D&D 3.x Class Tomb of Battle "Lite" [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

H_H_F_F

2022-09-05, 02:30 PM

I think simplified ToB would forget about maneuvers known, ready, refreshed, expended, etc. You'd also forget about picking maneuvers.

You, as a DM, could design 4 or 5 disciplines, mostly based around those of the existing disciplines you like more. Each discipline is simply a list of four stances and 6 maneuvers. You do use the word disciplines, but the maneuvers aren't formalized - they're each simply a class ability. Except the stances, you will choose maneuvers that are useful but situational - not stuff like raging mongoose, which the player would use every turn for their entire career.

At 2nd level, a fighter chooses their discipline, and gets the corresponding (first level) stance. At 4th level, they get a second level maneuver as a class feature - it is always readied and never expended. At 6th, they get a second stance (third level). They can swap stances a swift action, just like in ToB. At 8th level, they get another maneuver, and so forth. They get an 8th level maneuver at 16, the stance at 18, and a final ninth level maneuver as a capstone.

That would leave the player with 1 big decision point at level 2, and smaller tactical decisions about which stance to be in and whether to full attack / use a class feature / do something else. Feels much more grounded than ToB, IMO.

Also, that would leave you to design disciplines that would be well balanced, and fit the feel of martial you're trying to achieve.

Stone Spirit fighter

The stone spirit fighter is an immovable object no one can get past. She is a wall, a paragon of absolute tenacity and raw strength.

Level 2: Stance: Iron guard's glare.

Level 4: Mountain Hammer. (Commentary: almost obligatory at this level, becomes more situational at 6. I think it's fine)

Level 6: Stance: Thicket of Blades.

Level 8: Halting Strike (commentary: a less magicky sounding name for entangling blade)

Level 10: Mountain Avalanche

Level 12: Stance: Reliable Paragon (commentary: aura of perfect order)

Level 14: Colossus Strike

Level 16: Earthstrike Quake (commentary: get a better name. Also, replace with Adamantine Bones if this feels too Wuxia for you)

Level 18: Stance: Immortal Fortitude.

Level 20: Mountain Tombstone Strike.

A more powerful alternative would be doing exactly that, but at every odd level, and keeping the bonus feats at even levels.

loky1109

2022-09-05, 02:31 PM

Tome and Tomb are slightly different things. )

Kurald Galain

2022-09-05, 02:55 PM

In D&D-ish games, there are no "dead levels." Every level gets you hp, BAB, saves, possibly skillsThat's what "dead level" means, yes :smallamused:

Darg

2022-09-05, 03:32 PM

Take Martial Study and Martial Stance feats

But add the warblade's recovery special action. Otherwise you can only ever use them once per encounter.

arkangel111

2022-09-05, 04:21 PM

Take the class features from the warblade and maybe a few from the PF fighter and Brawler. Add in maybe a few mundane maneuvers that fit your theme, make them available constantly instead of having to refresh (think of it like a warlock version of the warblade). then spread that through the levels and fill with feats. A weaker version of the warblade for sure but perhaps not horribly weaker.

maybe something like this:
D12 Full BAB Good Fort

1. Battle clarity (reflex), weapon aptitude, stance
2. Uncanny dodge, bravery +1
3. battle ardor (critical confirm), armor training 1
4. martial flexibility
5. Bonus feat
6. improved uncanny dodge, Bravery +2
7. battle cunning (damage), armor training 2
8. martial Flexibility (swift)
9. bonus feat
10. Bravery +3
11. battle skill (opposed checks), armor training 3
12. Martial flexibility (Free)
13. bonus feat
14. Bravery +4
15. battle mastery (attacks of opportunity), armor training 4
16. Martial flexibility (immediate)
17. bonus feat
18.Stance mastery
19. armor mastery
20. weapon mastery

I would then probably allow 2 maneuvers and 1 stance at level 1, give one more maneuver every 5 levels and another stance at 10 and 20. that gives a grand total of 5 maneuvers and 3 stances.

Maat Mons

2022-09-05, 04:46 PM

I continue to disagree with the idea that numbers are class features. In fact, I don’t think Pathfinder Fighter actually did eliminate dead levels until Advanced Armor Training and Advanced Weapon Training options were introduced.

An important step in reducing the complexity of the Fighter class is eliminating the interdependence of feats. Players should be able to just pick whichever feats look good when they level up. They shouldn’t have to plan several levels ahead to make sure they have the prerequisite feats for what they really want. Tome of Battle made a similar mistake in giving maneuvers prerequisites, though it didn’t wind up as convoluted as feats.

I think Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are good examples of simplicity in game design, at least relative to other casters. I’ve been giving thought to modifying maneuver-using classes in a parallel way. Just give a good set of maneuvers known, the way B and DN just give a good set of spells known. Also, eliminate the idea of readying maneuvers, the same way all spontaneous casters eliminate the idea of preparing spells. I’m also not thrilled with the mechanics of expending and recovering maneuvers, but I’m not sure what to replace it with.

