe this keeps coming up in discussion after all these years.
While I love the Riddick movies the 2nd one in particular often has criticisms levied against it for how ridiculous it is.

[Elricaltovilla]

While I love the Riddick movies the 2nd one in particular often has criticisms levied against it for how ridiculous it is.

That ridiculousness is what makes the movie so good though. In a so bad, it's good sort of way.

[eunwoler]

There are a couple but they're not the ones typically brought up or are only mentioned in passing.



This is only true in a game where the available resources are -sharply- limited. Even just the completes largely invalidates it.

I've done the math though, and I'll dig up the old thread* if you insist, and I can tell you with certainty that the difference in capability between the warblade and fighter is -much- smaller than is commonly touted. There's virtually no difference in average damage output and the only reason a warblade ends up with more special attacks is because people tend to overspecialize their fighters. The barbarian -still- does more damage than either of them, and substantially so if Complete Champion is in play. The ability to reliably move and full attack in the same turn makes using maneuvers a net loss in damage output.



This is mostly valid. Personally, I trust and expect my players will know how their own characters work and won't intentionally mislead me. If you've got a lot of newbs or people that -frequently- make mistakes, I can see how this would perhaps become more headache than it's worth if you're not already familiar.



The floor is higher. If you optimize the crusader and warblade the same way you would a fighter or barbarian, you'll get similar results toward the ceiling. It's technically true that the window is narrower but it's not by much and it's not true enough to matter.



This is true. Up until level 6, the crusader and warblade hit a little harder than the fighter and match the standard barbarian in damage (whirling frenzy variant still hits harder) and they have a few more interesting things they can do. After that, the observations I outlined above become increasingly true as levels progress.



I don't know what this means. If it means they outpace the standard martials in some way, then no. They keep abreast with them just fine and certainly get more choices for what to do on any given turn if you overspecialize your fighters but you've got to screw up a standard warrior pretty badly to fall below the floor for martial adepts.



It really, really doesn't. Its presentation is structured similarly but they feel nothing alike in play except for a swordsage focused on desert wind and shadow hand. Most swordsage builds and virtually all crusader and warblade builds feel just like fighters, monks, rangers, or low-op paladins in play.

When you look at the maneuvers, virtually all of them -are- enhancements to standard attacks and combat maneuvers, desert wind and shadow hand excepted. Even substantial portions of both of those disciplines are still just "make an attack. If it hits, do normal damage plus [effect]." For the other seven disciplines, there's very little that is or should be supernatural or doesn't simply modify stuff that a fighter or barbarian could do the same way a whole host of feats do.



Maneuvers, at least in fluff, are supposed to represent doing something more complex than standard attacks. If you perform one, it either leaves you or your opponent in such a position that you can't really attempt to do it again without repositioning and/or shift in your stance to line things back up.

Easy RL example, try chasing a tornado kick or spinning back fist/elbow with another of the same and see if it doesn't leave you -badly- exposed to your opponent, if you're even in a position to try and deliver it at all. At the same time, you could follow either with the other quite easily and without any extra risk over using spinning attacks in the first place.

I mean, theoretically you -could- use the same attack over and over and over but setting an easily read pattern for your foe to pick up on is generally a poor strategy. The recharge mechanics and inability to spam maneuvers can, and IMO should, be read as a mechanical abstraction to these combat principles that not everyone knows or should be expected to know.



Again, flowery names for various types of attack are -not- a uniquely eastern thing. Any HEMA practitioner can tell you that.

And there are only so many ways to move a humanoid body and swing a sword. A roundhouse kick from muay thai, tae kwon do, and karate are all similar enough that we call them all a "roundhouse" even though there are subtle differences. Bigg Oof and Lin Xia may both be using what we call the battle leader's charge but that doesn't mean that, in the game world, there aren't differences too subtle for the abstraction to quantify. Each of the nine disciplines is a collection of similar, related maneuvers. They're only a cohesive fighting system if you choose to adopt the book's default fluff.



What are you even on about here? The only discipline to which "spinning, dancing movement" readily applies is desert wind. There's definitely no spinning or dancing in stone dragon, given how the entire discipline actually requires you to keep your feet firmly planted on the ground and most of the stances require you move no more than 5 ft in a round. For the rest, that's fluff -you- are applying to the maneuvers. The default fluff is that Devoted Spirit is driven by fervor, diamond mind by clear thought and concise movement, iron heart is a highly technical discipline that requires very precise movements, setting sun is technically a grappling style, shadow hand is stealth assassin trickery (and movement is anathema to stealth), tiger claw is based in ferocity and flurries of attacks, and white raven is less of a fighting style than it is a set of tactical and strategic principles being applied to good effect.

Also, a -lot- of western fantasy and mythology involves ridiculous over-the-top nonsense no real life warrior could even hope to emulate. Even just the core warriors outstrip reality by mid-level with basically no effort.



First off, I'm not opposed to ToB, I like ToB, I'm just providing counterarguments in a thread where people are pretty heavily on the ToB wagon.

The average DnD player does not look like your optimising Giantitp forum player. You cannot generalise and expect people to have system mastery of such a broad and customisable game. If Fighters are 1 to 8, Warblades are 6-8 and for tables who ban ToB outright it can make balancing martials easier and cut that hassle out.

The window is definitely a big one. Again, the average player does not nearly optimise as much as necessary to compensate. Furthermore regardless of optimisation level, an optimised Fighter is still a permanent DPR beatstick while Warblades have so many other combat utility features to contribute that it will always feel like it's capable in a way that can overtake the Fighter or Barbarian's role and then some.. and then some.



Having any limited resource to be able to use an attack for supposed mundanes can feel spellcasting lite. Your provided abstraction of it is fair, it's what I roll with in my mind. Although for martials I tend to prefer systems where repeated use is tagged with increasing DCs rather than being rendered unusable, just feels more realistic and has less counterexamples that can contradict the idea. E.g. adamantine bones, where you need to attack and if you successfully hit, you become as hard as adamantine and gain 20 DR for 1 round. This doesn't glue well with the suggested fluff.

Also, it does feel gamey to limit particular 'movements' to being so significantly more powerful than others. You seem like you're reasonably versed on martial arts. I fight in a cage with other idiots for a living. You could probably imagine there's no flowery movement that generates significant power than the very basic 'power attack' that is, yes, a roundhouse or hook,cross and overhand. Spinning is used to mask the attack, e.g. the initial movement of a spin can be converted to both a hook kick or a back kick.

I'm not nearly as well versed on HEMA so forgive me if I'm wrong. But even in Western HEMA there are only 8 angles of attack by sword? And Miyamoto provided 5 classifications of attack for Japanese swordsmanship. At some point the distinctions between 'Dancing Mongoose' and 'Raging Mongoose' become pithy in meaning and only exist in name and power level.

Obviously spinning and dancing was an anecdotal example. In general I refer to the flourishy and overabundant categorisation of attacks mixed with hypermundane powers. Again this is a table by table preference thing but there is a difference between being really good at the mundane and being hypermundane that can turn people off. For example, a really good mundane defense could be having extremely efficient dodging on the spot on top of great blocks and parries. A hypermundane like from ToB make his body durable as adamantine by thinking it true. A really good mundane might have such great awareness and alertness that it can react to threats as soon as they are cognizant. By syncing thought and body a hypermundane could move faster than the speed of thought, because it can. Is it problematic for some people? Probably. Some people might prefer the immersion of the guy at the gym even though that thought really hampers martials past the 2nd tier of play.

Yes, plenty of Western Fantasy massively outstrips the realistic. On the other hand, as written the 3 base martials do not bypass reality other than in function where they can supposedly contend and land hits on godlike creatures just by their high BAB being really really good at waving a stick. They can become good at tripping and tackling people but, other than Epic, don't have feats that explicitly make you hop mountains.

Also as other people have suggested, having such great martial skill that you shoot out shadows and fireballs is another hypermundane or plain supernatural thing that may not mesh thematically for many. Hell, the video you linked shows a dude with pretty explicitly supernatural powers. A minute in and he's literally sucking Vin Diesel's soul out. Not a great counterexample man.

[Gusmo]

While I love the Riddick movies the 2nd one in particular often has criticisms levied against it for how ridiculous it is.

Oh I could definitely write paragraphs criticizing that movie too. :smallbiggrin: I enjoy it, but it's very flawed.

Anyway, is the problem shadows and fire regardless of whether it's anime themed? This makes more sense if you're just banning all fire and shadow themed martial stuff, anime themed or otherwise. Similar to how people don't want gunpowder, whether it relates to gunslinger Western tropes or swashbuckling tropes, but banning only one would likely be incoherent. However, right now ToB seems to be occupying this weird place where people are saying they don't want the anime fire and shadows (and perhaps more elements, but I'll stick with fire and shadows as being all inclusive for the sake of argument), even though, pages into this thread, and in countless prior threads, nobody has ever laid out anything anything resembling a convincing case that the fire and shadow stuff is intrinsically anime. You can find all of the same stuff in so many other fantasy genres that I find the anime accusations to be a fad that's long overdue for retirement.



Also as other people have suggested, having such great martial skill that you shoot out shadows and fireballs is another hypermundane or plain supernatural thing that may not mesh thematically for many. Hell, the video you linked shows a dude with pretty explicitly supernatural powers. A minute in and he's literally sucking Vin Diesel's soul out. Not a great counterexample man.

I find it conspicuous you are not commenting on the other example I posted that contains nothing supernatural (Mountain vs Oberyn). Also, the warblade is described in the classes chapter intro as lacking supernatural powers.

Edit: if necessary I may have to troll for such flamboyant fight scenes from older Zorro movies and the like, that were made before anime had any popularity in the rest of the world. Suffice to say, all of the flamboyant things you're deriding are not unique to anime. So, if you want to eliminate such flamboyant movements, do so. It's just not internally consistent if you only eliminate anime ones, because there's no such thing.

[Lord Raziere]

Oh I could definitely write paragraphs criticizing that movie too. :smallbiggrin: I enjoy it, but it's very flawed.

Anyway, is the problem shadows and fire regardless of whether it's anime themed? This makes more sense if you're just banning all fire and shadow themed martial stuff, anime themed or otherwise. Similar to how people don't want gunpowder, whether it relates to gunslinger Western tropes or swashbuckling tropes, but banning only one would likely be incoherent. However, right now ToB seems to be occupying this weird place where people are saying they don't want the anime fire and shadows (and perhaps more elements, but I'll stick with fire and shadows as being all inclusive for the sake of argument), even though, pages into this thread, and in countless prior threads, nobody has ever laid out anything anything resembling a convincing case that the fire and shadow stuff is intrinsically anime. You can find all of the same stuff in so many other fantasy genres that I find the anime accusations to be a fad that's long overdue for retirement.


That and anime isn't strictly eastern fantasy. there has always been western fantasy animes out there, even a gritty cynical GoT-type one called Berserk. more recently, there has been Isekai everywhere thats just generic western fantasy settings like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime or Konosuba. Fairy Tail is shonen western fantasy, so is Black Clover. One Piece has some eastern elements to it like some samurai, but is mostly western pirates with superpowers unrelated to specific martial arts. why look at the most recent anime featured on crunchyroll there is: Ascendance Of A Bookworm, The 8th Son? Are you Kidding Me? and My Next Life As A Villainess that are all western fantasy in aesthetic.

so technically western fantasy is anime or at least anime is also western fantasy. therefore to get rid of anime would be to get rid of western fantasy entirely :smalltongue:

[Kelb_Panthera]

First off, I'm not opposed to ToB, I like ToB, I'm just providing counterarguments in a thread where people are pretty heavily on the ToB wagon.

Yeah, okay. And I'm deconstructing those arguments to the best of my abiility.


The average DnD player does not look like your optimising Giantitp forum player. You cannot generalise and expect people to have system mastery of such a broad and customisable game. If Fighters are 1 to 8, Warblades are 6-8 and for tables who ban ToB outright it can make balancing martials easier and cut that hassle out.

The window is definitely a big one. Again, the average player does not nearly optimise as much as necessary to compensate.

Most of what I've said is true at minimal, put-your-best-score-in-strength levels of competence. It's less 1-8 for non-adepts and 4-8 for adepts than it is 1-8 and 2-8. You've got to be making decisions where you're all but actively sabotaging your non-adept warrior to dip below the floor of the martial adepts.


Furthermore regardless of optimisation level, an optimised Fighter is still a permanent DPR beatstick while Warblades have so many other combat utility features to contribute that it will always feel like it's capable in a way that can overtake the Fighter or Barbarian's role and then some.. and then some.

That's just not true. A straight fighter 20 almost -can't- put all of his feats into just one trick unless he goes for the entire weapon focus line. If he does, he's going to hit more reliably and harder than a warblade just like the barbarian already was.

This perception that warblades do -so- much more than a fighter is an erroneous one. It only seems that way because of the tendency to discount feats as "stuff everyone can do." A fighter that takes improved trip, improved sunder, improved bull rush, etc can take -all- of those and be decent at all of those combat maneuvers, using whichever is appropriate to the current situation. Most other classes -can't- grab multiple feat-based tricks, including the martial adepts, and that -matters-.

Even if the fighter puts all his bonus feats on 11 different weapon focuses, a terrible decision, but otherwise selects his gear and character feats well then he can still do just as much damage as an equal level warblade in combat. If he does something intelligent with his bonus feats, though, he'll either outstrip the warblade's damage output or he'll have a number of tricks that's comparable, else split the difference and have fewer tricks and only be a little ahead on damage. The two classes are -much- more comparable than is typically ascribed.

Now if you want to talk about CW samurai, swashbucklers, or even MoI's soulborn (poor sod) then you've probably got a point. Those classes don't do much more than hit with the pointy stick and the classes don't give them enough options to make up the difference between themselves and the martial adepts but the ranger, paladin, and fighter all keep up just fine. The barbarian always was the DPR machine and serves admirably enough in that role that if what you -want- to be is the premier face wrecker, it still -obviously- stands as a good alternative to the martial adepts.

For the monk/ swordsage. Yeah. You got me there. Monk just doesn't do what it's supposed to very well. Adequately, perhaps, but not well. Not unless you pull so many ACFs out of so many sources that it doesn't even resemble what you started with anymore. Of course, allowing the monk does completely undermine the arguments about eastern flavor given its obvious roots in kung-fu movie tropes.


Having any limited resource to be able to use an attack for supposed mundanes can feel spellcasting lite. Your provided abstraction of it is fair, it's what I roll with in my mind. Although for martials I tend to prefer systems where repeated use is tagged with increasing DCs rather than being rendered unusable, just feels more realistic and has less counterexamples that can contradict the idea. E.g. adamantine bones, where you need to attack and if you successfully hit, you become as hard as adamantine and gain 20 DR for 1 round. This doesn't glue well with the suggested fluff.

It's not a limited resource unless you're not a martial adept. If the fight drags on for in-game hours (dear gods, please no) you can use any given maneuver dozens of times. You've just got to use your refresh mechanic. For both the warblade and crusader, that means just keep fighting. Only the swordsage needs to actually pause his assault on the enemy to get a maneuver back and gradually degrades to fighting like the non-adept warriors if things drag on too long and even he can fix that with a single feat; adaptive style.



Also, it does feel gamey to limit particular 'movements' to being so significantly more powerful than others. You seem like you're reasonably versed on martial arts. I fight in a cage with other idiots for a living. You could probably imagine there's no flowery movement that generates significant power than the very basic 'power attack' that is, yes, a roundhouse or hook,cross and overhand. Spinning is used to mask the attack, e.g. the initial movement of a spin can be converted to both a hook kick or a back kick.

Yeah, that tornado kick I mentioned earlier. It's a real PiTA to land but it hits like a freight-train when it does. The full 360 spin takes too long to try and deliver it cold so you've got to set it up. There's a rolling kick in karate that also hits -extremely- hard but it's a sacrifice move that leaves you on the ground whether it hits or not. In muay thai, there's a maneuver where you actually climb the other guy and deliver an elbow directly down into the opponent's skull, although you don't see that one in most circuits because of the difficulty in execution and the likelihood of doing the opponent permanent or lethal injury. A hook or roundhouse from the power side hit a lot harder than a jab or front-kick from the lead leg but they're still much simpler and less damaging than these.

And yeah, I'm kind of a fight nerd. :smalltongue:


I'm not nearly as well versed on HEMA so forgive me if I'm wrong. But even in Western HEMA there are only 8 angles of attack by sword? And Miyamoto provided 5 classifications of attack for Japanese swordsmanship. At some point the distinctions between 'Dancing Mongoose' and 'Raging Mongoose' become pithy in meaning and only exist in name and power level.

Wow no. Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) swordsmanship and kenjutsu are pretty radically different because of the substantial differences in blade geometries and material qualities of western longswords and the japanese katana as well as the prevalence of high-quality armor in classical euorpe and japan.

As for the idea that a higher level maneuver being an improved version of a lower level one, that's no different from a number of feats that come in more than one grade; (improved) expertise, (greater) multishot, the two-weapon fighting line, etc. Just because it's folded into the martial adepts' initiator level system for prerequisites instead of BAB or skill ranks doesn't make a whole lot of difference.


Obviously spinning and dancing was an anecdotal example. In general I refer to the flourishy and overabundant categorisation of attacks mixed with hypermundane powers. Again this is a table by table preference thing but there is a difference between being really good at the mundane and being hypermundane that can turn people off. For example, a really good mundane defense could be having extremely efficient dodging on the spot on top of great blocks and parries. A hypermundane like from ToB make his body durable as adamantine by thinking it true. A really good mundane might have such great awareness and alertness that it can react to threats as soon as they are cognizant. By syncing thought and body a hypermundane could move faster than the speed of thought, because it can. Is it problematic for some people? Probably. Some people might prefer the immersion of the guy at the gym even though that thought really hampers martials past the 2nd tier of play.

Depends on the gym, I suppose. I've seen clips of men that do some pretty outrageous stuff like bending a chinese spear by placing the tip in the hollow of his neck, shove their hands in between massive stone rollers, take a cannonball or battering ram to the body and either stand up just fine or merely be staggered backward, snap off a couple rounds from a revolver so fast that even electronic devices only register one shot, etc and so on.

Turning stuff like that up to 11 puts ToB into a different perspective for what constitutes "hypermundane," I guess. It's not like even an epic warblade is chopping the tops off of mountains.


Yes, plenty of Western Fantasy massively outstrips the realistic. On the other hand, as written the 3 base martials do not bypass reality other than in function where they can supposedly contend and land hits on godlike creatures just by their high BAB being really really good at waving a stick. They can become good at tripping and tackling people but, other than Epic, don't have feats that explicitly make you hop mountains.

Hopping a mountain, yeah. You're looking at epic for that, ToB or no. Beating real world long and broad jump records while wearing 20 lbs of armor though, just keep your ranks in jump maxed and you'll get there incidentally by mid levels. If you actually decide you want to be good at jumping, then you really will be leaping around like jet li in crouching tiger by level 20.


Also as other people have suggested, having such great martial skill that you shoot out shadows and fireballs is another hypermundane or plain supernatural thing that may not mesh thematically for many.

Even in ToB, those are explicitly supernatural. If you don't want your non-caster doing it, just don't pick those maneuvers or ban those maneuvers/ disciplines rather than the whole book. One of the contributing factors to the general sword-mystic perception surrounding the book has got to be desert wind being the first discipline as you flip through it. The first discipline you see is the most magical of the 9 by a long, long ways.


Hell, the video you linked shows a dude with pretty explicitly supernatural powers. A minute in and he's literally sucking Vin Diesel's soul out. Not a great counterexample man.

That wasn't me. Like I said, most of desert wind and around half of shadow hand are explicitly supernatural. There's a little bit in devoted spirit that probably ought to be that isn't marked as supernatural. The rest of the maneuvers are all pretty clearly just martial prowess taken to an extreme.

[el minster]

Deasert Wind never seemed asian to me; more middle-eastern actually.

[Gusmo]

That and anime isn't strictly eastern fantasy. there has always been western fantasy animes out there, even a gritty cynical GoT-type one called Berserk. more recently, there has been Isekai everywhere thats just generic western fantasy settings like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime or Konosuba. Fairy Tail is shonen western fantasy, so is Black Clover. One Piece has some eastern elements to it like some samurai, but is mostly western pirates with superpowers unrelated to specific martial arts. why look at the most recent anime featured on crunchyroll there is: Ascendance Of A Bookworm, The 8th Son? Are you Kidding Me? and My Next Life As A Villainess that are all western fantasy in aesthetic.

so technically western fantasy is anime or at least anime is also western fantasy. therefore to get rid of anime would be to get rid of western fantasy entirely :smalltongue:

On that note, I've always thought the use of the terms anime and manga were interesting cases of borrow words. Are they borrow words? What do the Japanese call Western comics and animation?


Deasert Wind never seemed asian to me; more middle-eastern actually.

Agree 100% about Desert Wind. The only one that strikes me as being Eastern is Tiger Claw I guess? Tigers are native to Asia.

[el minster]

Agree 100% about Desert Wind. The only one that strikes me as being Eastern is Tiger Claw I guess? Tigers are native to Asia.

Shadow hand is screaming ninja, but yeah tiger claw makes me think of India.

[Bohandas]

The most common reason I've found for DMs to ban things that aren't full-casters or abusive combos are:

* It's unfamiliar (and therefore presenting as either a lot of work to figure out, or fear that it will be overpowered)

* They have poor power-level assessment


Seconding these two possibilities and adding the third possibility that it may be thematically incompatible with whatever campaign they have planned


That and anime isn't strictly eastern fantasy. there has always been western fantasy animes out there, even a gritty cynical GoT-type one called Berserk. more recently, there has been Isekai everywhere thats just generic western fantasy settings like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime or Konosuba. Fairy Tail is shonen western fantasy, so is Black Clover. One Piece has some eastern elements to it like some samurai, but is mostly western pirates with superpowers unrelated to specific martial arts. why look at the most recent anime featured on crunchyroll there is: Ascendance Of A Bookworm, The 8th Son? Are you Kidding Me? and My Next Life As A Villainess that are all western fantasy in aesthetic.

Don't forget Seven Deadly Sins, which is chock full of characters from Arthurian legend, including several that are kind of obscure

[Crake]

To be fair, while I always remembered cool attack names from my favorite wuxia films, I never remembered them being quite so long. Buddha Palm, Cotton Belly Defense, Iron Shirt, etc. - they were poetic, reasonably descriptive, but brief. An attack name longer than five words feels more modern to me - more like another genre impersonating wuxia.

I always took it more as a nod toward the kill bill "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique", as it seems moderately similar to "Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervating Strike", even down to the same number of words in the name.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I always took it more as a nod toward the kill bill "Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique", as it seems moderately similar to "Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervating Strike", even down to the same number of words in the name.

Yeah, I vaguely recall that one of the devs confirmed it was an intentional shoutout shortly after ToB came out, but obviously with Gleemax dead I can't go back and find a quote.

[upho]

I get it. There are a few PoW (Really, ToB can’t do the same things, PoW is stronger) powers that feel overpowered to me. There are black seraph maneuvers that do more than level x D6 AOE damage of an unresistable type that also does extra damage to good things and carry debuff riders. That’s going to make any but a highly optimized blaster caster feel terrible.Oh yes. And even if disregarding the maneuvers which were tagged for errata long ago*, such as some Black Seraph ones, I think it's pretty obvious PoW's op-ceiling relative that of the most powerful 1PP PF classes is considerably higher than that of ToB relative the other most powerful 1PP 3.5 classes, most notably in terms of how challenging combat they can reliably handle. And I really mean considerably higher, as very few 1PP PF builds can solo ROFL curb-stomp enemies far above their level even remotely as well as high-op PoW builds can, especially not in higher levels. And AFAIK, none of the 1PP builds which are the closest to matching that combat power are based on full casters, and neither these 1PP builds or the PoW ones are dependent on high level spells. Whereas in 3.5, not only does high-op full casters dominate every aspect of the game, but the overall power range between the PC classes is also far greater than they are in a 1PP PF + DSP** game.

So when comparing the power of PoW with ToB, I think it's worth keeping in mind that for example a straight human fighter in PF can arguably be more useful against truly challenging combat opponents than a wizard even from 10th to 20th level. As an extreme example from a recent thread, I seriously doubt you'll find any PF full caster build with commonly allowed options able to one-shot several CR 20 balors before high levels, while a human fighter can do it at 9th. That same fighter could also and end up having a more than fair chance against many of the most dangerous 1PP creatures ever published (including CR 30 monsters), many of which would simply be beyond a wizard's abilities to fight effectively.

The bottom line is that just like when it comes to 1PP content, PoW requires a gentlemen's agreement on the acceptable power range for PCs before the game starts. Which is likely far less often needed to keep ToB in check in 3.5 games including full casters.

*Errata which unfortunately now seem highly unlikely to ever be completed and released by DSP due to the sad circumstances. But in short, AFAIK it would've addressed for example the over-tuned stuff found especially in Broken Blade (like Steel Flurry Strike), but also in Primal Fury (like Cornered Frenzy Strike) and Black Seraph (such as Bilious Strike).

**Excluding the Monster Classes series, as balance is explicitly less of a concern and the range varies quite wildly.


And with some TOB classes you can spam that every round and recover it as a swift or move.Did you mean to write "PoW classes" here, not "TOB classes"?

If not, seems I've missed/forgotten some important possibilities in ToB (other than d2 crusader shenanigans)... :smallconfused:


It’s not actually stronger than common tier 1 tricks. Planar binding, or wild shaping into an aberration that casts from a different plane, or whipping up a legion of commanded Incorporeal undead. But if your group bans or gentlemen’s agreements those or hasn’t discovered them It feels very strong.When it comes to combat, I'd actually say PoW can be stronger than any common T1 tricks in PF. For example, AFAIK there are no forms of planar binding, wild shaping or legions of undead that will notably improve a caster's chances against say Cthulhu (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/great-old-ones/great-old-one-cthulhu/), not even at 20th level. But please tell me if I'm missing/forgetting something here.

(But yeah, also high-op fighter 20 would probably need less than 30 seconds of prep to have a very good chance of turning Cthulhu into fine red mist or beating him dazed and/or scared into uselessness before he can act. And neither such a high-op fighter or PoW build is necessarily any less capable in combat against multiple foes.)


My group started out stalker (DSP), arcanist, magus, rogue/cleric and is now stalker(DSP), vizier (DSP), dragon (DSP), rogue/cleric/warlord (DSP). And we rock combats brutally.

We aren’t actually stronger than a party with T1s. We can’t teleport or scry or stuff like that. And my group wasn’t abusing the more abusable spells anyway. In our case it plays great. It’s like a whole new game and whenever a new character comes in we are all “wow what’s this thing going to do”. But we really are at the very top edge of Tier 3 and it would be hard to enter at this point as anything other than DSP or an optimized full caster.Heh, yeah, I have very similar experiences. :smalltongue:

OT, but I simply have to ask: rogue/cleric/warlord? What the...?

This surely looks pretty darn suspicious. You must keep this player under close watch, Gnaeus! They're obviously reaching for some very smelly cheese, trying to distract everyone with that ridiculous class combo...

Seriously though, I gotta hear how that build works!


They're not. They're mostly in the completes, OA, and PHB2.Yay! My memory actually still works sometimes!



I don't know PF so I can't speak to any of its material.Ah, I should've made it more clear that last part was primarily addressing anyone who believes introducing ToB would require non-ToB martials to be "ToB-ified" to avoid becoming redundant, reminding them that there are already easily backported rules for this.

As a sidenote, in this particular case, I'm pretty certain you'd merely need to briefly check out the material to be able to speak of it as backported to 3.5 (with the disciplines exchanged for suitable ToB ones). With the potential minor exception of deciding on how to deal with a few replaced class features which don't exist in 3.5, it should be really simple.


You misunderstand. The PhD comment was for having the kind of deep, extensive knowledge to do -all- of what ToB offers. To do any of it requires far less knowledge and the fairly common sources I mentioned above.Yes, and my point was that it nevertheless obviously requires quite a bit more knowledge to build a martial PC of a certain capability without ToB than to build a martial PC with the same capability with ToB. Or more precisely: when Average Joe builds a martial PC based on a ToB class, that PC is highly likely to be noticeably stronger than the martial PC Joe would've built in a game which doesn't allow ToB.

Again, in a large majority of games, I believe it doesn't really matter whether it's actually possible to build martial PCs using non-ToB sources which are just as strong as ToB builds, because if the players can't or won't make use of that possibility, the higher floor of the ToB classes also means the builds based on them are going to be stronger. IOW, in most games, the height of a martial class' floor has a major impact on the strength of the PCs based on that class, while the height of the class' ceiling has virtually no impact at all.

Btw, I believe a similar relationship exists between the PF fighter and the most similar PoW classes: the fighter's ceiling isn't that much lower, but I'm fairly certain a vast majority of the builds based on the PoW classes which are actually played are nevertheless very clearly more powerful, because the floors of those classes are significantly higher than that of the fighter.


Those comments I made above on damage dealing; the comparison that I made was with sources restricted to core + ToB. The more splat you add, the harder it gets for ToB to keep up. The major advantage of ToB over not-ToB is in that the former guarantees you have more options than just the bog-standard ones available to all characters.
/snip/
Once you have -any- means of swift action movement or pounce, the difference in damage dealing capability favors the full attack.
/snip/
The comparison between crusader and paladin is just laughable in anything -but- a core+ToB game though. With just complete champion and the spell compendium the paladin surges so far ahead that it's ridiculous.While what you say here are undoubtedly undeniable facts, I again question the relevance. Because AFAICT, these comparisons all assume that the PC uses the strongest options found in the allowed sources, while I strongly suspect that the opposite assumption would be about close to how a vast majority of PCs are built in reality.

In detail, assuming we were actually able to examine all the martial PCs which have ever been played in a game including the relevant sources, I'm certain that an exceedingly small proportion of those PCs had any of for example the following options/abilities, even if we limit the selection only to those builds which would have the most to gain from one of them (and even if those builds actually already met the most important/demanding prereqs, such as levels in a specific class):

Swift action movement (especially not of any distance great enough to have much impact)
Pounce
Battle Blessing
Great Throw
Combat Brute


Now special attacks are another matter. You actually have to go looking for those. While anyone can trip a foe, you have to spend resources to be able to do damage with it and move your foe from his space; OA's great throw or setting sun's mighty throw. Being able to sunder or disarm a foe's weapon and attack them in the same move; the combat brute tactical feat's sundering cleave maneuver or iron heart's disarming strike. As a martial adept you're more likely to see several of these than anything but a fighter.Yes, and the "actually have to go looking"-bit is key here, because we can also pretty safely assume that most players don't really know what to look for, much less where to find it and to access it.

In contrast, a player building a PC based on a ToB class is vastly more likely to find strong appropriate options, as a large majority of them are in the very same book or the PHB, and in the case of maneuvers, can often be easily accessed in a way the player is likely to consider "at no cost". ("Opportunity cost" is a difficult concept for most people, or at least it's difficult for them to make reasonable estimations of it in 3.5 without considerable system mastery.)

So, to make your comparisons between ToB builds and martial builds based on other classes relevant, you should probably assume that the former typically have few truly sub-par options, while the latter typically have few of the stronger options available to them and many of the weaker ones (think an average usefulness ranging from say Weapon Specialization to Spring Attack).


People suck at complex math and detailed comparison.Definitely. And they also suck at PO (in many cases likely for much the same reasons)...

[Max Caysey]

A DM of mine, for example, hated ToB with a passion. He believed that it was full of broken classes that essentially replaced the core martials (the latter part is true, of course). Said DM, of course, thought that monks are good mage-killers, that Dwarven Defender is a great PrC, that factotums are overpowered, that Phantasmal Killer is a strong spell, and actively encouraged the new player who had made a sorceress to pick both Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

So your DM could be among those who think ToB was a book full of broken options. Or he could just dislike long weird names for attacking moves or anime (and while I dislike the anime culture, european swordsmanship manuals actually have plenty of weird names for moves, so it goes both ways).

So, so many DMs are like that. I was like that for many years... basically until I started coming here to this forum. First then did I actually understand what was powerful and what was not. I remember so vividly having discussions about how powerful the monk was... man were we wrong!

[Manyasone]

...Hopping a mountain, yeah. You're looking at epic for that, ToB or no. Beating real world long and broad jump records while wearing 20 lbs of armor though, just keep your ranks in jump maxed and you'll get there incidentally by mid levels. If you actually decide you want to be good at jumping, then you really will be leaping around like jet li in crouching tiger by level 20...

Chow Yun-fat I believe, dear sir

[Tvtyrant]

Oh yes. And even if disregarding the maneuvers which were tagged for errata long ago*, such as some Black Seraph ones, I think it's pretty obvious PoW's op-ceiling relative that of the most powerful 1PP PF classes is considerably higher than that of ToB relative the other most powerful 1PP 3.5 classes, most notably in terms of how challenging combat they can reliably handle. And I really mean considerably higher, as very few 1PP PF builds can solo ROFL curb-stomp enemies far above their level even remotely as well as high-op PoW builds can, especially not in higher levels. And AFAIK, none of the 1PP builds which are the closest to matching that combat power are based on full casters, and neither these 1PP builds or the PoW ones are dependent on high level spells. Whereas in 3.5, not only does high-op full casters dominate every aspect of the game, but the overall power range between the PC classes is also far greater than they are in a 1PP PF + DSP** game.

So when comparing the power of PoW with ToB, I think it's worth keeping in mind that for example a straight human fighter in PF can arguably be more useful against truly challenging combat opponents than a wizard even from 10th to 20th level. As an extreme example from a recent thread, I seriously doubt you'll find any PF full caster build with commonly allowed options able to one-shot several CR 20 balors before high levels, while a human fighter can do it at 9th. That same fighter could also and end up having a more than fair chance against many of the most dangerous 1PP creatures ever published (including CR 30 monsters), many of which would simply be beyond a wizard's abilities to fight effectively.

The bottom line is that just like when it comes to 1PP content, PoW requires a gentlemen's agreement on the acceptable power range for PCs before the game starts. Which is likely far less often needed to keep ToB in check in 3.5 games including full casters.

*Errata which unfortunately now seem highly unlikely to ever be completed and released by DSP due to the sad circumstances. But in short, AFAIK it would've addressed for example the over-tuned stuff found especially in Broken Blade (like Steel Flurry Strike), but also in Primal Fury (like Cornered Frenzy Strike) and Black Seraph (such as Bilious Strike).

**Excluding the Monster Classes series, as balance is explicitly less of a concern and the range varies quite wildly.

Did you mean to write "PoW classes" here, not "TOB classes"?

If not, seems I've missed/forgotten some important possibilities in ToB (other than d2 crusader shenanigans)... :smallconfused:

When it comes to combat, I'd actually say PoW can be stronger than any common T1 tricks in PF. For example, AFAIK there are no forms of planar binding, wild shaping or legions of undead that will notably improve a caster's chances against say Cthulhu (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/great-old-ones/great-old-one-cthulhu/), not even at 20th level. But please tell me if I'm missing/forgetting something here.

(But yeah, also high-op fighter 20 would probably need less than 30 seconds of prep to have a very good chance of turning Cthulhu into fine red mist or beating him dazed and/or scared into uselessness before he can act. And neither such a high-op fighter or PoW build is necessarily any less capable in combat against multiple foes.)

Heh, yeah, I have very similar experiences. :smalltongue:

OT, but I simply have to ask: rogue/cleric/warlord? What the...?

This surely looks pretty darn suspicious. You must keep this player under close watch, Gnaeus! They're obviously reaching for some very smelly cheese, trying to distract everyone with that ridiculous class combo...

Seriously though, I gotta hear how that build works!

Yay! My memory actually still works sometimes!


Ah, I should've made it more clear that last part was primarily addressing anyone who believes introducing ToB would require non-ToB martials to be "ToB-ified" to avoid becoming redundant, reminding them that there are already easily backported rules for this.

As a sidenote, in this particular case, I'm pretty certain you'd merely need to briefly check out the material to be able to speak of it as backported to 3.5 (with the disciplines exchanged for suitable ToB ones). With the potential minor exception of deciding on how to deal with a few replaced class features which don't exist in 3.5, it should be really simple.

Yes, and my point was that it nevertheless obviously requires quite a bit more knowledge to build a martial PC of a certain capability without ToB than to build a martial PC with the same capability with ToB. Or more precisely: when Average Joe builds a martial PC based on a ToB class, that PC is highly likely to be noticeably stronger than the martial PC Joe would've built in a game which doesn't allow ToB.

Again, in a large majority of games, I believe it doesn't really matter whether it's actually possible to build martial PCs using non-ToB sources which are just as strong as ToB builds, because if the players can't or won't make use of that possibility, the higher floor of the ToB classes also means the builds based on them are going to be stronger. IOW, in most games, the height of a martial class' floor has a major impact on the strength of the PCs based on that class, while the height of the class' ceiling has virtually no impact at all.

Btw, I believe a similar relationship exists between the PF fighter and the most similar PoW classes: the fighter's ceiling isn't that much lower, but I'm fairly certain a vast majority of the builds based on the PoW classes which are actually played are nevertheless very clearly more powerful, because the floors of those classes are significantly higher than that of the fighter.

While what you say here are undoubtedly undeniable facts, I again question the relevance. Because AFAICT, these comparisons all assume that the PC uses the strongest options found in the allowed sources, while I strongly suspect that the opposite assumption would be about close to how a vast majority of PCs are built in reality.