Fizban

2022-09-05, 04:57 PM

I have a very rough homebrew feat line concept you might be interested in -never finished 'cause I prefer ToB and monster enemies that work like monsters, but the point is a simplified feat "tree" that gives results similar to ToB maneuvers (more move+attack options, damage not tied entirely to size+str or toxic binary sneak attack/similar builds, etc), without needing to actually track maneuvers. The most annoying part is that since ToB has made Strike their word, there's hardly anything left.

standard action to make single attack

bonus damage, scaling. 1d8/2 seems high, 1d8/3? markedly lower than most favored maneuvers and still a bit lower than others. then more feats in the line for more.

martial blow: +1d8/3 BAB (req +3)
split blow: one for each of two adjacent targets (req +5)
twin blow: -1d8 for two iterative blows (req +11?)
heavy blow: +1d8, +2d8 at 10th, +3d8 at 15th (req +5)
penetrating blow: touch attack ignores DR, no weapon or str/dex damage (req +5)
charging blow: add dice to first attack in charge (req +3)
rain of blows: add a single d8 to a a full attack (req +9)
maneuvering blow: trip, rush, disarm, or grapple on hit (req +7)

mighty blows: add +1d8 to all blows (req +16)

each feat can be used once, spending one turn without using any resets them all
-if the point is ease of use, should just go with can't use the same one two turns in a row. this means no rounds are ever spent without, but still can't use best option every round. having to keep track of what you've used and optimize a cycle means there's little reason not to just use ToB instead.

ripsote- weapon or shield takes damage? lay bonus dice only on attacker. lose your move text turn

save, reroll right now or resurgence later? lose move. only gives you one extra change per *garbled mess*

twin
+2d8/2d8 11th
+3d8/3d8 12th
+4d8/4d8 15th
+5d8/5d8 16th w/mighty
+6d8/6d8 18th w/mighty

heavy
3d8 6th
4d8 9th
5d8 10th
6d8 12th
8d8 15th
9d8 16th w/mighty
10d8 18th w/mighty

could allow replacement of d8's with d6+1's to match people's dice pools, or d10-1's, or 2d12 per 3d8, etc.

ranged blow? could be free synergy with point blank.
That's only 2-3 feats for your main damage shtick, usable by anyone, which Fighters then as usual can take more variety of alongside other combat feats.

If you want the Fighter to have nothing to do with feats, then it's just not the 3.x Fighter anymore, that's their whole point. The Core classes are quite sparse and gain only modest damage benefits, which the Fighter fits in just fine with as the option with the most flexibility. The only reason Fighter "needs" a ton of new wacky class features, is because people rain so many wacky class features and free no-prerequisite bonus feats on other classes (see: basically every Barbarian variant and all PF classes).

My other big Fighter fix suggestion is; "The Fighter's main problem is it has too many feats, the solution is add more feats." Specifically, add a defensive only bonus feat progression (possibly converting some of their normal progression), so that when people are selecting their "class features," they have to select some things that aren't all aggro stacking. Suddenly the Fighter has a bunch of little always-on defenses, some of which happen to be the exact sort of things people complain about them not having (because they refused to take them).

I don't know what exact PF feature you're referring to with "advanced weapon and armor use" (it's been a while since I read up) but those are literally already feats, that's the whole Weapon Focus/Spec/Mastery line and Armor Focus/Spec line. They already have those features, and the option to trade them for other things. That PF needs to make them, IIRC, hard bonuses that can then be explicitly traded for other things, many of which are bonus feats, the exact same thing the original class already had, and people laud this as some huge improvement is baffling. (Yes I'm aware of the one that rains effective skills upon them, don't care 'cause skills aren't required). Making some feats changeable every day, sure if preparation problems are a problem for your table, but changing feats won't fix the fact that your weapon itself doesn't change, and you need exotic weapons which actually do things for that to matter, which then have to be balanced around anyone else getting them for a single feat themselves.

Elves

2022-09-05, 05:11 PM

I continue to disagree with the idea that numbers are class features.
If we don't view numerical scaling as a meaningful form of advancement, we might as well get rid of numerical scaling altogether and make characters advance solely through new capabilities. (Which I don't think would be terrible by the way.)

That said, I agree it's best to have something other than chassis values at every level -- it just shouldn't always mean a new feature. For example, PHB casters not having features because they have spells is fundamentally fine; it only became a problem because then WOTC printed full-casting PRCs that also had class features, so there was no reason to take the base class.

I think Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are good examples of simplicity in game design, at least relative to other casters.
I think the sorcerer is a better design.
It gives you a lot of options to choose from, allowing rich out-of-game customization.
But your spells known list is short enough that in-game, it doesn't cause option paralysis.

By contrast, beguiler/dn/warmage have the worst of both worlds. Their list of spells known is large enough to create option paralysis and slow down play. While out of game it offers minimal customization.

I like how those classes are thematically focused. That's definitely the direction D&D spellcasters should go -- the omni wizard is a fundamentally unbalanced class concept.
But the other main idea of those classes -- a fixed list substantially larger than a sorcerer's yet with minimal customization -- is a bad one.

(This may just be an issue of weighting: if you gave people 2 or 3 fixed spells per level and then let them choose 2 or 3, I think you'd be in a sweet spot between sorcerer and warmage.)

JNAProductions

2022-09-05, 05:19 PM

Numerical Scaling can be significant, but usually only in aggregate. Least in 3.5.

The difference between 10 HP (Level 1, d8 hit die, and 14-15 Con) and 102 HP (Level 11, d8 hit die with max at level one and average, rounding up, at later levels, and 18-19 Con) is massive. One of them dies to a lucky crit from Joe Schmoe with a spear. The other can take a maximum damage crit from a Scythe (32 damage from weapon dice alone) and still keep on kicking.

But the difference between 93 HP at level 10 and 102 at level 11... It's not a big difference.

Likewise, +5 to-hit from BAB and +0 to-hit from BAB will make a difference every four attacks, provided you haven't fallen off the d20 in either direction. +1 to +2 makes a difference once every twenty attacks.

I don't see anything wrong with advancing numbers as you level up-but unless you advance by leaps and bounds numerically (which seems quite the bad idea) any specific level increase won't matter much-only the aggregate.