In detail, assuming we were actually able to examine all the martial PCs which have ever been played in a game including the relevant sources, I'm certain that an exceedingly small proportion of those PCs had any of for example the following options/abilities, even if we limit the selection only to those builds which would have the most to gain from one of them (and even if those builds actually already met the most important/demanding prereqs, such as levels in a specific class):

Swift action movement (especially not of any distance great enough to have much impact)
Pounce
Battle Blessing
Great Throw
Combat Brute

Yes, and the "actually have to go looking"-bit is key here, because we can also pretty safely assume that most players don't really know what to look for, much less where to find it and to access it.

In contrast, a player building a PC based on a ToB class is vastly more likely to find strong appropriate options, as a large majority of them are in the very same book or the PHB, and in the case of maneuvers, can often be easily accessed in a way the player is likely to consider "at no cost". ("Opportunity cost" is a difficult concept for most people, or at least it's difficult for them to make reasonable estimations of it in 3.5 without considerable system mastery.)

So, to make your comparisons between ToB builds and martial builds based on other classes relevant, you should probably assume that the former typically have few truly sub-par options, while the latter typically have few of the stronger options available to them and many of the weaker ones (think an average usefulness ranging from say Weapon Specialization to Spring Attack).

Definitely. And they also suck at PO (in many cases likely for much the same reasons)...

This is a very good point. I have been in groups where PA on a two hander was above the curve for optimization on a fighter, and something like Shock Trooper would be considered impossible levels of cheese. This was when the edition was new and we were teens, but people have bad instincts when it comes to optimization.

[el minster]

This is a very good point. I have been in groups where PA on a two hander was above the curve for optimization on a fighter, and something like Shock Trooper would be considered impossible levels of cheese. This was when the edition was new and we were teens, but people have bad instincts when it comes to optimization.

They really do.

[Gusmo]

This is a very good point. I have been in groups where PA on a two hander was above the curve for optimization on a fighter, and something like Shock Trooper would be considered impossible levels of cheese. This was when the edition was new and we were teens, but people have bad instincts when it comes to optimization.

I have also been in this exact same scenario. My overpowered build was a core-only barbarian with power attack and a greatsword.

[Lord Raziere]

On that note, I've always thought the use of the terms anime and manga were interesting cases of borrow words. Are they borrow words? What do the Japanese call Western comics and animation?


I dunno, what do they call it, to the googles!

....apparently even in japan the terms "anime" and "manga" have a connotation of when you say it your talking things made in japan. their terms for western stuff is アニメーション (animeeshon) and コミック (komikku) or アメコミ (amekomi or American comics).

but your right, anime and manga are loan words, but as they got exported, anime and manga came to mean stuff specifically from japan, the definition narrowed over time from just being words for the same thing to be specific about this or that. whether this is because of the fans making that distinction or the companies doing that, is unknown.

[Zanos]

Oh I could definitely write paragraphs criticizing that movie too. :smallbiggrin: I enjoy it, but it's very flawed.

Anyway, is the problem shadows and fire regardless of whether it's anime themed? This makes more sense if you're just banning all fire and shadow themed martial stuff, anime themed or otherwise. Similar to how people don't want gunpowder, whether it relates to gunslinger Western tropes or swashbuckling tropes, but banning only one would likely be incoherent. However, right now ToB seems to be occupying this weird place where people are saying they don't want the anime fire and shadows (and perhaps more elements, but I'll stick with fire and shadows as being all inclusive for the sake of argument), even though, pages into this thread, and in countless prior threads, nobody has ever laid out anything anything resembling a convincing case that the fire and shadow stuff is intrinsically anime. You can find all of the same stuff in so many other fantasy genres that I find the anime accusations to be a fad that's long overdue for retirement.
I mean if you find anime to be an 'accusation' that's kind of the issue here, isn't it? You probably aren't to be able to argue with people who think semi-mystical martial arts have an Eastern flavor, because flavor is subjective. Personally I feel that training real hard until you can punch fire is a pretty Eastern theme, even if it's been adopted by things that are made in the West. The fact that I consider the swordsage 'anime' isn't bad in all contexts, just in the context of the flavor of certain settings.

[Telok]

This is a very good point. I have been in groups where PA on a two hander was above the curve for optimization on a fighter, and something like Shock Trooper would be considered impossible levels of cheese. This was when the edition was new and we were teens, but people have bad instincts when it comes to optimization.

Seriously. Although I think my group caught on about 6 months after 3e came out. Just the practice of having run ad&d wizards and clerics made my first sorcerer have more hp than the monk at 10th level just by having 16+4item con. Then 3.5 came out right after I started spamming large elementals and it made the twf half-celestial fighter lose the crit range stacking on his rapiers. Circle kick and haste wasn't enough for the monk to keep up either.

[Mordaedil]

That and anime isn't strictly eastern fantasy. there has always been western fantasy animes out there, even a gritty cynical GoT-type one called Berserk. more recently, there has been Isekai everywhere thats just generic western fantasy settings like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime or Konosuba. Fairy Tail is shonen western fantasy, so is Black Clover. One Piece has some eastern elements to it like some samurai, but is mostly western pirates with superpowers unrelated to specific martial arts. why look at the most recent anime featured on crunchyroll there is: Ascendance Of A Bookworm, The 8th Son? Are you Kidding Me? and My Next Life As A Villainess that are all western fantasy in aesthetic.

so technically western fantasy is anime or at least anime is also western fantasy. therefore to get rid of anime would be to get rid of western fantasy entirely :smalltongue:

I do find that a lot of people using that excuse of banning things because of anime have seen exactly two anime (used to be one, the first one) and they are ninja scroll and Naruto.

At least, that seems to be my impression for why people have the knee-jerk reaction. Even in the AD&D Oriental Adventures though, Gary Gygax himself engages in some of that grandstanding attitude towards eastern elements in his games by kinda soft-mocking martial arts movies which were growing in popularity at the time. I think that was originally part of why the monk class was featured in early as well.

[AntiAuthority]

That and anime isn't strictly eastern fantasy. there has always been western fantasy animes out there, even a gritty cynical GoT-type one called Berserk. more recently, there has been Isekai everywhere thats just generic western fantasy settings like Overlord or That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime or Konosuba. Fairy Tail is shonen western fantasy, so is Black Clover. One Piece has some eastern elements to it like some samurai, but is mostly western pirates with superpowers unrelated to specific martial arts. why look at the most recent anime featured on crunchyroll there is: Ascendance Of A Bookworm, The 8th Son? Are you Kidding Me? and My Next Life As A Villainess that are all western fantasy in aesthetic.

so technically western fantasy is anime or at least anime is also western fantasy. therefore to get rid of anime would be to get rid of western fantasy entirely :smalltongue:

I'm just going to go ahead and add onto what you said by leaving this (https://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/50703903337/on-legendry)and this (http://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1480476181979.png)here. Going by the two links, even Western mythology has anime-esque stuff going on in it.

As for the list (and this is including video games)... Final Fantasy 1, most Dragon Quest games, Goblin Slayer, Danmachi, Slayers, Record of Lodoss Wars, Fire Emblem, Rising of the Shield Hero and the Legend of Zelda all take place in Western medieval-esque settings. Of note, some of these were basically Lord of the Rings and D&D video games and anime (the spells in FF1 were more or less directly lifted from older D&D and Goblin Slayer is heavily implied to be a D&D 5E game in-universe.)

Besides... Anime's a medium, not a genre lol. It'd be like saying something is too cinematic or too picturesque, a movie isn't a genre anymore than a picture is. The stuff you'd see in Shonen battle anime is no different from the type of stuff you'd see in mythologies (being impossibly skilled/fast/strong/whatever enough to keep pace with/defeat armies/monsters/gods/concepts/celestial bodies etc.), they're just being told in an updated medium. (For sake of reference, Berserk has Dragon Slayer while Final Fantasy 7 has the Buster Sword, both being impossibly heavy weapons for normal humans to wield... But Game of Thrones has an incredibly heavy warhammer that Ned Stark couldn't wield, Gilgamesh had 180 pound throwing daggers and Osla Big Knife had a sword large enough for armies to use as a bridge... This isn't even getting into the army-slaying mountaintop-cleaving rainbow-trail-leaving sword Caladbolg.)

[Lord Raziere]

I do find that a lot of people using that excuse of banning things because of anime have seen exactly two anime (used to be one, the first one) and they are ninja scroll and Naruto.

At least, that seems to be my impression for why people have the knee-jerk reaction. Even in the AD&D Oriental Adventures though, Gary Gygax himself engages in some of that grandstanding attitude towards eastern elements in his games by kinda soft-mocking martial arts movies which were growing in popularity at the time. I think that was originally part of why the monk class was featured in early as well.

Well I haven't seen ninja scroll, but I'm a big Naruto fan and I find people disliking TOB based on Naruto is ironic. because if someone's problem with that kind of anime nonsense is that you achieve all your magic through hard work or whatever- Naruto is perhaps the worst anime to level that criticism at, because among anime fans its widely derided for not living up to its own aesop of hard work over talent. the main character has a big magic fox sealed in him that he uses to win....at least most of his fights by berserking or tapping into it, power which was given to him by super-powerful dead father who in contrast DID actually achieve all he did through hard work, but then died basically giving his son incredible power at birth (though has downsides that I won't get into here). the other characters that emphasize the kind of hard work martial stuff that would fit ToB are Rock Lee and Might Guy, who both break their bodies going up against people wielding the closest thing to shards of divinity their world has. (they do get mad props for doing so however because those flashes of hard work bloodying the super-hax guys noses are awesome) followed by those hax guys being defeated by Naruto's hax.

and then Boruto happened, who is Naruto's son, who randomly inherits eye hax and then decides to use tech to cast any spell he wants to pass the ninja exam/olympics everyone goes to, Naruto disqualifies him for cheating when its not much different from a bloodline that can also copy any spell for the user so they can use it, a member of which is allowed to compete in the same thing he is. considering Naruto got to where he is today by having a hax of his own its kinda hypocritical (but then again one of Naruto's themes is teamwork, so I guess teamwork with a magical giant fox counts as teamwork and not cheating for some reason, so that stupid shinobi gauntlet would be okay if it just had an artificial intelligence?) and the most powerful people in Boruto and Naruto are all the guys who leverage and optimize their hax bloodline/inheritance abilities to their utmost while using the naruto equivalent of illusions, conjurations and evocations aside from the rare few who use the closest thing to druid magic, and if you screw that magic up you turn to stone.

but yeah, its ironic that Naruto would be associated with ToB, as most of its nonsense is technically arcane or druid magic from a DnD perspective.

As for Gygax- well thats just another reason I'll add to why I personally don't particularly value or listen to his viewpoint: the age of it is showing, and it has not aged well.



Besides... Anime's a medium, not a genre lol. It'd be like saying something is too cinematic or too picturesque, a movie isn't a genre anymore than a picture is. The stuff you'd see in Shonen battle anime is no different from the type of stuff you'd see in mythologies (being impossibly skilled/fast/strong/whatever enough to keep pace with/defeat armies/monsters/gods/concepts/celestial bodies etc.), they're just being told in an updated medium. (For sake of reference, Berserk has Dragon Slayer while Final Fantasy 7 has the Buster Sword, both being impossibly heavy weapons for normal humans to wield... But Game of Thrones has an incredibly heavy warhammer that Ned Stark couldn't wield, Gilgamesh had 60 pound throwing daggers and Osla Big Knife had a sword large enough for armies to use as a bridge... This isn't even getting into the army-slaying mountaintop-cleaving rainbow-trail-leaving sword Caladbolg.)

I mean yeah, basically.

when are going to get Ragnarok the anime? or Greek Gods Vs. Titans the anime? we need more anime to just retell old myths and be completely literal about their feats. show the world how freaking insane old myths were and that weren't just dark fairy tales.

[Rater202]

[QUOTE=Lord Raziere;24558068Naruto is perhaps the worst anime to level that criticism at, because among anime fans its widely derided for not living up to its own aesop of hard work over talent.[/QUOTE]

That was never an Aesop. That was people seeing something that wasn't there becuase they conflated the hangups of two different characters: Lee's philosophy that even someone with no talent can become great if they work hard enough contrasted against Neji's philosophy that your entire life is predetermined at birth: If you have no talent then you'll never amount to anything.

Let's see how that was resolved: Neji lost a fight that he was convinced he was destined to win(Becuase Nartuo has little natural talent) becuase Naruto learned how to use the Nine-Tail's power to supplement his own(was not an automatic thing) and that was something that Neji could never see coming...

...And Kakashi points out that only a Genius could have achieved the same level of skill with the Eight Inner Gates that Lee had achieved t his age.

There is no "Genius/HArd Work Dictonomy." It's a series of different kinds of genius achieving greatness with different degrees of hard work.

On Naruto: The Nine-Tailed Fox was a liability: Having that much raw power as a side effect of the Fox's power made it harder to control his chakra(See the clone Jutsu: Naruto produces too much energy, ends up not using enough, and the excess gets wasted) and he could only use it when his life was in danger, when he was too angry o function, or when he was out of his own power... And it hurt him to use it. And tended to make him go on a murderous ramage.

Naruto was only able to benefit from the Nine-Tails power four years after learning it was in him after he independently gained enough power to kick it's ass. Which he did by working his ass off. Worked his ass off in the Land of Waves to build up chakra control tree walking. Worked his as of to learn the summoning Jutsu. Then he spent three years learning the basics he failed to learn in the academy. Spent the equivalent of anywhere between 80s and 300 years practicing a single relatively basic technique until he completely mastered it.

Naruto works hard for his power-ups. It's just, people ignore the Downsides of the Nine-Tails and have a narrow-minded view that Lee's intense, body breaking workouts must be the only kind of hard work there is.

(Honestly, Lee would probably be stronger if he worked out slightly less. Keeping going till your body breaks is going to drastically reduce the returns you get from it.)

[Nifft]

You know...

Ninja Scroll is the story of a dude with a sword killing a bunch of villains with weird powers, and the conflict at its root is about a chest full of gold.

It's pretty darn close to D&D for a cartoon not actually based on D&D.

[AvatarVecna]

ToB is

1) A new subsystem

2) that gives fighters nice things

3) and feels waaaaaaaaay too anime

None of the above are problems, unless you're an uncultured anti-mundanes bigot afraid of change. :smalltongue:

[Lord Raziere]

*cut for length*
Naruto works hard for his power-ups. It's just, people ignore the Downsides of the Nine-Tails and have a narrow-minded view that Lee's intense, body breaking workouts must be the only kind of hard work there is.

(Honestly, Lee would probably be stronger if he worked out slightly less. Keeping going till your body breaks is going to drastically reduce the returns you get from it.)

1. cool, thanks for making me like Naruto even more.

2. if you want to see a naruto fan fic point that Rock Lee thought there out and do something with it, I recommend Yet Again With a Little Extra Help its bonkers in all the right ways.

3. but to steer the conversation away from the naruto misconception, I'm reading the disciplines and the classes within and I honestly do not see how one could connected Naruto abilities with these. like, these disciplines can't even emulate half the stuff a naruto ninja can do. in fact I'd say that looking to most modern anime even shonen battle ones for inspiration for these disciplines, would be a little misguided. Devoted Spirit could work for the animes where your strength of virtue matters more than your actual skill, and Diamond Mind seems to be the Iaijutsu discipline, but Naruto doesn't do the latter and the only time you can argue the former with Devoted Spirit is when the Rasengan is pulled out...

but overall I wouldn't say ToB is emulating anime, because if anything its a little too grounded in actual fighting styles, and would say its more accurately emulating wuxia. which is a chinese genre, not a japanese one. you can still say its "anime", but its like confusing it with shonen anime's twin chinese literary cousin. I mean I get why you'd mistake one for the other they have a lot of similar elements, but they're technically not the same. I won't go into the differences unless people ask.

(and even in the ToB itself references things like final fantasy, soul caliber, kill bill, and the Matrix, none of which are anime, its says japanese anime is apart of it, but so is hong kong action movies and popular video games, so....anime is far from the only influence ToB seems to have. I get the feeling that things like Jade Empire and Thunderbolt Fantasy are better sources of inspiration than Naruto or Bleach for ToB)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, and my point was that it nevertheless obviously requires quite a bit more knowledge to build a martial PC of a certain capability without ToB than to build a martial PC with the same capability with ToB. Or more precisely: when Average Joe builds a martial PC based on a ToB class, that PC is highly likely to be noticeably stronger than the martial PC Joe would've built in a game which doesn't allow ToB.

Not really. A bit but not quite a bit. While there's some truth to Average Joe (calling him AJ now) having an easier time with making an effective martial adept than an equivalent non-adept warrior, the gap is unlikely to be all that big. The biggest factor will almost certainly be the one book vs three to four books for the former vs the latter. AJ is -very- likely to stop at complete warrior or maybe OA and not bother to look through the other two or three needed to make an equivalent warrior to what he could make with most martial adept builds that draw almost entirely from ToB.

It's easy to forget that the crusader and warlbade barely get a dozen maneuvers known.

AJ will almost certainly spend a good chunk of his warblade maneuvers known on damage boosters rather than options to harry the enemy instead of harm him. With just a -little- more effort, he could make a fighter that does just as much damage and has as many or near as many options to not just hit the enemy with his pointed stick again.

The paladin is every bit the crusader's equal with just the PHB. Damage output is comparable and even the anemic list in the PHB gives the paladin more options than the crusader will ever get.

If the swordage comparison has to be the monk... maybe tattooed monk or drunken master looks kind of okay beside it?



Again, in a large majority of games, I believe it doesn't really matter whether it's actually possible to build martial PCs using non-ToB sources which are just as strong as ToB builds, because if the players can't or won't make use of that possibility, the higher floor of the ToB classes also means the builds based on them are going to be stronger. IOW, in most games, the height of a martial class' floor has a major impact on the strength of the PCs based on that class, while the height of the class' ceiling has virtually no impact at all.

I need to clarify again. When I did the comparisons between the martial adepts and their PHB counterparts, the comparison was made to system minimum expectations; start with a 15 in strenght, pick up simple +x to Y bonus gear in accordance with the MIC guidelines, etc. That's a bit higher than the floor for either side of the comparison but nowhere even close to the ceiling. You have to be making actively detrimental build decisions to dip lower.

It wouldn't have been a terribly useful comparison if it had been conducted right at the floor or anywhere near the ceiling.

As for builds based around martial adepts, the fact that initiating actively rewards sticking with it works against low-op builds pulling ahead of non-adept builds. If you started on fighter and are going through several base and prestige classes, you don't really care about you fighter level. You cared about the feats and the BAB that don't rely on whatever else your character might be. If you're a martial adept and you're not taking more levels in the same class or one of the book's prestige classes (other than bloodstorm blade) then you're losing IL and the ability to reach the highest level maneuvers. You're also defacto reducing the comparative effectieness between your maneuvers and your full attack.

Again, ToB gives the -appearance- of being more than its competition without actually exceeding it much in substance, if at all.


While what you say here are undoubtedly undeniable facts, I again question the relevance. Because AFAICT, these comparisons all assume that the PC uses the strongest options found in the allowed sources, while I strongly suspect that the opposite assumption would be about close to how a vast majority of PCs are built in reality.

As I said above, this is not the case. They were made assuming minimal competence. As long as you're not making choices that actually make either character worse at their job and pulling them toward their floors, it should hold.


In detail, assuming we were actually able to examine all the martial PCs which have ever been played in a game including the relevant sources, I'm certain that an exceedingly small proportion of those PCs had any of for example the following options/abilities, even if we limit the selection only to those builds which would have the most to gain from one of them (and even if those builds actually already met the most important/demanding prereqs, such as levels in a specific class):

Swift action movement (especially not of any distance great enough to have much impact)
Pounce
Battle Blessing
Great Throw
Combat Brute

Yes, and the "actually have to go looking"-bit is key here, because we can also pretty safely assume that most players don't really know what to look for, much less where to find it and to access it.

Great throw, I've got to give you. The actual feat text ended up in the errata file, although it is mentioned in the feat table.

Pounce? Maybe. Complete Champion was a late addition to the game. It's such an obviously good choice for a barbarian though that I have considered restricting it in my own games. When you have an array of options and one stands head-and-shoulders above the competition like that, it's difficult to ignore. Before that, with the few means of acquiring it, yeah, that'd be fairly rare.

Combat Brute? Hold up. Complete Warrior was pretty close to the 3.5 changeover and it's a really obvious choice for a character that fits its nominal description both from prerequisites and what it does. I doubt it's all that rare.

Battle Blessing could go either way. It's practically the paladin's "natural spell" for function but, again, CC was a late entry.

Swift movement still isn't easy to come by other than a couple MIC items for short range. You're probably right about that one.


It is worth noting, perhaps, that what's possible -is- a strong point against the "overpowered" accusation if you're willing and able to show the comparisons. At least IMO.


In contrast, a player building a PC based on a ToB class is vastly more likely to find strong appropriate options, as a large majority of them are in the very same book or the PHB, and in the case of maneuvers, can often be easily accessed in a way the player is likely to consider "at no cost". ("Opportunity cost" is a difficult concept for most people, or at least it's difficult for them to make reasonable estimations of it in 3.5 without considerable system mastery.)

As long as they stick to the martial adept, sure. ToB arguably punishes martial adepts for multiclassing non-adept classes as much as it rewards non-adepts for taking a dip. It's not as rough as a spellcaster in that regard but still moreso than any non-adept warrior class.


Definitely. And they also suck at PO (in many cases likely for much the same reasons)...

Lack of attention to detail and even greater lack of give-a-damn?

[Cliff Sedge]

I have two questions:

1. Why can't a valid reason be "because the DM just doesn't want it?"
Isn't the game master, like, in charge of setting those sorts of details for the particular campaign?

2. Why are the vast majority of replies to questions like these always greedy powergamers who try to bully game masters into using their pet supplement or "homebrew I found on the Internet" and call them stupid or inexperienced if they don't allow it?

[JNAProductions]

I have two questions:

1. Why can't a valid reason be "because the DM just doesn't want it?"
Isn't the game master, like, in charge of setting those sorts of details for the particular campaign?

2. Why are the vast majority of replies to questions like these always greedy powergamers who try to bully game masters into using their pet supplement or "homebrew I found on the Internet" and call them stupid or inexperienced if they don't allow it?

1) It's a valid reason, but also a reason that can easily turn away players. Arbitrarily banning things isn't a good image to have. And usually, you can be more specific than that, which often leads to it being revealed that the reasoning behind not using it is flawed.

2) We must be reading different threads, because you're describing an enormous jerk. I've not been seeing that in this thread.

[Thunder999]

Not liking something isn't a real reason anyway, the real reason is whatever causes them to dislike it, and by saying it's because they don't like it rather than stating the real reason it rather implies that it's probably not a particularly good or compelling one.

[Cygnia]

Not liking something is a perfectly valid reason. It doesn't need to be a thesis defending the dislike.

[JNAProductions]

Not liking something is a perfectly valid reason. It doesn't need to be a thesis defending the dislike.

I agree with that-but at the same time, usually one can pinpoint a few reasons. It is possible that you just don't like it, for no real reason, it just grates on you-but more often than not, you can figure out something more specific than a general feeling of dislike.

[Chaos Jackal]

I have two questions:

1. Why can't a valid reason be "because the DM just doesn't want it?"
Isn't the game master, like, in charge of setting those sorts of details for the particular campaign?

2. Why are the vast majority of replies to questions like these always greedy powergamers who try to bully game masters into using their pet supplement or "homebrew I found on the Internet" and call them stupid or inexperienced if they don't allow it?

1.It's a valid reason. Whether or not it rained yesterday might be a valid reason. "I just don't like it" is a valid reason. But usually there's something more to people's likes and dislikes.

2.Where are those greedy powergamers?

[Rater202]

Were you ever a kid and you asked your parents if you could do something? Something you thought was innocent and safe? Maybe something you saw one of your friends doing once?

And they said no, and you asked why not, and they said: "because I said so."

You got pissed off, didn't you? BEcuase, you see, that's not a valid reason... But you aren't allowed to argue. You don't have the power to argue in that relationship, and if you do argue they can ignore it becuase in their minds they've already given all the argument they need.

It's bad parenting. Instead of treating the child like a person, the parents are treating them as though they have no rights and using their authority as a club to beat them down. It is especially bad if the child is in late middle or high school when they're expected to start making adult decisions and be responsible but are still expected to obey their parents without question.

A GM saying "no" and not giving a reason is bad GMing for the same reason: Instead of giving a valid reason, they're just shutting you down and using their authority as a stick. Treating you as though what you want for the game doesn't matter.

If the GM doesn't give a valid reason--refuses to give any reason beyond "becuase I said so" or "I don't like that" then you can't be certain that they're going to respect you in-game.

Presumably,we're assuming a good GM not one who treats you like a small child.

[Unavenger]

If the GM doesn't give a valid reason--refuses to give any reason beyond "becuase I said so" or "I don't like that" then you can't be certain that they're going to respect you in-game.

Yeah, because everyone has to justify every preference they have all the time. :smallannoyed:

It gets tiring and sometimes you don't want to give your players an essay on why you don't like something each time it comes up.

"It's overpowe..." "YEAH WELL LOOK AT ME IF I DELIBERATELY BREAK A WIZARD THEN ITS STRONKER HOW BOUT THAT HUH!"
"Yeah right but I'm not talking about power cieli..." "THEN YOU MUST BE TALKING ABOUT POWER FLOORS WHICH IS A STUPID WAY TO MEASURE CLASS POWER!"
"No, I'm not talking about the power floor, I'm talking about my experience with real players..." "BUT ACCORDING TO THE FORUM IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL WIZARDS ARE SUMMONING ARMIES OF "

No, it's a lot easier to say a blanket "No" without having to justify it every time. The only reason I'm allowing PoW at all is because dealing with balancing a borderline-immortal level 3 character against relatively ordinary characters is actually [I]easier than getting into these sorts of arguments with every other player who wants to use the system.

[Rater202]

Yeah, because everyone has to justify every preference they have all the time. :smallannoyed:

It gets tiring and sometimes you don't want to give your players an essay on why you don't like something each time it comes up.I never said that.

You only have to justifyprioritizing your preferences over those of the people playing the game.


"It's overpowe..." "YEAH WELL LOOK AT ME IF I DELIBERATELY BREAK A WIZARD THEN ITS STRONKER HOW BOUT THAT HUH!"
"Yeah right but I'm not talking about power cieli..." "THEN YOU MUST BE TALKING ABOUT POWER FLOORS WHICH IS A STUPID WAY TO MEASURE CLASS POWER!"
"No, I'm not talking about the power floor, I'm talking about my experience with real players..." "BUT ACCORDING TO THE FORUM IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL WIZARDS ARE SUMMONING ARMIES OF "Nice stawman.


No, it's a lot easier to say a blanket "No" without having to justify it every time. The only reason I'm allowing PoW at all is because dealing with balancing a borderline-immortal level 3 character against relatively ordinary characters is actually [I]easier than getting into these sorts of arguments with every other player who wants to use the system.

It's only easier if you don't respect your players and they're spineless enough to put up with being treated like small children.

If you're not familiar with the system, say so. If you feel that Swordsages don't fit the theme of your setting and you've banned monks for the same reason, say so. If you have a reason, say so.

and if your players provides a reason for why you should allow it anyway, a good one, decent rhetoric, you let it in anyway.

A blanket no is at best childish and at worst disrespectful of your players.

[Unavenger]

I never said that.

You only have to justifyprioritizing your preferences over those of the people playing the game.

People's characters affect everyone in the game, and to be quite honest if there's no way to challenge the PoW character without murdering everyone else brutally, that does affect other players' enjoyment.


Nice stawman.
These are literal arguments I've got from actual players but whatever I guess.


It's only easier if you don't respect your players and they're spineless enough to put up with being treated like small children.

NiCe Ad HoMiNeM.


If you're not familiar with the system, say so. If you feel that Swordsages don't fit the theme of your setting and you've banned monks for the same reason, say so. If you have a reason, say so.

and if your players provides a reason for why you should allow it anyway, a good one, decent rhetoric, you let it in anyway.

A blanket no is at best childish and at worst disrespectful of your players.

Every time I give a reason, people treat that as a licence to come up with stupid arguments that I don't want to deal with and which won't help anyone's case anyway. Either I allow something that ruins the game and I don't have fun, or I don't and they've wasted both our time arguing.

Can you please stop acting like people who ban literally any content without opening themselves up to attack are dictators? It gets wearing.

[Rater202]

Every time I give a reason, people treat that as a licence to come up with stupid arguments that I don't want to deal with and which won't help anyone's case anyway.See, this tells me that you're unwilling to be flexible.

Having to defend your intentions and opinions and have discussions where the group comes to a decision is part of being functional human being. If you and your players can't agree on something, putting your foot down and making a blanket ban without giving a valid reason is the wrong way to handle it.

[Aotrs Commander]

I mean, I can see a validity point in just saying "no, because I don't want to have that in my game as a DM for something."

Personally, I would get extremely annoyed at a player who came to my game and demanded "I want to have a class from Magic of Incarnum!"

"No."

"But-"

"Dude, there are 59 base classes before archetypes available, PICK ONE. If you can't find to something to pick from one of those, you're not trying, mate!"

"But I-"

"Would you like a Maximised Disintegrate to the face?"

"You can't threaten my char-"

"Sorry, what part of that sentence mentioned your character?"

"I'llplayasoulknifearmouredblade!"

"Yeah, that's what I thought you said..."



Of course, you can say in my case, there is something to be said for there already being a stupifying array of options, and for years there has always been an explict list of stuff that is allowed, with "if it's not on the lists, it's a pre-emptive no," and I do at least have a grasp on how stuff mechanically functions (in the particular paradigm I use) and so generally less inclined to knee-jerk ban (well, strictly, I don't 'ban' anything as that would first assume that anything that existed was permissable in the first place; better to say I 'do not allow') something for being "overpowered," when the general concensus would not concur; so perhaps you can say that it more justified, or at least more informed.

Though if you happened to be a particular super-special fan of MoI, you'd be, as they say, SoL.

I picked MoI as an example specifically for being a subsystem I simply have no interest in (to the point I never even glanced at the book); it is not, to my knowledge overpowered (I think Truenamer, the class notoriously opposite to that is from that book) but I simply don't want to port in anything MoI might to bring to the table.




(Now, I would also turn down requests about Spheres of Power (again, 59 base classes I've sorted and had a pass on) and for the immediate moment Path of War (because I don't want to have to arse about upgrading ToB to match - not least until we've actually played the stuff we have now yet...), but there are at least some stated reasons.)

[Unavenger]

See, this tells me that you're unwilling to be flexible.

Having to defend your intentions and opinions and have discussions where the group comes to a decision is part of being functional human being. If you and your players can't agree on something, putting your foot down and making a blanket ban without giving a valid reason is the wrong way to handle it.

Can you quit with the little insults, please? Insinuating that someone isn't a "Functional human being" isn't the hallmark of a great argument. It's just evidence that you'd rather hurt people than actually listen to them.

Here's the low-down: Literally 100% of the ToB/PoW characters I have ever seen played caused problems in games, for me and for the other players. Ditto SoP/SoM, just because apparently I like pain enough to invite another group of "This content can do no wrong!" types down on me, but never mind that. Contrariwise, I have never seen the mythical solar chain summoner, I have never known the pain of someone trying to play pun-pun at my table, never even seen someone honestly convinced that fleshraker-venomfire was a reasonable thing to do at a real table. Yes, I'm sure that you can make a vancian caster who can beat a ToB character. I've seen a sufficiently-optimised truenamer beat a ToB character. I've also seen a sufficiently-optimised truenamer chain wishes to take over the universe. And I have never seen anyone try to pull any of this crap in a real game.

Maybe, maybe your ToB character is different and will play nice-nice with other characters, but I'm not going to risk the parsimony of THE ENTIRE GAME on an event that I HAVE NEVER SEEN. The game I'm playing is the last game I'm ever planning to allow PoW and I'm still suffering from the decision to do so. There are literally many classes that can do the same concept just as well and I am not willing to allow any of this to be the jumping-off point for every player who's a diehard ToB fan to argue with me. It's easier to say "No" and trust players to have the common sense to realise that I do not, actually, want to deal with any more of this crap under any circumstances for as long as I live because EVERY TIME it has gone wrong, and no, no I don't trust that this time it will be different. And no, I do not want to open the door to shouting matches at the start of each new game.

[Rater202]

Atthat point, the problem isn't ToB.

The problem is the players.

Don't ban the book, ban the toxic players.

[Unavenger]

Atthat point, the problem isn't ToB.

The problem is the players.

Don't ban the book, ban the toxic players.

These aren't even players who are trying to break anything, most of the time, though. So it's very hard to say they're "Toxic" for picking something up, playing it the way it's meant to work, and accidentally being so good there's no point trying to balance anything against the party ever.

[Doctor Despair]

Atthat point, the problem isn't ToB.

The problem is the players.

Don't ban the book, ban the toxic players.

It sounds like they're used to playing with such unoptimized characters that ToB is just overpowering, in which case, their real reason for disliking it is "My players aren't skilled enough with optimization to compete with ToB characters using full casters."

I suspect this problem doesn't live and die with the players, however. Much of the strength of full casters comes from utility and versatility (while they can also solve combat encounters effectively, of course). If a party deals with 95% straight combat encounters, then the areas where ToB characters are weaker simply won't show up a lot of the time. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily wrong to run combatsimulator.campaign, but folks should be aware that when they don't have a diversity of encounters and challenges, certain classes and archetypes will seem overpowered while others seem underpowered. In the opposite direction, if you have combat encounters 5% of the time, you'd see a similar issue where any characters without a wealth of skillpoints or access to magic/psionics/etc feel entirely useless 90% of the time.

[Unavenger]

It sounds like he's used to playing with such unoptimized characters that ToB is just overpowering, in which case, his real reason for disliking it is "My players aren't skilled enough with optimization to compete with ToB characters using full casters."

I mean, I consider "EGDW casts a crapload of spells and some of them are polymorph" and similar things that didn't break the game to be relatively high optimisation, but I guess that on this forum that's indistinguishable from blasters and healbots?

(Also, do people just not notice gender markers or do they wilfully ignore them?)

[GrayDeath]

Expected the heated nature of the discussion as soona s I saw the title. ^^



Without wanting to add more heat, I ahve seen 3 valid reasons so far for banning it.

1.: (the one I always use if I ban it): it doesnt fit the setting. If the setting simply doesnt have "supernatural amrtial Arts" or "Traditions of MA of high power" etc (most of the time this means really old very specific settings, say Dragonlance following the original Plot).
Or its a Homebrew setting where the Brewer decided not to include it.


2.: The DM thinks he does not ahve sufficient knowledge about/skill witht he subsystem. There is NOTHING forcing a DM to elarn another Subsystem just because a Palyer wants to play a certain Class.


and lastly

3.: Bad personal experience.

Yes, it might not be a reason the player udnerstands, but the DM is allowed to ahve fun as well, and if using ToB reminds him of terrible experiences, and he does not want that, then thats that.


My 2 Denari.

[Rhyltran]

People's characters affect everyone in the game, and to be quite honest if there's no way to challenge the PoW character without murdering everyone else brutally


POW and Tome of Battle are two different things. I get that your experiences may be different than other people's experiences but I want to provide some anecdotal evidence on our side. If I was to ban Tome of Battle my players would really scratch their head. This thread here would seem alien to them as well. We had a Samurai last game, yes a samurai, who's average DPR by level 3 happened to be around 30-45 damage. He was pulling around 16-24 at level 1. I am not trying to sway you but this is a real character in a real game. We allow TOB alongside the core classes because honestly with the group's optimization level it really doesn't matter too much.

Then again many of my players have told me horror stories about being banned from other tables due to their characters being considered too powerful. Point is there are different tables with different levels of power. People are going to feel strongly about certain books being banned when their experiences are very different from your own.

You are going to be hard pressed to convince them just as they are going to be hard pressed to convince you. I am sure (actually I know for a fact) there are groups who would view my group as underpowered.

[Unavenger]

POW and Tome of Battle are two different things.

I am aware. I have played with both of them. Both have routinely ruined people's experiences. I generally avoid both.

[Rhyltran]

I am aware. I have played with both of them. Both have routinely ruined people's experiences. I generally avoid both.

Fair enough. My entire post was mostly discussing different power levels and how this argument isn't going to end well on either side. It's the same reason why there are endless debates on here regarding which classes are useless or too powerful. People feel very strongly because there isn't a universal truth when these conversations boil down to player experience.

[Gusmo]

As I pointed out earlier, I've ruined people's experiences with a core barbarian using power attack. "Overpower! Broken! Stop being a jerk!" Don't be surprised if using the experiences of unskilled players to back your position doesn't get taken seriously.

[Nifft]

As I pointed out earlier, I've ruined people's experiences with a core barbarian using power attack. "Overpower! Broken! Stop being a jerk!" Don't be surprised if using the experiences of unskilled players to back your position doesn't get taken seriously.

I, uh, once accidentally ruined someone's experience by having a PC who was taller than his PC.

So yeah, it's not necessarily meaningful.

[Unavenger]

As I pointed out earlier, I've ruined people's experiences with a core barbarian using power attack. "Overpower! Broken! Stop being a jerk!" Don't be surprised if using the experiences of unskilled players to back your position doesn't get taken seriously.