Rebel7284

2022-09-05, 05:43 PM

Are you aware of the Maneuver cards that were available on the Wizards Site? Using them very much simplifies martial adepts, especially Crusader with their "random" maneuvers granted. Just move the card from one pile to another.

In general, it's difficult to add powerful effects without limiting them in some ways, and whenever there are limits, complexity is introduced whether it's skill checks or limited uses, etc. Warlock/Dragonfire Adept are good examples where they figured out at-will abilities that were helpful but not overpowered, and you can certainly adapt that to Marital Adepts, but note that those classes are considered a bit on the weak side because at-will abilities need to be weaker than limited abilities....

paladinn

2022-09-05, 06:08 PM

I really don't want "fighters" that work like casters. That was 4e all over

JNAProductions

2022-09-05, 06:14 PM

I really don't want "fighters" that work like casters. That was 4e all over

4E's good. You might not enjoy it, and that's fine, but to say "This is similar to 4E, therefore it should never be done," is foolish.

Elves

2022-09-05, 06:24 PM

I really don't want "fighters" that work like casters.
What does that mean to you?

By "spell", do you just mean a defined game ability with an action, range, duration, saving throw, and effect? Because that's just how the game works, it has nothing to do with magic or a spell.

For example, you could put a normal attack into "spell" notation:

Basic Attack
Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: 1 creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None

You lash out at the target with your weapon.

Make an attack roll against the target's AC. If you hit, you deal 1d8+3 damage.

---

Does that suddenly make it "like a spell"?

Or do you mean you want abilities that are all usable at will? That's doable, but is it even as realistic as tome of battle is?

In a martial arts fight, try using the same fancy move over and over again and see how well it goes. If a warblade wants to use the same fancy move over and over, he has to make a standard attack in between each time as he repositions himself to execute the fancy move. That honestly sounds more realistic to me.

Particle_Man

2022-09-05, 06:53 PM

How does the OP feel about skill tricks? They are also 1/ encounter, and some are combat relevant (although usually situational).

Maat Mons

2022-09-05, 07:01 PM

4e’s biggest problem was that high levels were essentially low levels, just with bigger numbers. Everybody got +1/2 level to hit, and everybody got +1/2 level to AC, monsters and PCs both. If you add +whatever to both sides of the equation, there’s no change. 3e at least had some change derived from its numeric progressions. The change was that, at high levels, specialists auto-succeed, and non-specialists auto-fail. But at least you could argue that the changing numbers were doing something. In 4e, the numbers were kept in such lock-step that the net change was nonexistent.

Alabenson

2022-09-05, 07:16 PM

Revamping the 3e Fighter has been something I've been thinking about for a while as well, and one thought I've come up with is giving the Fighter access to special abilities tied to their Feat selections, allowing higher level Fighters to make their feats more powerful or apply them in ways that other classes can't. That would give the class much needed power while still keeping with the core concept of the class.

Kurald Galain

2022-09-06, 12:17 AM

If we don't view numerical scaling as a meaningful form of advancement,
Of course we do. What you're missing is that "dead level" does not mean "zero advancement", but it means "no new ability or interesting choice at this level".

Inevitability

2022-09-06, 03:36 AM

On the whole 'dead levels' discussion:

Under the current system fighter 5 followed by PrCs will simply never stack up to fighter 2/barbarian 3, or fighter 2/knight 3, or fighter 2/barbarian 1/paladin 2. In a system where multiclassing is so easy and painless, you need to reward people who stay in the same class, and the fighter fails at doing so. Numbers getting bigger isn't an argument if other classes get bigger numbers and something else.

If you take fighter 4, you're rewarded with what, Weapon Specialization? If you have three class levels and can't find any other way to get full BAB and +2 damage per hit, that's on you.

Giving fighters the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude feature is a good first step, but I'd consider going one step further and just letting the reassigned feats stick around. A fighter selects Weapon Focus (longsword) normally, but by training for a while with a bow he obtains Weapon Focus (longbow), and when the party finds a cool magic flail he simply practices with this unusual weapon for a while and obtains Weapon Focus (flail). A fighter is supposed to be a master of weaponry: why would he be eternally constrained by the choices made at level 1? This also makes it easier to enter PrCs later on: a number of them require Weapon Focus in specific weapons, and it's a shame when PCs get locked out of a cool class because they didn't think of it while assigning feats ten levels ago.

Other good parts of warblade to keep, focusing on the bits that don't require active bookkeeping or in-combat decisions:

-Combat math assumes full attacks at higher levels, but reliably getting these off is difficult for fighters (and highly encourages charge-based strategies). Give them powerful standard-action attacks, swift action movement, or even standard-action full attacks.

-Better saves. The warblade's intelligence-to-reflex is a bit weird, but consider giving fighters free Steadfast Determination on one of their dead levels! Constitution is one of the stats they're nearly guaranteed to have high, and it nicely shores up the poor Will.

-Some way to get around the weaknesses inherent in each combat style. TWF is too vulnerable to DR, archery deals poor damage, sword and board gives up too much offense, and AoO builds are too reactive and can't handle high-level movement options. Abilities that let the fighter ignore some level of DR, apply Power Attack to ranged weapons, grant heavy bonuses for using a shield etc would all be highly valuable. If you don't want to swamp the fighter with features, just put them in a little menu of sorts.

-Some increase in initiative (Explosive Power (Ex): you can add your strength modifier to your initiative roll?) would be really helpful, given how many enemies that can screw the fighter over t1 are a little worse at that if he's already beating their face in.