"Unskilled players" is not remotely the kind of player I have. I have already explained this and will refrain from doing so again at length.


I, uh, once accidentally ruined someone's experience by having a PC who was taller than his PC.

So yeah, it's not necessarily meaningful.

Right, but there's a difference between someone crying because your character is taller than theirs and being frustrated because someone swinging a sword and setting everyone on fire is doing better than their reasonably-optimised wizard. The difference is a bit too obvious to bear stating in full, I think.

[Gusmo]

"Unskilled players" is not remotely the kind of player I have. I have already explained this and will refrain from doing so again at length.


I still don't understand. I'm looking at your longer explanation a few posts back, and you could insert the name of darn near any class or supplement in there.

[Unavenger]

I still don't understand. I'm looking at your longer explanation a few posts back, and you could insert the name of darn near any class or supplement in there.

I said that I'd seen "Elven generalist domain wizard cast lots of spells and some of them are Polymorph" [I]not breaking the game in my games, which somehow turned into "Fighters and rogues on the frontlines backed by healbot clerics and fireball wizards" when someone wanted to strawman it. Obviously you can feel that ToB never breaks REAL GAMES with REAL OPTIMISATION if you assume that EGDWs turning into hydras are the same thing as fireball wizards and therefore them getting curbstomped by out-of-the-box initiators is inconsequential, but that's not what I've seen.

[CIDE]

It sounds like they's used to playing with such unoptimized characters that ToB is just overpowering, in which case, their real reason for disliking it is "My players aren't skilled enough with optimization to compete with ToB characters using full casters."
.

This was a big part of the problem of the only table I played at where ToB (and a few other things) was banned. Most of the DM's experience playing and DM came from people playing the classic archetypes. Sword and board fighter, glass cannon wizard, healbot cleric, etc. Then again, this was a DM that was so scared of the zero dead levels of a Monk that he was inches away from banning the class because it was "op plz nrf". Which, even at the low level of optimization, made Monk unplayable since you literally couldn't have nice things. For "Balance" sake.

Without knowing that my first mistake for pitching a Swordsage character was "It's just a stronger monk". He made up his mind right there.


Expe
1.: (the one I always use if I ban it): it doesnt fit the setting. If the setting simply doesnt have "supernatural amrtial Arts" or "Traditions of MA of high power" etc (most of the time this means really old very specific settings, say Dragonlance following the original Plot).
Or its a Homebrew setting where the Brewer decided not to include it.


This is the one explanation that I feel only warrants a single question. If the answer to that question is "yes" then the discussion is over and everything's peachy.

Are monks (and a few other classes/PrC's) also banned?

If the answer is "no" then the above point is simply incorrect.

That's without getting into semantics about how certain feats actually look stacked together on a Fighter and what qualifies as supernatural martial arts.



2.: The DM thinks he does not ahve sufficient knowledge about/skill witht he subsystem. There is NOTHING forcing a DM to elarn another Subsystem just because a Palyer wants to play a certain Class.


and lastly

3.: Bad personal experience.

Yes, it might not be a reason the player udnerstands, but the DM is allowed to ahve fun as well, and if using ToB reminds him of terrible experiences, and he does not want that, then thats that

The last two I'd lump into a single category of "The DM is uncomfortable using it". Which is entirely okay. If a DM is uncomfortable using another sub system (there's a few I have zero experience with) then it's not unreasonable for him to simply not include them.


As I pointed out earlier, I've ruined people's experiences with a core barbarian using power attack. "Overpower! Broken! Stop being a jerk!" Don't be surprised if using the experiences of unskilled players to back your position doesn't get taken seriously.

I once had a Scout that was considered OP because I was good at positioning myself for extra damage and, due to a high dex, had a great modifier to hit.


I, uh, once accidentally ruined someone's experience by having a PC who was taller than his PC.

So yeah, it's not necessarily meaningful.

It wasn't my table but I heard a similar story because one person's character of X race was allowed to have a hair color that a character of Y race couldn't have (I want to say silver?)

[Nifft]

I dunno, my first experience with ToB was a game with two Wizards (both blasters, one of them a gish blaster... yeah, that level of optimization), and one character who was a multiclass Paladin / Monk.

Nobody really knew how to break the game, and the two ToB characters didn't cause any particular rancor.

So, my experience says that even in a low-op game with people who generally don't know what the heck they're doing, it's possible for a ToB character (or two, as was this case) to not stomp on everyone's feelings.

[Gusmo]

Living with the reality of optimization is a tricky thing for all tables, now that search engines are entrenched as a source of information, and legitimate novices might do this (https://gyazo.com/8cfc1d496855cfc368be6c1afcbaf0cf) and be breaking the game by accident. I used Bing to make sure none of Google algorithm nonsense is coloring the results, Bing *I think* shouldn't have any relevant connections to me. I take my BIG DATA obfuscation very seriously. Anyway, to me it's a picture of good internal consistency that matters. At a given table, banning anything that table historically can't control well, in terms of power or whatever else makes total sense, ToB or otherwise. Theory is one thing, but real table experience within a group is rightfully a good decision making factor within that group. So if for whatever a table can never handle ToB well, give it the axe, sure.

The people who bug me the most are the ones who ban only one supplement for whatever reason, overpowered, flavor, doesn't really matter, but then don't apply that same reasoning to other supplements. It makes sense to take the chainsaw to MoI, Psionics, ToB, and so forth altogether. The only people who I've seen make plausible bans or heavy restricitons of ToB based on flavor also banned the entire monk class and/or Complete Warrior as well, for instance. At the outset, I wouldn't necessarily enjoy that decision as a player, but I'd sit down and shut up and play one of the zillion options that does work because at least the given restrictions are internally consistent.

[Rhyltran]

I said that I'd seen "Elven generalist domain wizard cast lots of spells and some of them are Polymorph" [I]not breaking the game in my games,

The problem is that this isn't saying much about a wizard. I would argue a wizard loaded up with save or dies, save or suck, and save or lose spells alone would keep up with the TOB classes if not surpass them without any additional work.

1. Grease
2. Web, Fog Cloud
3. Stinking Cloud, Sleet Storm, Wind Wall
4. Solid Fog, Black Tentacles, Wall of Ice
5. Wall of Stone, Wall of Force
6. Acid Fog

To make my point I just grabbed the first list I found from typing "wizard battlefield control spells." There are some choices I would add to this but it showcases the point well. This alone should allow a wizard to control most encounters.

I also find it difficult how such a wizard (not even fully optimized) would fail keeping up with the TOB classes as is. This isn't getting into turning into hydras and the like.

As mentioned, it is possible to have a Samurai pulling off 30-40 damage on average by level 3. This keeps up handedly with the damage potential of a TOB class (though the TOB is likely to still have more versatility).

This is where the disconnect happens. A wizard casting spells with the occasional polymorph doesn't tell a story. Without knowing what those spells are it's hard to gauge it's power.

Note the spells chosen above would break some people's games or could be normal in others. It doesn't, however, require shenanigans.

[AntiAuthority]

I have two questions:

1. Why can't a valid reason be "because the DM just doesn't want it?"
Isn't the game master, like, in charge of setting those sorts of details for the particular campaign?

2. Why are the vast majority of replies to questions like these always greedy powergamers who try to bully game masters into using their pet supplement or "homebrew I found on the Internet" and call them stupid or inexperienced if they don't allow it?

1. That's actually a perfectly valid reason. People don't need to justify their preferences, but they should just say, "I don't like it." My problem is the DM OP was talking about didn't basically say that from the beginning and started listing reasons like "too anime like" or some such. If the DM wants to play a traditional Sword & Sorcery game where normal dudes with swords are fighting fantastic beasts, that's cool, the DM just needs to say so. Trying to justify reasonings for why ("It's too much like anime") tends to look bad when they're easily refuted ("Anime is a medium, and the stuff in TOB is more in line with what you'd see in wuxia/mythology, it's not like anime invented the concept of insanely skilled warriors") is where things fall apart, as the DM hasn't just communicated they don't want to play that type of thing and needed to justify why to players instead of just saying, "I don't want to do this type of thing." It'd be like you having a friend, and you invite your friend to do something... The friend just says they don't want to do because "I don't have the equipment" or "I can't afford it" or some such, so you tell them what they're worried about isn't true, then they come up with another reason... And another... This seems needlessly convoluted instead of the friend just saying, "That isn't something I'm interested in", which would save both parties time and energy instead of being evasive and coming up with reasons for why they should/shouldn't try this thing.

2. I'm sorry, I'm not a power gamer or anything and I don't see any of that here. I also haven't seen anyone suggesting they use their pet homebrew and calling anyone stupid for not doing so in this thread either?

[Rater202]

zero dead levels of a Monk

This always makes me laugh.

A Dead level is a level that 1: does not give you anything meaningful but the advancement of HD, saves, and "level dependant" abilities.

A Monk's capstone is a dead level. It makes you count as an outsider instead ofa humanoid when it comes to spells, without actually changing your type to outsider, which basically amounts to being vulnerable to certain weapons and spell. Dr/10 Magic is completely useless at level 20, becuase everything you encounter is going to either have magical weapons or use damage types that DT doesn't apply.

And Timeless Body is another dead level, becuase it doesn't stop you from dying of old age, doesn't remove penalties you already have, and in 99% of campaigns age categories aren't going to matter unless you're playing a race that only lives for a couple of years.

considering how disproportionately high leveled you get some minor abilities and how many Monk class features are situational/role play only/vaguely worded you could argue that the monk class is mostly dead level.

[Lord Raziere]

As for me, my opinion on ToB should be obvious given my liking of anime and my avatar.

and your free to ban and not like it

BUT.

if you come into a game that is about ToB, or Path of War, or one GM'd by me allowing such things...don't expect me to do the same or be sympathetic when you protest in that game. this kinda preference thing applies in reverse: you can't expect a fan of it who wants to use ToB to get rid of it because you don't like it, and a perfectly valid answer to the question of the thread for ToB fans is "None. don't ban it, just don't play with guys who do, you probably won't get along with them anyways."

there is something to be said about the downsides of setting purity and not setting your standards of suspension of disbelief too high, but that is probably neither here nor there for this thread. though considering that someone having silver hair or being tall is mundane compared to the character concepts I usually come up with.....hm. lets just say I hope I don't encounter players like that, because if someone thinks my weirdness stops there, they're in for some nasty surprises. and I personally don't really care about internal consistency, I just want to find a game where I can play what I love, and sometimes what I want to play is highly specific, so if someone starts talking internal consistency like that in response or before I can even say my character concept or that they're not interested in anime, thats usually my cue to not join the game or bother them in the first place if I'm in a martial arts mood.

[CIDE]

This always makes me laugh.

A Dead level is a level that 1: does not give you anything meaningful but the advancement of HD, saves, and "level dependant" abilities.

A Monk's capstone is a dead level. It makes you count as an outsider instead ofa humanoid when it comes to spells, without actually changing your type to outsider, which basically amounts to being vulnerable to certain weapons and spell. Dr/10 Magic is completely useless at level 20, becuase everything you encounter is going to either have magical weapons or use damage types that DT doesn't apply.

And Timeless Body is another dead level, becuase it doesn't stop you from dying of old age, doesn't remove penalties you already have, and in 99% of campaigns age categories aren't going to matter unless you're playing a race that only lives for a couple of years.

considering how disproportionately high leveled you get some minor abilities and how many Monk class features are situational/role play only/vaguely worded you could argue that the monk class is mostly dead level.

I'd agree. But my friend, this DM, happened to read the WotC articles on the topic and bought the idea hook, line, and sinker.

[Kelb_Panthera]

1. Why can't a valid reason be "because the DM just doesn't want it?"
Isn't the game master, like, in charge of setting those sorts of details for the particular campaign?

That is a perfectly valid reason. Of those commonly given, it's one of the better ones. You can only use it with so many things before it starts to sound like laziness. Better is "I just don't want to learn a new subsystem when I've already got RL on my plate."

It's things like "overpowered, unbalanced, too wuxia/ anime" that get people annoyed because they're largely untrue if you actually examine them.


2. Why are the vast majority of replies to questions like these always greedy powergamers who try to bully game masters into using their pet supplement or "homebrew I found on the Internet" and call them stupid or inexperienced if they don't allow it?

They're not. Some of them are, certainly, but not the vast majority.

In the case of ToB a lot of the objection does come from shaky premisses that would typically stem from a lack of either familiarity with it or the system as a whole or from a generally anti-player agency mindset.

Someone upthread said that using power attack with a two-handed weapon was considered OP for their group. That's one of the baseline expected damage dealing methods for melee types. I mean no disrespect to that poster or his group but if that's where you are then this game is not for you. Sneak attack does as much damage and blasting spells do more than the bog standard PA use by a lot. If you're dragging the game down to that level or lower then what you're playing is no longer recognizably 3e D&D. It also reeks of a GM too lazy or fearful to allow his players to do anything that might have the plot out of his complete control, whether that's actually the case or not.

On "pet supplements" more generally, it's hard to imagine what that would even be for the most part. I could see any of the completes, OA, one of the subsystem books, and PHB 2 as maybe fitting that description but most everything else would almost certainly be for something pretty specific.

The completes are largely in line with baseline except for a few odd interactions between them. Addressing those odd interactions directly tends to be a much better solution to power creep than refusing to allow the books altogether. Same goes for PHB 2.

Oriental adventures is certainly one for which the flavour complaint is wholly valid. It's right in the title that this is not medieval fantasy. Mechanically, it's largely a grab-bag of average-to-weak options except for the Maho stuff which is both setting specific and subsystem related. It's entirely reasonable to reject that material. Less so the rest of the book if you're citing mechanics as your reason.

XPH, ToB, ToM, and MoI do all certainly have their flavors and if that's your problem then so be it. Mechanically though, psionics is -very- close to the default vancian casting system in potency, and the others all fall well short of that. A lot of ToM dips below the baseline for the core system if you're careless and both ToB and MoI hover around there. Again, there are specific things in each of these sources that can cause problems under the right circumstances but you're much better off just addressing them specifically than nuking the whole lot from orbit.


Now homebrew; I got nothing. I just don't truck with it basically at all unless it's my own and even that's very limited. Hanlon's razor would suggest that most players asking about it are merely ignorant of the flaws rather than maliciously trying to break your game though.

[GrayDeath]

@ My Point Nr. 1: Obviously yes.
If there is no martialA rts tradition, why would there be martialA rts Classes like the Monk?

Again, I made this point very specific already, expecting I would get the meaning across, but to make it even more obvious:
Settings where "CLassic" High Fantasy and "Classic" Sword and Sorcery or "This specific Homebrewed Mix" are the Setting. ANd NOTHING ELSE.

Clearer now?


Good. :smallcool:

[Duff]

It's also possible that they just don't want to learn the rather simple maneuver and stance systems introduced in that book, i.e. laziness..

I'm going to rush to the defense of all GMs who say "That's too much work". Good GMing takes a significant amount of time and effort. Real people don't always have that to spare.
So, rather than assume a GM who's limiting their workload is lazy, consider they may just be working within their limits.

Also, replying to a couple of the threads going through the replies -
These classes do effectively replace some of the PHB classes because these classes are much more effective.
Which is great...
Unless you have players who want to be effective, but need the simplicity of "I roll hit, I roll damage". Or players where the rest of the party need them to have that simplicity

The martial arts tradition - "whatabout the monk" line may be addressed by "No one in the party is playing a monk". Monks may be banned due to flavor and it's simply never come up

[Mordaedil]

It certainly is reasonable enough that a DM can say that they don't want to learn another magic system to incorporate into their game, but honestly unless you are just starting out, D&D 3.5 has been out for soon two decades and there's been plenty of time to learn. I wouldn't it laziness, but there's definitely some stubbornness if you have been using that excuse for two decades.

Like Kelb_Panthera said, "don't want to" is the most valid reason, it's just the excuses that often follow that are kinda baseless imo. I don't wanna call these DM's anti-fun, but they are definitely making allowing the player character to adopt these classes a bigger deal than it needed to be. Unless you are the type of DM that don't trust your players on their abilities and spells.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm going to rush to the defense of all GMs who say "That's too much work". Good GMing takes a significant amount of time and effort. Real people don't always have that to spare.
So, rather than assume a GM who's limiting their workload is lazy, consider they may just be working within their limits.

That's certainly possible and if that's the reason given then I have no objection. I am a DM, I get that. It's the unqualified "I don't want to" that makes my mind jump to lazy or fearful.

It's when the reasons given are objectively incorrect that I start arguing.


Also, replying to a couple of the threads going through the replies -
These classes do effectively replace some of the PHB classes because these classes are much more effective.

They really don't and aren't. They're very mildly more effective for the same degree of effort.


Which is great...
Unless you have players who want to be effective, but need the simplicity of "I roll hit, I roll damage".

Ranger for newbs, barbarian for simplicity. The former lets you get a taste of all of the core systems and the latter is about as simple as the game gets short of a swashbuckler while still being in the PHB.


Or players where the rest of the party need them to have that simplicity

Could you elaborate on that? As it stands, it sounds a bit condescending.


The martial arts tradition - "whatabout the monk" line may be addressed by "No one in the party is playing a monk". Monks may be banned due to flavor and it's simply never come up

Martial arts traditions sprang up everywhere people took up arms to kill each other, not just the Far East. If you don't want a Kung fu feel, that's a-okay. That's nothing like having no martial arts traditions. To say no martial arts is to say you don't want to think about how fighters do what they do at all. Given the nature of the fighter and the feats on its bonus list, I'd expect it to be banned too.

[Segev]

If your sole or primary objection is that it's "too anime" and that "fluff is hard to redo," then put the onus on the player who wants it: make him describe what he's doing in "non-anime" terms. The flavor is very secondary to the mechanics. There's nothing particularly anime about any of the magical effects, either: a crusader is a different mechanical take on a paladin; a shadowy teleport is something that many magical thieves do (or is the Shadowdander PrC in the core DMG "too anime," too?); even magical fire effects are something that could just be a "magic knight" or "fiery soul" trick.

The majority of them are basically not-quite-feats, not-quite-spell-damage effects that use weapons.

[ShurikVch]

@Zarrgon: What 3.5 psionics did was fix all the bad decisions that had gone into the base spellcasting system.

Prepared Casters: A character's capabilities shouldn't change from one day to the next. Spontaneous casters should be the only casters.
Spell Slots: Caster's eventually have 10 different pools of resources. 9yh-level spells are one pool, 8th-level spells are a separate pool, etc. These should have all been one big pool. The spell point variant should have been made the standard.
Lack of Scaling: I mean really, 9 Summon monster spells? What were they thinking? Just write one spell and let people put more power behind it as they level up.