-Fighters have basically nothing to do out-of-combat. How about a feature like:
Physical Peak (Ex): starting at Xth level, whenever you gain a level in fighter, you automatically gain 1 rank in Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Tumble. (Alternatively, the fighter selects up to (strength modifier) of these and gains one rank in those, if you find this too much)

This would let fighters spend their 'real' skill ranks on social or utility skills without finding their combat ability reduced (speaking of which, increase the number of skill ranks they gain per level). You're miles away from a full caster, bard, or rogue when looking at your out-of-combat uses, but if we can at least boost fighters to the level of rangers I'll be content.

-Speaking of the above, expand the fighter skill list. In addition to the ones listed above, diplomacy is an easy way to get more noncombat presence, Bluff not being there is just insulting (yeah let me just take Improved Feint as my bonus feat and, oh, hm). Heal is another noncombat skill that makes a decent degree of sense, Use Rope is so mundane I'm stunned it's not on there, and Survival isn't too far out there either.

Basically, a lot of individual maneuvers are good, action economy is really important, Will saves are an easily fixed issue, many combat styles are inherently flawed because of 3.5's mechanics. Drop the warblade's weird intelligence focus, and expand out-of-combat capabilities.

rel

2022-09-06, 05:22 AM

pabelfly

2022-09-06, 05:49 AM

paladinn

2022-09-06, 09:30 AM

Of course we do. What you're missing is that "dead level" does not mean "zero advancement", but it means "no new ability or interesting choice at this level".

Wow, y'all would have been miserable in 0e-1e. By your standard, fighters had nothing but "dead levels." Yet they were usually the most popular, because they were a simple entry point for the game.

Do you consider wizard or clerics levels as "dead levels" if they only get new spells?

JNAProductions

2022-09-06, 09:35 AM

Wow, y'all would have been miserable in 0e-1e. By your standard, fighters had nothing but "dead levels." Yet they were usually the most popular, because they were a simple entry point for the game.

Do you consider wizard or clerics levels as "dead levels" if they only get new spells?

To the latter-no. New spells represent a massive amount of new choices to make.

To the former-quite possibly.

Darg

2022-09-06, 10:14 AM

Wow, y'all would have been miserable in 0e-1e. By your standard, fighters had nothing but "dead levels." Yet they were usually the most popular, because they were a simple entry point for the game.

Do you consider wizard or clerics levels as "dead levels" if they only get new spells?

TBF, as far as I know, wizards didn't get free spells known on level up and divine casters were limited to 7th level spells. Not to mention most parties would break up between levels 5-10 I think. You also didn't have skill checks, just thieving skills and ability checks.

Kurald Galain

2022-09-06, 02:30 PM

Do you consider wizard or clerics levels as "dead levels" if they only get new spells?
Obviously not.

And yes, I would only play spellcaster characters in 1E/2E/3E/5E (and am fine with martials in PF or 4E).

rel

2022-09-07, 02:41 AM

The main problems with fighters and other mundane classes for me are as follows:

1) No class specific ability to contribute to a non-fighting challenge (i.e. any challenge that doesn't boil down to dealing HP damage to something).
Sure you can freeform roleplay, but so can anyone. You can make skill checks, but other classes can too and will probably be better.
There's nothing unique you bring to the table.

2) mundane abilities don't actually work. A spell will typically do exactly what it's supposed to do automatically, with no chance of failure and no additional build resources required. If there are any potential ways the spell might fail or cause you trouble they are probably explicit clauses to address these issues.
A mundane ability typically doesn't work by default. It might work with a lot of extra build resources, but it isn't likely to be reliable. And any potential issues are probably called out to helpfully remind the GM with a special clause to explain that yes, they are going to be a problem and no, the work around you were thinking of doesn't work.

3) Even in combat, the mundane might be effective, but they won't be fun to play. Typically, you do the exact same thing over and over again, your gimmick. Levels don't really expand your abilities, they just give you more numbers or bonuses to do the exact same thing you were doing before. There isn't any big shift in what you can do or how.

more to come.

I normally recommend ToB as an answer to issues of power or versatility with mundane characters because it addresses the 3 fundamental issues I see with mundane classes detailed above.
It might not go as far as I'd like, but its a lot better than the default.

1) Maneuvers, stances and so on, while heavily melee combat focused, include enough abilities with utility applications to allow an initiator to participate in a non combat challenge. Usually with movement powers to bypass obstacles or defensive powers to bypass hazards.
The utility isn't great, but the powers are trivial to refresh and when compared to the fighters mechanical tools to deal with challenges that can't be solved by dealing damage (2 skill points per level and a probably negative int score) it starts to look downright impressive.

2) While maneuvers aren't designed quite like spells; you are often called upon to make a skill check just to get your maneuver to work, the rare spell that requires a skill check usually functions partially without one. And maneuvers often require learning other maneuvers in the same school as prerequisites. Imagine the wailing if a wizard was told they couldn't learn greater mirror image without first knowing two other illusion spells

3) interesting tactical decisions are forced by the simple expedient of having the maneuvers require actions to refresh, spamming the same move over and over again is no longer possible.

I'd implement a simplified version of ToB as follows:
Each mundane class gets a refresh mechanic. Maybe one of the existing ones, maybe something new. For example something to do with hiding or flanking for the rogue.

Each mundane class gets a fixed list of maneuvers, stances and so on that they automatically learn as they level up. I'd ignore prerequisites, schools and any inconvenient fluff when preparing this list. And they would get a number of maneuvers prepared that also slowly increases as they level.

Essentially, each mundane class would function sort of like a fixed list caster, a fixed list initiator if you will.

The player doesn't need to know about ToB or read through pages of maneuvers. They just need to understand their refresh mechanic, grab a deck of maneuver cards and start playing.

Vaern

2022-09-07, 07:19 AM

4E's good. You might not enjoy it, and that's fine, but to say "This is similar to 4E, therefore it should never be done," is foolish.

I wasn't a big fan of 4e overall, as it always felt like my options as a caster were much more limited. Playing a martial character in 4e, on the other hand, was so much less boring than 3.5.

paladinn

2022-09-07, 08:37 AM

4E's good. You might not enjoy it, and that's fine, but to say "This is similar to 4E, therefore it should never be done," is foolish.

I don't believe I ever said that. I just haven't been a big fan, even after seriously studying it.

KillianHawkeye

2022-09-08, 10:32 AM

Tome and Tomb are slightly different things. )

The worst part of the Tomb of Battle is fighting all the undead. :smallamused:

bekeleven

2022-09-08, 03:37 PM

Do you consider wizard or clerics levels as "dead levels" if they only get new spells?When I homebrew classes, I try to grant something interesting every level, which is usually either a new class feature or a new spell level.

Fighter, in many ways, falls into my favorite "genre" of class: A generic shell-class that, through repeated build decisions, can be built a multitude of meaningfully distinct ways. (Every homebrew class I make gets more and more generic. I'm currently brewing a class capable of doing anything, but that's another topic.) The issues that I see with the fighter are:

1. Half the levels do nothing

2. Overall power level is too low, especially with regards to options outside of the build specialty.

3. The number of clearly-superior options (power attack, etc) limit build diversity

For comparison, the sorcerer is within the same genre and scores higher on all of these issues.

You can fix these any number of ways, and rest assured I have. I've fixed dead levels and power level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332829) and I've fixed build diversity (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637095-Feat-Points-The-Resurrection), to a degree.

The trouble with fixing the fighter is that it, well, fights you. Every time you try to make something that addresses one of these issues, it starts to feel less fighter-ish. There are some simple changes you can make, like the higher skill points they obviously need, but the fighter is ingrained in - if not your, at least my head - as Mr. sword swinger guy. Giving him refresh mechanics, social skills, etc. doesn't feel in the purview of Shields Featman. That's one of (many) reasons my fighter fix isn't named "fighter." A game system where the fighter class as-written is viable bears shockingly little resemblance to 3E.

mundane abilities don't actually work. A spell will typically do exactly what it's supposed to do automatically, with no chance of failure and no additional build resources required.
I always think of this:

Player 1: "My character is an Artist. I make a quick sketch of the suspect"
DM: "Make a skill check"
Player 2: "I cast Silent Image to create a likeness of the suspect."
DM: "OK"

Oh, one final note. Emperor Tippy's 1-sentence fighter fix for including fighters in a party with full casters:

The fighter gains an additional full-round action for every level past the first.

Have I tested this? No. But it does sound fun.

Maat Mons

2022-09-08, 06:16 PM

The Fighter concept is firmly rooted in low fantasy. The trouble is, D&D is only a low-fantasy game at low levels. At high levels, it becomes a high fantasy game. Playing a high-level Fighter means that either the player must play a low-fantasy character in a high-fantasy world, or the DM must restructure the game to try to make it function as low fantasy, well beyond the levels where it’s designed for that. Many people, however, don’t even realize the game changes genres as you advance in level. They find themselves at odds with the rules system, without ever understanding the nature of their struggle.

Kitsuneymg

2022-09-08, 06:56 PM

Quertus

2022-09-08, 07:02 PM

Obviously not.

And yes, I would only play spellcaster characters in 1E/2E/3E/5E (and am fine with martials in PF or 4E).

So, I can’t say much, as “I play Wizards (casters)”, and I can understand not caring what you play in 4e, as it’s all kinda samey, but… given that there are plenty of perfectly viable muggles (in at least 2e and 3e), what is it specifically about such muggles that is such a no-sell for you?

(And, sure, you’re welcome to contrast that to 4e or pf, and we can pretend that this senile old dog can learn new… uh… things.)

Endarire

2022-09-09, 02:08 AM

What's so wrong about using Tome of Battle as-is or with minor tweaks? You could remove the base Fighter and replace it with ToB's classes.

Kurald Galain

2022-09-09, 03:12 AM

given that there are plenty of perfectly viable muggles (in at least 2e and 3e), what is it specifically about such muggles that is such a no-sell for you?
Too low amount of options during gameplay, unless the GM allows the "swing off the chandelier" style of creative approach (which in my experience most GMs don't).

paladinn

2022-09-09, 07:11 AM

What's so wrong about using Tome of Battle as-is or with minor tweaks? You could remove the base Fighter and replace it with ToB's classes.

Because I don't much like the ToB. All the maneuvers and stances, etc. remind me of a wuxia movie. I shouldn't need to know the "Flying Monkey of Death" maneuver to be a fighter. I don't want a fighter that is as complex as a caster or psion. I just wanted to beef up the core fighter so s/he isn't just a feat monster.

The fighter class has always been the core of D&D. I want a fighter that can kick butt without a lot of added crunch. Thus the "lite" part of the thread.

Vaern

2022-09-09, 09:42 AM

Skim through Tome of Battle's maneuvers and stances, and probably some 4e content while you're at it.
Pick out abilities that fit what you're looking for.
Tweak abilities you like but which don't fit thematically to make them feel more appropriate for your game.
Rank each of the maneuvers and stances you've collected into 4 tiers.
Give your martial classes advancement for these maneuvers and stances equivalent to a warlock's advancement for invocations. Remove all other prerequisites.
Grant fighters the option to learn an extra maneuver in place of a bonus feat.