Let's see:

Prepared Casters: A character's capabilities shouldn't change from one day to the next. Spontaneous casters should be the only casters.
Don't get me wrong: I prefer spontaneous casting too; but do you aware you just denied the right to exist for Chameleon, Binder, and the whole Magic of Incarnum book?
Besides, magic worked like that from the very start: even Dragons - staple of 3E spontaneous casting - prepares their spells pre-3E; and novels support it.


Spell Slots: Caster's eventually have 10 different pools of resources. 9yh-level spells are one pool, 8th-level spells are a separate pool, etc. These should have all been one big pool. The spell point variant should have been made the standard.
Are you serious?! :smallconfused:
It's one of the main attraction point for me!
In the other - mana-based - casting systems, it's always "Should I cast that weak spell for N times to help my party, or should I conserve my mana in case of something sufficiently nasty appears, and I would need all that mana for a strong spell?"
In the D&D, such question for a caster is impossible: your casting of low-level spells don't impact your ability to cast higher-level spells (and vice versa)


I mean really, 9 Summon monster spells? What were they thinking? Just write one spell and let people put more power behind it as they level up.
Firstly - Domains: Summon Monster, in your interpretation, always would be 1st-level spell; but what if the domain in question need Summon Monster, but have better spell for a 1st-level slot?
And secondly: how it would prevent casters from "putting more power" and summoning literal thousands of 1st-level monsters, bringing game to a screeching halt?


About the "too anime" arguments - let me link this old reply (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=121233&sid=90b76611b0ec4b6f48582fe6fee032cf#121233): there are a lot of swearing, but otherwise - Judging__Eagle got it right...

[Dimers]

Are you serious?! :smallconfused:
It's one of the main attraction point for me!
In the other - mana-based - casting systems, it's always "Should I cast that weak spell for N times to help my party, or should I conserve my mana in case of something sufficiently nasty appears, and I would need all that mana for a strong spell?"

That aspect makes me happy. I believe magic should have a real cost -- I believe it when I'm playing a wizard, just as much as when I'm not. Not being able to do everything in a single day is good. It gives real meaning to the choice of whether to cast, and it chips away at the power imbalance between mundanes and casters.

[Segev]

That aspect makes me happy. I believe magic should have a real cost -- I believe it when I'm playing a wizard, just as much as when I'm not. Not being able to do everything in a single day is good. It gives real meaning to the choice of whether to cast, and it chips away at the power imbalance between mundanes and casters.

I don't follow. How does letting casters cast MORE high-level spells if they need them, or break them up into EVEN MORE low-level spells, "chip away" at the imbalance with martials?

[Dimers]

Mm, thought we were talking about limited-pool rather than recharge/cooldown. I'm not sure where I got that idea. But, like, the way power points work in psi, that's what I meant.

[Xervous]

Mm, thought we were talking about limited-pool rather than recharge/cooldown. I'm not sure where I got that idea. But, like, the way power points work in psi, that's what I meant.

The main issue with spellpoints is that it gives casters more flexibility on potentially breaking the (X). Even if the overall point for point valuation of the pool is lower than the same assortment of spell slots a caster would have the fact remains that I can't use all my spell slots on just casting, I don't know, let's just say Glass Strike in this dungeon of undead. Even for a wizard who had known in advance it's not possible for them to prepare every single slot with Glass Strike, but I as a spell point caster can very easily pump out this option that overperforms in this niche until I run bone dry. With low level spells that can pull above their weight in spell points you could see long days that tax the prepared/slotted caster, running through all their spells (some of which may not be universally applicable or otherwise an efficient use of the slot) but the spell point caster can pick to use the most efficient option every single time. The granular accounting allows for outlier performances on the high end and that's what people don't like, they don't want to have to deal with even more of "okay what is the wizard pulling out of his prison wallet to tilt things as I suspect they might otherwise progress?" Removing restrictions on how the caster expends their resource makes it harder to predict how they might act and harder to GM for generally.

[Dimers]

So you consider psions more difficult to DM for than wizards? :smallconfused: Definitely not my experience.

[ixrisor]

So you consider psions more difficult to DM for than wizards? :smallconfused: Definitely not my experience.
Psions don’t have many of the more powerful spells, especially the ones that are very specialised and would be especially good in this system

[mindstalk]

I'll note that nearly every other fantasy game uses either spell points or at-will/fatigue for magic. The one exception I know is Sorcery in the Amber game, which doesn't have spell levels but really embraces "casting spells is really sliw, but you can pre-cast a few spells for contingencies", based on the second series of novels.

The wizard is annoying for many of us but also makes sense given the right premise, as above. Your resources are the actual spells prepated, not just slots. For the sorcerer... "Why can I still cast fireball but not light?"

[Lucas Yew]

Does anyone outside of English speaking realms even know Jack Vance's unique spellcasting fantasy on a serious scale? Most magic users from various folklore and stuff, or even Wuxia martial sages, usually work with something more close to the Mana pool system, like "running out of juice" if overworked kind of system, AFAIK.

Anyway on the OP, my long brewing theory is that a good portion of those people who deny D&D martial characters (= those with less or no spellcasting via class features, not including item granted external addons) to wield any inherent superpowers via nature/nurture at all seem to have some serious subconscious grudge against the cliche of people which contrast the nerdy spellcasters (and I'm too tired to repeat who they are, but decided to say it out once more on the next phrase). In other (blunt) words,
Jock Wish Denial (contrasting Nerd Wish Fulfillment).

[el minster]

Does anyone outside of English speaking realms even know Jack Vance's unique spellcasting fantasy on a serious scale? Most magic users from various folklore and stuff, or even Wuxia martial sages, usually work with something more close to the Mana pool system, like "running out of juice" if overworked kind of system, AFAIK.

Anyway on the OP, my long brewing theory is that a good portion of those people who deny D&D martial characters (= those with less or no spellcasting via class features, not including item granted external addons) to wield any inherent superpowers via nature/nurture at all seem to have some serious subconscious grudge against the cliche of people which contrast the nerdy spellcasters (and I'm too tired to repeat who they are, but decided to say it out once more on the next phrase). In other (blunt) words,
Jock Wish Denial (contrasting Nerd Wish Fulfillment).

bit harsh but yeah you're dead right about that

[magwaaf]

My DM is banning Tome of Battle and I can't for the life of me figure out why. Can anyone provide insight on this subject?





because he is a p***y people need to stop banning that book. all it does it make martial characters rival casters and caster players can't handle that

[Ignimortis]

Does anyone outside of English speaking realms even know Jack Vance's unique spellcasting fantasy on a serious scale?

My anecdotal experience says "no". I've never heard Vance's work even being talked about outside D&D circles.

[Batcathat]

My anecdotal experience says "no". I've never heard Vance's work even being talked about outside D&D circles.

Same. And it's interesting to note that as influential as D&D is on both RPGs and pop culture in general, Vancian casting doesn't really seem to have caught on outside of D&D and its immediate relatives like Pathfinder.

[Calthropstu]

Most of the reasons have been covered. The fact it's 3rd party, the fact that it completely changes party dynamics, the fact that it completely overwrites core classes, the fact that it's an additional system people don't want to deal with, the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster. And by average caster I mean most ordinary people playing casters, not the people who hang out here.

Most people who play D&D want to play a party to chill with their friends and laugh about killing Bonzo the Ogre by Fighter Bob beating it to death with front door while Ozark the wizard made its minions sleep and Jimmy the rogue snuck around and slew the guards that were supposed to warn the ogre the party was coming. Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience. Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed.

[Ignimortis]

The fact it's 3rd party

It's not? You might be thinking of PoW for Pathfinder 1e, not ToB. ToB was an official supplement.



Most people who play D&D want to play a party to chill with their friends and laugh about killing Bonzo the Ogre by Fighter Bob beating it to death with front door while Ozark the wizard made its minions sleep and Jimmy the rogue snuck around and slew the guards that were supposed to warn the ogre the party was coming. Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience. Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed.

Those are two ends of the sliding scale, I'd say. I've seen parties of the first kind, and I know a few people who potentially could be a part of the second kind of party. I don't like either of them, because the first ones don't take the game seriously enough to do anything meaningful with it, and the second ones take the game too seriously to remember it's about roleplaying and doing cool stuff, not maximum damage possible.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Does anyone outside of English speaking realms even know Jack Vance's unique spellcasting fantasy on a serious scale? Most magic users from various folklore and stuff, or even Wuxia martial sages, usually work with something more close to the Mana pool system, like "running out of juice" if overworked kind of system, AFAIK.

Regarding the popularity and knowledge of Vance's spellcasting system, no, it's not widely known, but an overwhelming majority of "standard D&D" material that didn't come straight out of mythology has similar origins in speculative fiction at the time as well (as per the famous Appendix N in the 1e DMG).

Barbarians, paladins, trolls, gith, alignment, planes, and all the rest come from the works of Howard, Lieber, Moorcock, Vance, Martin, and dozens of other authors at the time, they just don't have the same name recognition because we say "Vancian spellcasting" to distinguish it from other forms of magic (and a few other things like "Tolkien elves" on occasion) but we don't say "Moorcockian alignment" or "Andersonian paladins" or the like because we don't need to contrast them with anything.

And even then, D&D's magic isn't exactly as presented in Dying Earth, just inspired by it, much like how alignment isn't exactly as presented in Elric and paladins aren't exactly as presented in Three Hearts and Three Lions. In D&D spells are mental/spiritual constructs of magical energy created by the caster during spell preparation (and share a lot in common with Zelazny's take as much as Vance's), but in Dying Earth spells are...well, it's complicated, but basically they're bundles of pseudo-sentient mathematics that want to be cast crossed with a hierarchy of minor demons:


In this fashion did Turjan enter his apprenticeship to Pandelume. Day and far into the opalescent Embelyon night he worked under Pandelume's unseen tutelage. He learned the secret of renewed youth, many spells of the ancients, and a strange abstract lore that Pandelume termed "Mathematics."

"Within this instrument," said Pandelume, "resides the Universe.

Passive in itself and not of sorcery, it elucidates every problem, each phase of existence, all the secrets of time and space. Your spells and runes are built upon its power and codified according to a great underlying mosaic of magic. The design of this mosaic we cannot surmise; our knowledge is didactic, empirical, arbitrary. Phandaal glimpsed the pattern and so was able to formulate many of the spells which bear his name. I have endeavored through the ages to break the clouded glass, but so far my research has failed. He who discovers the pattern will know all of sorcery and be a man powerful beyond comprehension."

So Turjan applied himself to the study and learned many of the simpler routines.

"I find herein a wonderful beauty," he told Pandelume. "This is no science, this is art, where equations fall away to elements like resolving chords, and where always prevails a symmetry either explicit or multiplex, but always of a crystalline serenity."


"Cannot you change me?" cried T'sais. "You are a magician. Must I live my life out blind to joy?"

The shadow of a sigh penetrated the wall.

"I am a magician indeed, with knowledge of every spell yet devised, the sleight of runes, incantations, designs, exorcisms, talismans. I am Master Mathematician, the first since Phandaal, yet I can do nothing to your brain without destroying your intelligence, your personality, your soul—for I am no god. A god may will things to existence; I must rely on magic, the spells which vibrate and twist space."


Rhialto's attention had been distracted by Osherl in the matter of indenture points, and he had heard only a phrase or two of Sarsem's response: "—accuracy of high degree!" and "—occasionally a curious kinking and backlash in the inter-aeon sutures—"

Ildefonse had put another inquiry and again Osherl's attempts to secure advantage had diverted Rhialto's attention, and he had only heard Sarsem discussing what seemed to be mathematical theory with Ildefonse: "—often closer than the thousandth part of one percent, plus or minus, which must be reckoned excellent."


Magic is a practical science, or, more properly, a craft, since emphasis is placed primarily upon utility, rather than basic understanding.

This is only a general statement, since in a field of such profound scope, every practitioner will have his individual, style, and during the glorious times of Grand Motholam, many of the magician-philosophers tried to grasp the principles which governed the field.

In the end, these investigators, who included the greatest names in sorcery, learned only enough to realize that full and comprehensive knowledge was impossible. In the first place, a desired effect might be achieved through any number of modes, any of which represented a life-time of study, each deriving its force from a different coercive environment.

The great magicians of Grand Motholam were sufficiently supple that they perceived the limits of human understanding, and spent most of their efforts dealing with practical problems, searching for abstract principles only when all else failed. For this reason, magic retains its distinctly human flavor, even though the activating agents are never human. A casual glance into one of the basic catalogues emphasizes this human orientation; the nomenclature has a quaint and archaic flavor.
[...]
A spell in essence corresponds to a code, or set of instructions, inserted into the sensorium of an entity which is able and not unwilling to alter the environment in accordance with the message conveyed by the spell. These entities are not necessarily 'intelligent,' nor even 'sentient,' and their conduct, from the tyro's point of view, is unpredictable, capricious and dangerous.

The most pliable and cooperative of these creatures range from the lowly and frail elementals, through the sandestins. More fractious entities are known by the Temuchin as 'daihak,' which include 'demons' and 'gods.' A magician's power derives from the abilities of the entities he is able to control. Every magician of consequence employs one or more sandestins. A few arch-magicians of Grand Motholam dared to employ the force of the lesser daihaks. To recite or even to list the names of these magicians is to evoke wonder and awe. Their names tingle with power.
[...]
The magicians of the 21st Aeon were, in comparison, a disparate and uncertain group, lacking both grandeur and consistency.

Regarding magic in folklore, I've made the point a bunch of times in previous Vancian discussions that Vancian casting is actually much closer to historical magical practices (with its quasi-scientific worldview and ritual and linguistic overtones and so forth) than any sort of mana bar/vague internal energy/etc. system. I'll quote myself, spoilered for length:


Regarding how well Vancian represents magic, as one or two people mentioned upthread spell preparation involves performing a little ritual for every spell you want to cast and then storing it away for later, which has quite a bit more historical influence than most systems. In Goetic magic, you pull out your musty old tome, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for an hour and ten minutes, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a minor demon from the Lesser Key of Solomon appears in your magic circle.

In D&D magic, you pull out your spellbook, inscribe a mystical diagram on the floor, wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for an hour--then magically lock the current state of the ritual away in your mind instead of finishing it immediately. When you want to complete it, most likely after buffing yourself, double-checking the dimensional anchor, etc., you wave your arms in mystic gestures, chant for ten minutes, call out "Demon, come forth!" and poof, a CR 6 or lower demon from the Monster Manual appears in your magic circle.

Not only is the general flavor pretty much the same, going from "perform a big fancy ritual" to "perform most of a big fancy ritual and save the last bit to be triggered later" is probably the best extrapolation of traditional European hermetic magic, Mesoamerican sacrificial magic, or the like to get you combat-time spells; the concept of nebulous "magical energy" that a person just has and uses to "do stuff with magic" is a very modern one, comparatively, and doing things like negotiating during combat with previously-bound spirits to help you would be too slow.

Regarding how D&D magic works, it does essentially work on a True Names/Language of Magic concept, though it isn't explicitly called out as such aside from truenaming. The vast majority of spells have verbal components, spoken in a tongue belonging to ancient and powerful magical beings, and there's an entire class for people who can talk and sing so well that magic happens (and the bard was was, incidentally, the first example of a prestige or advanced class back in 1e, basically being better magic-users than the Magic-User). You need to know creatures' names to call them specifically with planar binding and similar spells, and most magic items have magic words that make them function. Power Word spells pack the most amount of power into the smallest space (in AD&D, they were very powerful spells given the lower overall monster HP and had ridiculously fast casting times, and even in 3e they're no-save spells with proportionally powerful effects) and are explicitly words with inherent magical power. Other examples of words-as-magic abound: glyphs, sigils, runes, symbols, etc., and of course wizards and archivists write down magic spells in their spellbooks and prayerbooks--magic spells made of words which themselves are magical and can't be understood by the uninitiated; scrolls, likewise, are literally written-down magic.

If you were to put an explicit statement in the Magic chapter that "D&D magic works by knowing and using the language of magic," you'd have to change absolutely none of the fluff and it would work just fine. And incidentally, while magic doesn't work via spirits, there are plenty of classes in 3e with a "get magic from powerful spirit creatures" theme, including the spirit shaman and wu jen with their minor-class-feature-but-basically-just-flavor companion spirits, the sha'ir who works magic entirely through its companion spirit, the warlock who gains power from a pact with an otherworldly being, the binder who channels spirits through his body, the hexblade that has a companion spirit that's basically a curse made manifest, and every single arcane class with a familiar.

The point I was trying to get at in the original post, and perhaps could have expanded on here, was that when it comes to magical aesthetics there's a pretty big spectrum between magic as actually practiced (specifically in the pseudo-Medieval-to-pseudo-Renaissance period that the rest of D&D's aesthetic is largely based on) on the one end, and magic as viewed in more modern fantasy works on the other.

Magic-as-actually-practiced was, essentially, one part mysticism and one part science. There were fancy diagrams and chanting, there were textbooks full of alchemical formulas and reagents, there were lists of demons and procedures for bargaining with them, there was a whole lot of ritual around the whole thing, and most importantly magic was a process of channeling that which was outside the magic-user (spirits or demons or angels or even gods themselves) to some useful end. To those workers of magic, magic wasn't some special separate something, it was merely another part of an integrated worldview that held everything from prayer to physics as being part of a cohesive whole; Newton famously worked on a variety of alchemical and occult studies with just as much rigor and interest as his more "real" studies on optics and gravity. And in general, if you follow a particular procedure successfully, you get a certain magical result, just like following a chemical formula or computer program (though obviously they didn't think of things in those terms at the time).

Then you have magic-as-seen-in-popular fantasy, where magic is much more of an idiosyncratic individual thing. Magic works by willpower/emotion/etc., often with some sort of focus like a wand or gem or something, but any words/gestures/foci are largely mnemonic aids and/or emotional props like Dumbo's feather, and the more powerful magic-users can go without them entirely. Magic comes entirely from the user, either via some sort of internal reservoir of magical energy or via an innate gift or talent that lets you tap into some external energy source that only people born with wizard blood or whatever can access. Magic is generally a thing rather than a process, where there's a sharp divide between "things that have magic in them" and "things that don't have magic in them," and you can magic at things all you want in whatever way you want until your internal magical battery runs dry.

Both approaches to magic can be used well in fiction, and many works use some blend of the two, including D&D (things like antimagic field being able to "turn off" magic in an area or spell levels being fungible for spontaneous casting is a strictly New Magic thing), or have the two kinds of systems side-by-side in-setting (LotR has Old Magic human sorcery and Maiar wizardry with chants and staffs and all next to New Magic rings of power and elven magic with feelings and willpower and all, Dresden Files wizards can do both New Magic quick'n'dirty Evocation and Old Magic incense'n'candles Thaumaturgy, and so on). Neither is inherently better than the other, it all depends on what fits your setting best.