Inevitability

2022-09-09, 11:09 AM

A lot of this conversation has been focused on 'crunchiness' or 'complexity'. There is this tacit assumption that the core fighter isn't complex, that ToB classes and casters are, and that a better version of the fighter must somehow preserve this simplicity, presumably by not introducing anything that looks like spells or maneuvers. (everyone seems to agree that fighters have barely anything to do out of combat, so I'll be focusing on in-combat only here)

Thing is: fighters are still pretty complicated in round-to-round combat! Take a new player, who heard fighters were 'simple'. Assume for a moment that she has avoided traps like Improved Feint, Two-Weapon Fighting, or Improved Shield Bash (despite the fighter class seemingly promoting them as viable options), and has settled on some nice boring feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Initiative. We're not even taking Power Attack, because our new player dislikes choices and doesn't want to think about an attack-damage tradeoff with each attack. Will she find it 'simple' to get optimal results out of this fighter build, which to all appearances can reliably avoid making any kind of choice in-combat?

The answer is no, because 3.5 hates martials in so many ways that we don't even recognize the way it hates clueless martials especially. A new player, put in this situation, will gravitate towards a simple gameplan: move action followed by standard action attack. 3.5 is not friendly to this strategy, as it exposes you to enemy full attacks while giving you none of your own. The correct way to play even a 'basic' fighter is far from obvious, and requires the player to heavily consider positioning, AoOs, enemy action on future turns, and HP management. Often, the best action for a fighter will be some kind of readied action, which most new players don't even know are a thing. (and again, this is all before getting into the countless fighter bonus feats that push you towards some suboptimal playstyle, or want you to make a decision with each attack you roll).

If I wanted to introduce a newbie to 3.5, a fighter is one of the last things I'd recommend, and not just because the class is weak and one-dimensional. A lot of classes, both caster and mundane, are 'simpler' in lots of straightforward ways. If someone wanted to play a warrior-type, I'd build a lion totem barbarian: at least those can just pick something to charge each turn and trust they're doing fine. I'd argue that even warblades are simpler, because warblades can follow the newbie intuition of 'move into attack' without losing quite as much from it. To compare, in 5e I would recommend a fighter, because 5e has rules that actually support a new player's intuitions! If it is 'being a simple entry point' that you like about the fighter, then these are the grounds to judge any fighter fix on, not the degree to which the result resembles a spellcaster.

In conclusion, 3.5 fighters are not, and were never, 'simple' to build and play, we're just pretending that complexity can only consist of a numbered menu of named abilities!

If I had to name this, I'd go with the Narrow Minefield fallacy: having few choices doesn't automatically make a character easy to play: ease of play requires the obvious choices to be good ones.

paladinn

2022-09-09, 12:40 PM

I'm realizing more and more why I'm preferring OSR games and simulacra like Castles & Crusades.

Some people really enjoy all the tactical aspects. I find myself liking them less and less.

H_H_F_F

2022-09-09, 01:05 PM

If I had to name this, I'd go with the Narrow Minefield fallacy: having few choices doesn't automatically make a character easy to play: ease of play requires the obvious choices to be good ones.

Excellent post.

Fizban

2022-09-09, 04:45 PM

The correct way to play even a 'basic' fighter is far from obvious, and requires the player to heavily consider positioning, AoOs, enemy action on future turns, and HP management. Often, the best action for a fighter will be some kind of readied action, which most new players don't even know are a thing. (and again, this is all before getting into the countless fighter bonus feats that push you towards some suboptimal playstyle, or want you to make a decision with each attack you roll).
Indeed, actually reading and understanding the Combat section is kind of important.

If I wanted to introduce a newbie to 3.5, a fighter is one of the last things I'd recommend, and not just because the class is weak and one-dimensional. A lot of classes, both caster and mundane, are 'simpler' in lots of straightforward ways. If someone wanted to play a warrior-type, I'd build a lion totem barbarian: at least those can just pick something to charge each turn and trust they're doing fine. I'd argue that even warblades are simpler, because warblades can follow the newbie intuition of 'move into attack' without losing quite as much from it. To compare, in 5e I would recommend a fighter, because 5e has rules that actually support a new player's intuitions! If it is 'being a simple entry point' that you like about the fighter, then these are the grounds to judge any fighter fix on, not the degree to which the result resembles a spellcaster.
But the problem with giving people a "simple entry point," is that they never actually learn those required basics you mentioned above. If you start people with w+m1 charge builds and lol my spells say I auto-win caters, they never actually learn or even recognize the fact that it's supposed to be a tactical game, and it should be no surprise how they then view huge swaths of the game as useless. Because they never learned how half the game is supposed to work. Just as the non-caster has no respect for the limitations of spell slots/durations/etc until they've run a caster, the caster (or lol charger) has no respect for movement and positioning and action sequencing.

And that whole tactical combat shtick is what makes the game interesting. If you want to stand in lines and shoot auto-hitting attacks and spells at each other, there's whole reams of video games (that grew out of DnD itself) which eschew all the tactical portions of a miniatures game to just swing back and forth, starting with Final Fantasy 1- and as DnD strips away that complexity, even just the newer versions of DnD.

Thirdtwin

2022-09-09, 06:31 PM

Have you seen a wuxia movie? Or read a wuxia book, for that matter?

Quertus

2022-09-09, 07:31 PM

Too low amount of options during gameplay, unless the GM allows the "swing off the chandelier" style of creative approach (which in my experience most GMs don't).

So, to make sure I’m hearing you right: the issue is 1) the number of “buttons” that the class provides; 2) the number of “buttons” that the… system + module + GM (?) provides? If I wrote (or house ruled?) the system such that there were X number of “basic” moves everyone could make (like the “create an advantage” move from Fate), you would be fine playing a muggle at my table in a non 4e/pf D&D game? Or… if you didn’t mind pre-built characters, if a GM built you a muggle in one of those editions with at least Y buttons to push, you’d be ok playing it? Is that a fair representation of your stance? (Is that why muggle lovers love 4e?)

Darg

2022-09-09, 10:12 PM

3. The number of clearly-superior options (power attack, etc) limit build diversity

We've been playing with Power Attack after removing the special text. I have seen it being chosen for options that were impossible under the original rules to good effect and it's no longer a given for every 2h build. All in all it seems versatility has gone up along with build diversity which is really nice.

pabelfly

2022-09-09, 10:14 PM

Have you seen a wuxia movie? Or read a wuxia book, for that matter?

Even if Tome of Battle was wuxia in terms of power or theme (it's not) is that really such a bad thing when we have spellcasters that can reshape reality on a whim?

Darg

2022-09-09, 10:28 PM

Even if Tome of Battle was wuxia in terms of power or theme (it's not) is that really such a bad thing when we have spellcasters that can reshape reality on a whim?

It's just stigmatized because it's similar to something people don't like. Happens a lot in popular culture. Something is offensive about it and they default to axioms to try and fail to voice what is "wrong" about it. Most of the time it has nothing to do with what it is, just that it threatens personally held concepts and perceptions of how things should be.

StSword

2022-09-09, 10:59 PM

Maybe look at Dungeon Crawls Classic's Warrior mechanics.

Warriors get a deed die instead of BAB, it starts off at d3, goes up with every level (probably would want to tone that down though, that adds up quickly). What is rolled on that dice is the bonus to attack and damage. Maybe remove the attack bonus for a 3x game, but I guess that depends on how much help one thinks a fighter needs.

Which is then paired with Mighty Deed of Arms, which the Warrior can use every round. If the roll on the deed die is 3 or above, they can pull of a stunt as well as do damage.

In DCC it's freeform, but at minimum it should allow the fighters to pull of special attacks like aid another, bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, or trip.

So with every level the Fighter using these rules would be doing more damage and more likely to be able to do something more interesting than just move and attack, or full attack, making the character more interesting and more effective.

Inevitability

2022-09-10, 02:54 AM

But the problem with giving people a "simple entry point," is that they never actually learn those required basics you mentioned above. If you start people with w+m1 charge builds and lol my spells say I auto-win caters, they never actually learn or even recognize the fact that it's supposed to be a tactical game, and it should be no surprise how they then view huge swaths of the game as useless. Because they never learned how half the game is supposed to work. Just as the non-caster has no respect for the limitations of spell slots/durations/etc until they've run a caster, the caster (or lol charger) has no respect for movement and positioning and action sequencing.

And that whole tactical combat shtick is what makes the game interesting. If you want to stand in lines and shoot auto-hitting attacks and spells at each other, there's whole reams of video games (that grew out of DnD itself) which eschew all the tactical portions of a miniatures game to just swing back and forth, starting with Final Fantasy 1- and as DnD strips away that complexity, even just the newer versions of DnD.

A player will always have some complicated subsystem to learn with their first character. Sometimes their character is a sorcerer, and they have to figure out when to cast their best spells. Sometimes it's a fighter, and they need to figure out the intricacies of melee combat. Sometimes it's a binder, and they have to understand how exactly binding works. But some of these subsystems are more complicated than others, and it really is not harmful to push new players to the relatively uncomplicated ones. Giving someone a simple melee class as their first character doesn't lock them into those forever! People will naturally explore the system and try new characters!

Look, D&D 3.5 has an immense amount of rules, and it really does overwhelm new players. If someone is still asking 'wait, how do I calculate my attack bonus' once per session, don't expect them to have internalized the proper way to play melee in 3.5! If someone is a bit confused what triggers AoOs again, then telling them to be play warlock, spam Eldritch Blast, and wield some shiny noncombat powers that actually work like you'd expect is not a bad idea.

I'm not saying players should never play fighters, I'm not saying entire parts of D&D are useless. All I'm saying is that, for the very first time someone touches the game, they're too occupied with the day-to-day workings of the rules to also force them to consider what those rules incentivize. Once someone has the basics of the rules down, which is more complicated than reading the PHB once and will not happen in the first (or second, or third) session, then you can let them grapple with the fine art of AoO maximization and action sequencing.

H_H_F_F

2022-09-10, 02:58 AM

It's just stigmatized because it's similar to something people don't like. Happens a lot in popular culture. Something is offensive about it and they default to axioms to try and fail to voice what is "wrong" about it. Most of the time it has nothing to do with what it is, just that it threatens personally held concepts and perceptions of how things should be.

Disagreed. I think people are just looking for words to express why they don't enjoy ToB's style of martial, and land on Wuxia to express the fact that it feels more like "Sword Magic" (a term literally used there) with strong eastern influence than like a legendary warrior fighting.

That is a result of the mechanics of maneuver readying and recovery being reminiscent of vancian casting and not feeling like what a fighter would do, the clearly supernatural (rather than superhuman) elements of many of these maneuvers, and also of the fluff.

A lot of people immediately respond to these complaints by saying "guy at the gym fallacy", but that's not necessarily the point.