But the context of my original post, and Anonymouswizard's post that I responded to, was that a lot of people object to Vancian magic on the grounds that "it doesn't make sense that magic would work like that" or "it doesn't feel magical" or whatever, and everyone and their brother who homebrews up a new magic system (for D&D or any other RPG) almost exclusively takes the "mana bar + magic skill(s), done" approach. It's assumed, for some reason, that this is how magic "really works" or is "supposed to work" and Vancian's idea of performing little rituals to call on extraplanar energy is nonsensical, when in fact for hundreds if not thousands of years that's exactly how people viewed it as working--heck, the flavor of Eberron's magewrights and adepts, where a blacksmith knows one specific ritual to make his swords better and a midwife knows one specific ritual to heal a mother in labor and so on, is much closer to how people actually practiced folk magic in ye olden days, and Eberron is the least Medieval published setting out there aesthetically.

So while I have no idea whether Vance actually researched or inspired by real-world magical traditions or whether he started with the magic-as-misunderstood-technology-and-sapient-mathematics premise and just worked backward from there (the same way 40K's techpriests and other post-apocalyptic settings turn maintenance rituals into religious rites because the characters are going through everything by rote), and I know that Gygax and Arneson retrofit Vancian flavor onto their mechanics rather than coming up with something flavor-first, the point is that if you were trying to come up with a system that looks and feels a lot like how magic did historically, it would turn out a heck of a lot closer to Vancian magic than any of the common alternatives people like to replace it with, and the idea that a magic system "making sense" or "feeling magical" has to mean just thinking really really hard to make things happen or gauging how much magical oomph to shove into a given magical effect is purely a product of fantasy literature from the last 50 years or so.

[Nifft]

Does anyone outside of English speaking realms even know Jack Vance's unique spellcasting fantasy on a serious scale?
It's my experience that few people inside the English speaking realms have read any Vance, and amongst the young even fewer yet.

Doesn't really apply to ToB though.


n Dying Earth spells are...well, it's complicated, but basically they're bundles of pseudo-sentient mathematics that want to be cast crossed with a hierarchy of minor demons:

This makes that old joke about talking to a summoned demon in "the universal language of mathematics" a bit less silly.

Anyway you should really start a new thread for this post in specific. It's very good info, but not really on-topic, and it's going to be missed by many people who could benefit from it.

[Calthropstu]

It's not? You might be thinking of PoW for Pathfinder 1e, not ToB. ToB was an official supplement.



Those are two ends of the sliding scale, I'd say. I've seen parties of the first kind, and I know a few people who potentially could be a part of the second kind of party. I don't like either of them, because the first ones don't take the game seriously enough to do anything meaningful with it, and the second ones take the game too seriously to remember it's about roleplaying and doing cool stuff, not maximum damage possible.

Yes. And those who want to use ToB overwhelmingly direct the game towards that second end. I don't know if it's the mindset that seeks the book, or the book that encourages the mindset. But whatever it is, it seems to bring out the power gamer in people. Either way, I do not want the book at my table due to bad experiences with people using it.

[el minster]

Who is this Vance person?

[Calthropstu]

Who is this Vance person?

Jack Vance is an author. Wrote a series called the dying earth. He created a ruled magic system that heavily influenced the creation of the D&D magic system, which eventually influenced most RPG magic systems since. I have not read the books myself, but I have heard them mentioned before. When we hear of the "Vancian magic system" this is what it is referring to.

[el minster]

Jack Vance is an author. Wrote a series called the dying earth. He created a ruled magic system that heavily influenced the creation of the D&D magic system, which eventually influenced most RPG magic systems since. I have not read the books myself, but I have heard them mentioned before. When we hear of the "Vancian magic system" this is what it is referring to.

Ok, thanks:)

[mindstalk]

the D&D magic system, which eventually influenced most RPG magic systems since.

If by influence you mean providing something to avoid.

[Lord Raziere]

If by influence you mean providing something to avoid.

Its pretty telling when the only thing that I can of think of as the closest successor to the vancian system I can name in other media is the arcane magic system in Dark Souls 1. which wasn't carried over in Dark Souls 3, they switched to mana. DnD introduced the most exploitable and powerful magic systems ever devised and then everyone else proceeded to look at everything else about DnD and take that instead while thinking about how to make their own magic systems.

[NigelWalmsley]

Besides, magic worked like that from the very start: even Dragons - staple of 3E spontaneous casting - prepares their spells pre-3E; and novels support it.

Moreover, spell preparation is a genuinely good dynamic for the Wizard. The Wizard is supposed to be a studious, scholarly caster. The idea of them sculpting their selection of spells to best handle the challenges they expect on any given day is a massive flavor win. And it's not really all that hard to balance. Compare the difference between the Wizard and the Sorcerer (select from the same abilities, one gets daily respec while the other doesn't) to the difference between the Wizard and the Incarnate (select from different abilities, both get daily respec). Clearly, the bulk of the Wizard's power is not coming from getting to prepare Glitterdust today and Web tomorrow.


It's one of the main attraction point for me!

And this is why the correct answer is that D&D should contain both. Psionics should no more replace magic than magic should replace psionics. Different resource management systems produce different dynamics and appeal to different people. Some people like the simplicity of a character whose abilities are all at will. Others like the complexity of a character who picks from a large list of options every day. Some people like managing discrete charges. Some people like having a single pool. The game can and should provide options for all of those people to get what they want.


I'll note that nearly every other fantasy game uses either spell points or at-will/fatigue for magic.

And D&D should use those too. It just shouldn't use them exclusively. There is no resource management system in the world that works so well for every use case that it should replace all others.


For the sorcerer... "Why can I still cast fireball but not light?"

Why can a Mistborn who's burned all their Iron, but not all their Steel, push things but not pull them? That's just how magic works. There doesn't inherently have to be a why. It could be that there's some other system that fits the thematic and flavorful identity of Sorcerers better. But there's no reason magic couldn't work in a way that Fireball and Light are non-fungible.

(Also, your example is technically wrong, since you could just use your 3rd level spells slots to cast Light as a Sorcerer, but I take your point.)

[Gusmo]

Heh, I'm being reminded of this little gem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCqfbNwjrmg&t=33s) from an otherwise awful telling of Dragonlance.

[mindstalk]

(Also, your example is technically wrong, since you could just use your 3rd level spells slots to cast Light as a Sorcerer, but I take your point.)

In 5e yeah, but not in earlier editions.

[upho]

Most of the reasons have been covered. The fact it's 3rd party, the fact that it completely changes party dynamics, the fact that it completely overwrites core classes, the fact that it's an additional system people don't want to deal with, the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster. And by average caster I mean most ordinary people playing casters, not the people who hang out here.

Most people who play D&D want to play a party to chill with their friends and laugh about killing Bonzo the Ogre by Fighter Bob beating it to death with front door while Ozark the wizard made its minions sleep and Jimmy the rogue snuck around and slew the guards that were supposed to warn the ogre the party was coming. Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience. Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed.Could you please elaborate on this, 'cause I understand very little of it. Notably:

1. "The fact it's 3rd party"
It's not. Why do you claim it is?

2. "the fact that it completely changes party dynamics"
How/in what way?

3. "the fact that it completely overwrites core classes"
There are AFAIK no rules stating that core classes aren't allowed in games with ToB content. Or were you actually trying to say that the ToB classes are so much stronger than the core classes they'd be near useless in any challenges suitable for the ToB classes, i.e.; what you're saying in point #4 below?

4. "the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster"
I assume you meant to say "...it raises the floor and the ceiling of the average martial...", since otherwise you'd be comparing apples and... uh... cheese? And if that assumption is correct, could you perhaps describe what makes for example a crusader a significantly more competent adventurer than a druid? Or, if you like, what makes Joe Average far more skilled at PO when building and playing say crusaders than he is when building and playing druids?

5. "Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience."
Do you know how/why ToB changes your players' preferences from "random fun" to "BATTLE TO THE DEATH"-PvP?

6. "Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed."
Since this appears to be the kind of game you and your group prefers, why is it a problem? (And regardless, see question #5 above.)

Lastly, I think some things may become at least a bit less confusing to me (and many other posters/readers) if you could post a basic build outline of the "typical average" wizard and perhaps fighter in your games, say at 10th level.

[NigelWalmsley]

In 5e yeah, but not in earlier editions.

No, you can do that in 3e too:


A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.

I guess technically, given the context, that might imply that you can only do that as a prepared caster, but that seems like kind of a stretch.

[Calthropstu]

Could you please elaborate on this, 'cause I understand very little of it. Notably:

1. "The fact it's 3rd party"
It's not. Why do you claim it is?

2. "the fact that it completely changes party dynamics"
How/in what way?

3. "the fact that it completely overwrites core classes"
There are AFAIK no rules stating that core classes aren't allowed in games with ToB content. Or were you actually trying to say that the ToB classes are so much stronger than the core classes they'd be near useless in any challenges suitable for the ToB classes, i.e.; what you're saying in point #4 below?

4. "the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster"
I assume you meant to say "...it raises the floor and the ceiling of the average martial...", since otherwise you'd be comparing apples and... uh... cheese? And if that assumption is correct, could you perhaps describe what makes for example a crusader a significantly more competent adventurer than a druid? Or, if you like, what makes Joe Average far more skilled at PO when building and playing say crusaders than he is when building and playing druids?

5. "Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience."
Do you know how/why ToB changes your players' preferences from "random fun" to "BATTLE TO THE DEATH"-PvP?

6. "Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed."
Since this appears to be the kind of game you and your group prefers, why is it a problem? (And regardless, see question #5 above.)

Lastly, I think some things may become at least a bit less confusing to me (and many other posters/readers) if you could post a basic build outline of the "typical average" wizard and perhaps fighter in your games, say at 10th level.

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

[noob]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

Essentially it is a player problem: some players really wants power that feels awesome and wants to be the strongest (which involves themselves comparing to the other players and thus pvp) and TOB grants that feeling more than just the core classes (Because let us face it: building a bridge by waving your hands ten minutes or making your allies attack and move faster does not feels as awesome as smashing someone so hard it throws them backwards even if fabricate and haste are very powerful)

[DeTess]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.

[el minster]

It seems like the bad type of players like ToB

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.

True enough. Which is why when they mention ToB I drop the player. ToB appeals to a particular player type it seems, a player type I don't need at all.

[upho]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.This sounds pretty horrible, even though I can't see why this kind of player mentality has much to do with ToB. I mean, with just a little bit more effort, in most games these idiots would be able to do pretty much the same kind of asshattery with a barbarian, pally or fighter.

Regardless, you have my sympathies, FWIW.


Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.For sure. But still, I'm curious if there are more of these players among those who prefer games with ToB, or if Calthropstu's experiences is simply a statistical outlier. FWIW, my own experiences with both ToB and PoW have been nothing like this. But then, I've been lucky enough to never play with someone intentionally trying to prove their PC stronger than that of another, at least not in-game and certainly not through PvP. I have however been in two games with unintentionally OP PCs (both of them full casters).


Essentially it is a player problem: some players really wants power that feels awesome and wants to be the strongest (which involves themselves comparing to the other players and thus pvp) and TOB grants that feeling more than just the core classes (Because let us face it: building a bridge by waving your hands ten minutes or making your allies attack and move faster does not feels as awesome as smashing someone so hard it throws them backwards even if fabricate and haste are very powerful)Hmm... Maybe there's some truth to this. Although I still don't really understand why these schmucks would need ToB.

(In PF, I think I can see why these asshats would want PoW however, as I'd wager none of them have the op-fu to make a 1PP martial as OP as they can make a PoW class.)

[Rater202]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

This isn't a problem with ToB

This is a problem with players--in the first game you were being a jerk by picking on other pcs who are weaker than you and in the other cases it was otherplayers being jerks.

If they didn't have access to ToB they'd bee playing Codzillas.

[GrayDeath]

For sure. But still, I'm curious if there are more of these players among those who prefer games with ToB, or if Calthropstu's experiences is simply a statistical outlier. FWIW, my own experiences with both ToB and PoW have been nothing like this. But then, I've been lucky enough to never play with someone intentionally trying to prove their PC stronger than that of another, at least not in-game and certainly not through PvP. I have however been in two games with unintentionally OP PCs (both of them full casters).


In the last 5 game groups where we used ToB or PoW (since we almost always play 3.x I am using them interchangeably) we had the following 2 Problems:

1.: A Player that obviously ran from Caltropsus table to ozurs built a monstrosity of bartely RAW legal Swordsage, held his (aside from not being able to fly, which will come up again) existant superiority to the other PC`s (a regular Wildshape Ranger, a Favoured Soul and a Beguiler) to no end, frustrating us for 2 Sessions (even after the DM more than clearly, if nicely,a sked to tone it dowmn.
Late in that 2nd night, we came to a vast (over 400meters) lavafilled Chasm of at least 200 miles length, where the Raptoran Beguiler, the Wildshaping Ranger and the FS casting Flight simply decided that "he could go and try to be awesome over here, they were going over there".
Nooo, the DM surely merely rolled the Random encounter table for terrain....

Exopectadly the immature moron left.

2.: A latecomer to the table was simply asked to build a "powerful but not cheesy" ToB Character of Level 8.

Sadly, he came with a Character built so carefully to not overdo it, that he ended up being very mediocre, and quite overshadowed by the well built Paladin of the Group.
We helped him fine tune it, and he was a happy palyer for almost a year.


The other 3 rounds had absolutely no problems whatsoever. Incidentally, except for one player who ALWAYS plays an Elf magic user of some kind, they al consisted of mature (30+years old) and overall experienced and NICE players.


So yeah, if you give it to "MOA POWAH (to ME)" Morons, ToB or PoW are bad, as even a monkey can build powerful characters with them.
It needs a smart ******* to do that with most other classes, wouldnt you agree?


Though insteads of banning ToB, I simply have decided not to play with morons and *******s. ^^

[InvisibleBison]

It seems like the bad type of players like ToB


ToB appeals to a particular player type it seems, a player type I don't need at all.

This reasoning is invalid. The fact that there are people who both like ToB and are bad players does not preclude there from being people who like ToB and aren't bad players, any more than it precludes there from being people who are bad players and dislike ToB.

[Calthropstu]

In the last 5 game groups where we used ToB or PoW (since we almost always play 3.x I am using them interchangeably) we had the following 2 Problems:

1.: A Player that obviously ran from Caltropsus table to ozurs built a monstrosity of bartely RAW legal Swordsage, held his (aside from not being able to fly, which will come up again) existant superiority to the other PC`s (a regular Wildshape Ranger, a Favoured Soul and a Beguiler) to no end, frustrating us for 2 Sessions (even after the DM more than clearly, if nicely,a sked to tone it dowmn.
Late in that 2nd night, we came to a vast (over 400meters) lavafilled Chasm of at least 200 miles length, where the Raptoran Beguiler, the Wildshaping Ranger and the FS casting Flight simply decided that "he could go and try to be awesome over here, they were going over there".
Nooo, the DM surely merely rolled the Random encounter table for terrain....

Exopectadly the immature moron left.

2.: A latecomer to the table was simply asked to build a "powerful but not cheesy" ToB Character of Level 8.

Sadly, he came with a Character built so carefully to not overdo it, that he ended up being very mediocre, and quite overshadowed by the well built Paladin of the Group.
We helped him fine tune it, and he was a happy palyer for almost a year.


The other 3 rounds had absolutely no problems whatsoever. Incidentally, except for one player who ALWAYS plays an Elf magic user of some kind, they al consisted of mature (30+years old) and overall experienced and NICE players.


So yeah, if you give it to "MOA POWAH (to ME)" Morons, ToB or PoW are bad, as even a monkey can build powerful characters with them.
It needs a smart ******* to do that with most other classes, wouldnt you agree?


Though insteads of banning ToB, I simply have decided not to play with morons and *******s. ^^

Hmmmm. It could be because I am advertising my games by a college campus that I get these kind of people regularly. But you get what you can I guess? Fortunately, I have a decent group I am in. And ToB and PoW never come up.

[NigelWalmsley]

Hmm... Maybe there's some truth to this. Although I still don't really understand why these schmucks would need ToB.

They don't. Calthropsu probably just had one or two bad experiences with people who liked ToB and generalized them. Which is not entirely unsurprising. There are people out there who are *****, and at small sample sizes it is quite possible for the majority of the obnoxious people you run into to all share some trait or other. I'm sure there are people out there who would give equally vitriolic rants about how players who like Psionics, or Eberron, or Binders are evil powergamers.

I also suspect his attitude towards ToB is making the problem worse. I know if someone told me I was a bad person for liking ToB, that would not do anything to ingratiate me to them. If you say "everyone who likes X is toxic", don't be surprised that your interactions with fans of X aren't positive.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmmmm. It could be because I am advertising my games by a college campus that I get these kind of people regularly. But you get what you can I guess? Fortunately, I have a decent group I am in. And ToB and PoW never come up.

When I was in college, I ran games for around a dozen people every semester (multiple concurrent games, obviously, I'm not crazy enough to run a 12-PC party), and while some people in my group of friends loved ToB and others refused to use it, none of them were the kind of disruptive jerks like the ones you describe.

Jerkish players have no correlation with age, intellect, profession, playstyle, experience level, or preferred material. One player can ruin a game as a 50-something lifetime gamer running a straight fighter in an overdramatic "real roleplayer" fashion as easily as another can as a teenager whose very first PC is a swordsage with an incredibly cliché personality.

[Blue Jay]

This reasoning is invalid. The fact that there are people who both like ToB and are bad players does not preclude there from being people who like ToB and aren't bad players, any more than it precludes there from being people who are bad players and dislike ToB.

No, you're wrong: it's perfectly valid reasoning. Here's how the reasoning works:

First, you look at the entire pool of players, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

Then, you look at only the players who are ToB fans, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

If the ToB fans have a higher proportion of douche-nozzles than you find in the general player pool, then you can safely conclude that allowing ToB will increase your chances of getting a douche-nozzle in your group.

If you are unwilling to accept that increased risk, then banning ToB is a perfectly rational thing to do. Thus, his reasoning is entirely valid.

Now, is it actually the case that ToB fans are more likely to be douche-nozzles than the general player pool? I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate. But, based on Calthropstu's experiences, I can't fault the guy for the conclusions he drew or the actions he took based on those conclusions. Maybe he could have reserved his judgment and collected more data first, but that's neither here nor there: everyone makes decisions with insufficient data on a pretty regular basis, and a sample size of 3 is pretty much par for the course, so it would be hypocritical to accuse him of anything here.

[Doctor Despair]

No, you're wrong: it's perfectly valid reasoning. Here's how the reasoning works:

First, you look at the entire pool of players, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

Then, you look at only the players who are ToB fans, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

If the ToB fans have a higher proportion of douche-nozzles than you find in the general player pool, then you can safely conclude that allowing ToB will increase your chances of getting a douche-nozzle in your group.

If you are unwilling to accept that increased risk, then banning ToB is a perfectly rational thing to do. Thus, his reasoning is entirely valid.

Now, is it actually the case that ToB fans are more likely to be douche-nozzles than the general player pool? I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate. But, based on Calthropstu's experiences, I can't fault the guy for the conclusions he drew or the actions he took based on those conclusions. Maybe he could have reserved his judgment and collected more data first, but that's neither here nor there: everyone makes decisions with insufficient data on a pretty regular basis, and a sample size of 3 is pretty much par for the course, so it would be hypocritical to accuse him of anything here.

Emphasis mine. Anecdotal evidence based on three sessions is not enough data to draw conclusions about every player that would ever want to use TOB. Additionally, it wasn't even 100% of their sample size that acted in that way; they admit that they booted their third player in session one before any egregious behavior could occur to "nip it in the bud" after they "start getting domineering" which, based on their apparently strong feelings about the system, may very well have been able to be resolved amicably without banning the player or the system.

Now, is it understandable for someone to feel negatively about a system based on two or three negative experiences with it? Sure. However, it is not logical or well-founded to claim that people who use TOB are more likely to be jerks without a much broader form of data-collection from multiple DMs and multiple parties. It's understandable for them to not want to play with it, but we should have no illusions that it's a decision based on logic rather than feelings.

[Dimers]

we should have no illusions that it's a decision based on logic rather than feelings.

Logic or no logic, it's not incumbent upon Calthropstu to study a subject intensely before making a decision about how they get to spend their time. How many experiences is "enough"? How many craptastic experiences does that mean they'll need to sit through to satisfy someone's demands that they have a broader data pool? Life's too short for that nonsense. Feel free to rigorously test every assumption about games YOU play, but don't try to inflict it on someone else.

In human relationships, logic is overrated and compassion needs to count for more. Games are human relationships.

[Doctor Despair]

How many craptastic experiences does that mean they'll need to sit through to satisfy someone's demands that they have a broader data pool? Life's too short for that nonsense. Feel free to rigorously test every assumption about games YOU play, but don't try to inflict it on someone else.


I never said they should test it more rigorously before deciding they don't want to play with it; you've misread my post. I said that we shouldn't pretend it's a decision predicated on logic and data. A decision made based on emotions is not necessarily an unjust or wrong decision. It's inaccurate to say that a decision made on such limited anecdotal data is logical, however; as others in the thread have shared, two out of three games' worth of negative experiences is not enough information to logically extrapolate how the entire player pool should be characterized, however, or even how much a majority or plurality of the player pool should be interpreted. If they decided not to run it because it reminds them on an unpleasant childhood experience, that would also be a valid reason not to use it, but as with the logic they did use, we shouldn't pretend it's a logical one.

[Gusmo]

Correlation =/= causation is a life lesson that's worth learning. The subject at hand may be trivial, but more generally when I see people who don't understand this, it makes me wary of other places this fallacy may arise in my interactions with them, and what other fallacies they may allow.

[Calthropstu]

I never said they should test it more rigorously before deciding they don't want to play with it; you've misread my post. I said that we shouldn't pretend it's a decision predicated on logic and data. A decision made based on emotions is not necessarily an unjust or wrong decision. It's inaccurate to say that a decision made on such limited anecdotal data is logical, however; as others in the thread have shared, two out of three games' worth of negative experiences is not enough information to logically extrapolate how the entire player pool should be characterized, however, or even how much a majority or plurality of the player pool should be interpreted. If they decided not to run it because it reminds them on an unpleasant childhood experience, that would also be a valid reason not to use it, but as with the logic they did use, we shouldn't pretend it's a logical one.

It IS a decision based on data. Just because the data doesn't meet YOUR standards, doesn't make it any less viable for me. Let's look at the data available.

A book I dislike was used, on 3 occasions, to perform separate actions which I disliked, seems to attract a certain player type I dislike, with the book having provided zero positives. It seems eliminating an overwhelming negative is a good idea in my book. Is it possible there are good players who just want to try a crusader to try something different? Sure. And maybe, if a person made an approach of "Hey, I've never tried out this ToB book before and I really like the character concept of a crusader type not tied to the holy vows of the paladin. Can we give it a shot?" And if I otherwise decided the player was pretty ok, maybe, just maybe, I'd give it a shot. But that's not what I get. I get "So I want to play a Crusader with these options and these items because it allows me to perform these moves. Oh, and can I build this custom magic item while I am at it?"

Nope.

[Doctor Despair]

It IS a decision based on data. Just because the data doesn't meet YOUR standards, doesn't make it any less viable for me. Let's look at the data available.


Let's take that to an extreme to illustrate a point. I sign up for a foreign language class. The teacher is rude on day one, so I go home. I decide that all speakers of X language are rude. Maybe I also decide all teachers are rude. This is not logical even though it is technically based on data because it is limited anecdotal data. Drawing an inference based on insufficient data is not logical.



...with the book having provided zero positives.


You can't concede there is a single, solitary benefit to using this system? Not one positive thing? Even if you think it's net negative, that's an extreme view to hold.



Is it possible there are good players who just want to try a crusader to try something different? Sure. And maybe, if a person made an approach of "Hey, I've never tried out this ToB book before and I really like the character concept of a crusader type not tied to the holy vows of the paladin. Can we give it a shot?" And if I otherwise decided the player was pretty ok, maybe, just maybe, I'd give it a shot.


That's a much more reasonable response than concluding all TOB-users are garbage human beings you don't want to play with, yes.

[Blue Jay]

Emphasis mine. Anecdotal evidence based on three sessions is not enough data to draw conclusions about every player that would ever want to use TOB. Additionally, it wasn't even 100% of their sample size that acted in that way; they admit that they booted their third player in session one before any egregious behavior could occur to "nip it in the bud" after they "start getting domineering" which, based on their apparently strong feelings about the system, may very well have been able to be resolved amicably without banning the player or the system.

So, what is "enough data?" How many times does he need to expose himself to a potential negative experience before he's allowed to make a decision and call it "logical"? If you can't give a solid number, then how can you argue that 3 isn't "enough"?


Correlation =/= causation is a life lesson that's worth learning. The subject at hand may be trivial, but more generally when I see people who don't understand this, it makes me wary of other places this fallacy may arise in my interactions with them, and what other fallacies they may allow.

Granted. But causation is notoriously difficult to demonstrate. When you get right down to it, observing correlation is really the only way to judge causation; so in practice, "correlation =/= causation" is not a very helpful life guide. The only thing it does is tell you to keep collecting data, even in cases where you don't actually need extra data.

The way to test this is to ask Calthropstu if he has had significantly fewer bad experiences since he banned ToB.

I'm one of those guys who doesn't have the self-confidence to make executive decisions, and I'm too timid to ask somebody to leave my group. So, I tend to suffer through bad experiences for a long time. I have made some of those guys into good friends this way, so it can be rewarding; but it's also caused me no end of stress, and I spend a lot of my gaming time cursing myself for not having the guts to stand up for myself.

So, is it really better to be slow at the trigger? I don't know. I don't have the data to say that being a slow-trigger person has made my gaming experience significantly more enjoyable than Calthropstu's, so I can't really justify saying that my strategy is better or more logical than Calthropstu's.


Let's take that to an extreme to illustrate a point. I sign up for a foreign language class. The teacher is rude on day one, so I go home. I decide that all speakers of X language are rude. Maybe I also decide all teachers are rude. This is not logical even though it is technically based on data because it is limited anecdotal data. Drawing an inference based on insufficient data is not logical.

Okay, I really think this needs to be clear here: "logic" is just a formulaic means of reasoning, and has nothing at all to do with how big your sample size should be, or even with whether or not you're conclusion is correct. With logical reasoning, you define your premises, and as long as your premises lead to your conclusion, your reasoning is "valid." In Calthropstu's case, one premise is "These 3 ToB fans are representative of the entire community of ToB fans." Well, if you accept that premise, then his reasoning leads directly to his conclusion; therefore, his conclusion is valid.

Now, you can argue that his premise is not true, and therefore reject his conclusion. But, that's an entirely different thing from saying that his reasoning is invalid or "not logical." It's entirely possible to be perfectly logical and still be wrong. My personal experience with ToB has not been terribly negative, so I don't think I agree with Calthropstu; but I'm sure my sample isn't particularly representative of the gamer community at large, either; so I'm going to reserve my judgment.


That's a much more reasonable response than concluding all TOB-users are garbage human beings you don't want to play with, yes.

See, I don't think Calthropstu ever concluded anything like this. What he concluded is that ToB increases the rate of douche-nozzlery to an intolerable level. He talks in pretty superlative terms, but I'm reasonably certain that he doesn't actually believe ToB fans are all "garbage human beings": he just doesn't want to deal with the perceived increase in risk. Here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate, this time using a large sample size and totally made-up numbers:

After years of DMing in his area, Calthropstu has observed that about 10% of respondents to his ads are douche-nozzles. But, that hasn't interfered with his enjoyment of the game, so he's willing to accept that 10% risk.

Then, he has also observed that about 15% of respondents who want to use ToB are douche-nozzles. The other 85% are perfectly fine, and he still has enjoyable experiences with them. But, that 15% risk is more than he's willing to take on, and it seems like that modestly increased rate of douche-nozzlery really interferes with his overall enjoyment of the hobby. So, even though most ToB fans are not problem players, that extra 5% risk makes it not worth it to him.

Sure, made-up numbers and all that. But, the salient point is that you don't need 100% of results to fit your hypothesis before you act on it. You don't even need a majority or a plurality of results to fit. You just need reason to believe that it correlates with increased risk. Certainly, we should all hope for higher accuracy than 15%, but that doesn't mean 15% is useless information, or that it's "not logical" to act on 15%.

[H_H_F_F]

As someone who's never played with ToB, I wouldn't use it in a game I DM. Two points on why:

1. As has been pointed out, the whole "readied maneuvers" thing feels very gamey. When using magic, it is easy to suspend disbelief (though 90% of games I've played made spontaneous casting the only casting), but when playing with martials, one wants to feel like what they do is real fighting.

I completely agree that the idea is based on real martial arts. I really liked the image of the princess bride fight. Now imagine the line "However, unfortunately for me, though I have studied my Agrippa I did not prepare it before this fight."

ToB could work so much better (from the perspective of feeling like a real fighter) if every initiator had maneuvers known and then something like "stamina points". If they're out of stamina, they can only strike in less demanding ways - normal attack. That could feel like a cool fighter who has studied specific ways of fighting. Instead, it all feels like what it's called - Blade Magic.

2. I have 15 years of experience with the parts of 3.5 I have had access to. I know how to balance it, I know how to tweak it as needed, I know how to make sure that my players are all on around the same power level, that the martials are not outshined by the casters, and that the players have appropriate encounters. I wouldn't be able to do any of that if I had a warblade sitting at my table. Is that "low system mastery"? Maybe so.

Does that mean I should buy an expensive book that's not available in my native language and study it thoroughly because I have a player who likes it? I really don't think so. I won't let you play it because I don't know how to balance it, and I'm not going to learn because it's a huge investment of time and money I don't want to make.

[Gavinfoxx]

1. As has been pointed out, the whole "readied maneuvers" thing feels very gamey. When using magic, it is easy to suspend disbelief (though 90% of games I've played made spontaneous casting the only casting), but when playing with martials, one wants to feel like what they do is real fighting.

I completely agree that the idea is based on real martial arts. I really liked the image of the princess bride fight. Now imagine the line "However, unfortunately for me, though I have studied my Agrippa I did not prepare it before this fight."

ToB could work so much better (from the perspective of feeling like a real fighter) if every initiator had maneuvers known and then something like "stamina points". If they're out of stamina, they can only strike in less demanding ways - normal attack. That could feel like a cool fighter who has studied specific ways of fighting. Instead, it all feels like what it's called - Blade Magic.


Readied maneuvers actually does simulate real martial arts, though. That's the thing. Once you do certain techniques, you are in position for certain other techniques, and out of position for some other set of them. In real swordfighting (like HEMA), you see people close for a clash and then retreat to reset their stance all the time. What ISN'T realistic is being able to do all of your moves while right next to another person, regardless of the situation and how you two are interacting.

[H_H_F_F]

Readied maneuvers actually does simulate real martial arts, though. That's the thing. Once you do certain techniques, you are in position for certain other techniques, and out of position for some other set of them. In real swordfighting (like HEMA), you see people close for a clash and then retreat to reset their stance all the time. What ISN'T realistic is being able to do all of your moves while right next to another person, regardless of the situation and how you two are interacting.

This logic supports not being able to do the same maneuver twice in a row, which makes sense. What bothers me, as my Agrippa example explained, is the thought of someone having perfected a move but being unable to do it because he didn't think he'd be using that one today.

[Gavinfoxx]

That just means he isn't in the right mindset to use it against a resisting opponent until he does a few weapon drills and flourishes and practices it again and gets in the right mindset to resolve to use that fighting style rather than his other fighting style. He could still use it (over and over again), against a training dummy or a non-resisting training partner for sparring or whatever.

[H_H_F_F]

That just means he isn't in the right mindset to use it against a resisting opponent until he does a few weapon drills and flourishes and practices it again and gets in the right mindset to resolve to use that fighting style rather than his other fighting style. He could still use it (over and over again), against a training dummy or a non-resisting training partner for sparring or whatever.

It is simply not my experience that this is how real world fighting ever goes. However, I think we both understand each other's point of view and simply disagree on how believable the system is, so there's probably not much point in us repeating ourselves further.

[Elves]

I like TOB but HHFF is right that the readied maneuvers are a mechanical artifice. It's a way of having you know a decent number of maneuvers without giving you decision overload while in combat. It's not a bad solution from a gameplay perspective but there are other ways you could make it work that flavor purists would like more.


Does that mean I should buy an expensive book that's not available in my native language and study it thoroughly because I have a player who likes it? I really don't think so. I won't let you play it because I don't know how to balance it, and I'm not going to learn because it's a huge investment of time and money I don't want to make.

If you really don't want to pirate it you can get the pdf for $15 on DMsguild. System only takes 1-2 hours to learn. Also, maybe put more trust in players and only look into "balancing it" if it presents issues?

[NigelWalmsley]

Readied maneuvers work pretty well for the Crusader (where it's pretty explicitly some kind of random inspiration), and okay for the Warblade (where it works pretty well as a tempo thing). The Swordsage is the only one where it's really glaringly disassociated.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I like TOB but HHFF is right that the readied maneuvers are a mechanical artifice. It's a way of having you know a decent number of maneuvers without giving you decision overload while in combat. It's not a bad solution from a gameplay perspective but there are other ways you could make it work that flavor purists would like more.

Yeah, something to keep in mind is that ToB was a quick-and-dirty 3e backport of an early draft of 4e which was more centered around per-encounter mechanics than the final version ended up being, so some amount of flavor dissociation is to be expected. Hence why they don't even attempt to explain the flavor of readied maneuvers beyond the brief mention of "maneuvers require preparation in the form of exercise, prayer, meditation, or simple mental rehearsal" in chapter 3.


Readied maneuvers work pretty well for the Crusader (where it's pretty explicitly some kind of random inspiration), and okay for the Warblade (where it works pretty well as a tempo thing). The Swordsage is the only one where it's really glaringly disassociated.

In practice, of course, the swordsage flavor wonkiness doesn't really matter because there exists no swordsage who doesn't take Adaptive Style, in the same way that there exists no druid who doesn't take Natural Spell. :smallamused:

[el minster]

True, true

[Dr_Dinosaur]

It is simply not my experience that this is how real world fighting ever goes. However, I think we both understand each other's point of view and simply disagree on how believable the system is, so there's probably not much point in us repeating ourselves further.

Here we are again with the Guy at the Gym fallacy. Who cares what real world fighting looks like when the whole point was that the "more realistic" core martials can't cut it next to casters? ToB frankly didn't go far enough making the combat unrealistic

[Bartmanhomer]

TOB is mostly Tier 3 classes. So it's very very solid. I don't know why that your DM wants to banned TOB. :confused:

[H_H_F_F]

Here we are again with the Guy at the Gym fallacy. Who cares what real world fighting looks like when the whole point was that the "more realistic" core martials can't cut it next to casters? ToB frankly didn't go far enough making the combat unrealistic


I CARE

I mean, come on. Call it a fallacy all day long if you want, but I'm clearly not making a point like "ToB unrealistic -> Tob bad." I'm saying ToB doesn't feel like fighting, it feels like sword magic, and is therefore less fun for people who want to emulate fighting, and not sword magic.

It's not about power, it's not about tier, it's not about realism or balance or anything. I even offered in my comment an alternate system that would be just as powerful (if calculated well), and allow warblades, for example, to do just as much as they do now. The advantage would be feeling like a master swordsman fantasy super soldier, and not like a sword wizard.

I've got no issue with the fact that a level 20 warblade can take down 10 trained elite soldiers and a dragon in 6 seconds with a sword, even though that's completely unrealistic and nothing like what a real world master swordsman (guy in a gym) would ever be able to accomplish, regardless of how good they are. I just want to feel like said warblade doing it by having mastered the sword, not by playing magic the gathering.

[Gusmo]

Little of what warblades can do is magic. ToB explicitly says they don't have supernatural powers. Your use of the word magic is absurd.

[Zombimode]

I mean, come on. Call it a fallacy all day long if you want, but I'm clearly not making a point like "ToB unrealistic -> Tob bad." I'm saying ToB doesn't feel like fighting, it feels like sword magic, and is therefore less fun for people who want to emulate fighting, and not sword magic.

Do you feel the same about combat related feats or class features?

If not, what, to you, is the difference?

[H_H_F_F]

I thought I explained my meaning in my first comment. Have you read it? If I thought maneuvers themselves were magic, I wouldn't suggest the stamina system as a less game-y and magic-y alternative. What feels like sword magic is not being able to do a maneuver you know because you didn't think about it 10 hours earlier. Imagine having combat brute and shock trooper, and having to choose which one is going to be accessible to you next time you fight - and being able to do so hours in advance. I would object to that, I would call it game-y and I would say it's more like magic than like fighting.

(Nearly) nothing a warblade does feels like magic. It's how he does it, it's how the maneuvers readied system is built, that does.

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself well, but my first comment is on the bottom of the previous page, and everything I've been saying and discussing has been in relation to it and with the assumption my interlocutors have read it. Please make sure you do if you want to discuss with me, to make sure you understand what I'm even complaining about.

edit: it was post #235 on this thread, it that makes it easier to find.

[mindstalk]

Little of what warblades can do is magic. ToB explicitly says they don't have supernatural powers. Your use of the word magic is absurd.

It's not absurd. They're saying that the system design of ToB maneuvers feels like Vancian magic with its preparations and expenditures, inappropriately so.