Hercules can grapple huge monsters and win, he can withstand anything and beat anything. He is capable of strength and tenacity far beyond those of a human. At one point he carries the entire sky on his shoulders. He is closer to being a god than a guy at the gym.

But he cannot stand on columns of fire he creates, teleport through shadows, run on walls, or create bursts of blinding light. When folks say "it's wuxia" they mean "I want to be a marine at level 1 and Hercules at 20, not this sorcerer that does spells with a sword".

Dienekes

2022-09-10, 03:44 AM

Because I don't much like the ToB. All the maneuvers and stances, etc. remind me of a wuxia movie. I shouldn't need to know the "Flying Monkey of Death" maneuver to be a fighter. I don't want a fighter that is as complex as a caster or psion. I just wanted to beef up the core fighter so s/he isn't just a feat monster.

The fighter class has always been the core of D&D. I want a fighter that can kick butt without a lot of added crunch. Thus the "lite" part of the thread.

I kinda think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle.

The reason why ToB is fun for me is that it does the following:

-allows diverse round by round gameplay. No just saying “I attack” for the most part.
-has interesting refresh mechanics that promote tactical thinking of when you need a cooldown round to set up something in the future
-gains new powers every level
-defensive options that shore up a lot of weaknesses they just ends a martial, without removing them completely

Having different attacks is kinda crucial to all that. Mind you, the writers didn’t have to name them “Flying Monkey of Death” when they could have been more descriptive with “Jumping Throw” or whatever. They likely thought being more poetic with the names would make them more memorable and flavorful. After all real martial arts have things like The Murder Stroke, The Fool’s Guard. Not quite as flowery, but not really particularly clear what they mean.

What I think you want is just something that can do attacks and whatnot with maybe a few options that you can just spam.

I’d probably do something that just has:
High saves in all saving throws.
A passive bonus to damage for all attacks.
Standard Action can make multiple attacks.
Perhaps a handful of additional options like the current crop of trip, disarm, overrun, etc. but done in a way that scales up. Probably also having the passive damage applied.

pabelfly

2022-09-10, 04:44 AM

I kinda think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle.

The reason why ToB is fun for me is that it does the following:

-allows diverse round by round gameplay. No just saying “I attack” for the most part.
-has interesting refresh mechanics that promote tactical thinking of when you need a cooldown round to set up something in the future
-gains new powers every level
-defensive options that shore up a lot of weaknesses they just ends a martial, without removing them completely

All three Tome of Battle classes also have solid scaling damage, and are rather forgiving regarding stat arrangement, feat choices and even manoeuvres chosen. They're also quite effective without other expansion books if you're so limited. Swordsage 20, Warblade 20, and Crusader 20, even without knowing anything else, are all solid builds.

I’d probably do something that just has:
High saves in all saving throws.
A passive bonus to damage for all attacks.
Standard Action can make multiple attacks.
Perhaps a handful of additional options like the current crop of trip, disarm, overrun, etc. but done in a way that scales up. Probably also having the passive damage applied.

I'd also throw in multiple stat boosts at set intervals - say, STR or DEX, CON, and pick any third (and maybe a fourth) separate stat.

Thirdtwin

2022-09-10, 10:33 AM

But [Hercules] cannot stand on columns of fire he creates, teleport through shadows, run on walls, or create bursts of blinding light.

So... Hercules is a warblade then? I mean, he's not a spontaneous divine caster no matter what Jason Bulmahn says, and I suppose he has to be something right? Warblades don't do any of those things you listed despite being in the Tome of Battle book, so there you go. Now, sure, you could take certain feats or multiclass and gain powers like those, but you could also... not. Everything isn't for everybody, you know. Sometimes I think people have gotten their expectations overtuned by all the spell lists in the game. You see a spell list and you know that 95% of is going to be for wizards, so you just assume everything formatted like a spell list is going to have a class that can use 95% of everything in it. Warblades get access to 5 disciplines, and none of those disciplines are the "float around on fire" or "shadow teleport" ones. Those are for swordsages. But of course none of that matters, because it never does in discussions like these.

In any case all of this is very far beside the point. I asked whether or not paladinn had actual experience with this genre he says "Tomb" of Battle feels too much like. Because honestly the reflexive comparison to wuxia in nearly every conversation about Tome of Battle is pretty tiresome and--let's not beat around the bush, when classes with "strong eastern[sic] influence" perforce do not and even maybe cannot feel like "a legendary warrior fighting" it starts sounding a little racist. "Oh no, the character options for attacks in Tome of Battle have such flowery names. 'Rapid Counter,' 'Disarming Strike,' 'Bonecrusher,' 'Hamstring Attack' and 'Flanking Maneuver' aren't things good Western fantasy characters do, they are solely the remit of characters from a genre with its origins in the exotic Orient." Not that I'm saying that's what paladinn here is maintaining; I honestly don't know how much actual familiarity he has with the wuxia genre. Which is, of course, why I asked. I'd like to know what he thinks goes on in (e.g.) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

H_H_F_F

2022-09-10, 11:32 AM

So... Hercules is a warblade then? I mean, he's not a spontaneous divine caster no matter what Jason Bulmahn says, and I suppose he has to be something right? Warblades don't do any of those things you listed despite being in the Tome of Battle book, so there you go. Now, sure, you could take certain feats or multiclass and gain powers like those, but you could also... not. Everything isn't for everybody, you know. Sometimes I think people have gotten their expectations overtuned by all the spell lists in the game. You see a spell list and you know that 95% of is going to be for wizards, so you just assume everything formatted like a spell list is going to have a class that can use 95% of everything in it. Warblades get access to 5 disciplines, and none of those disciplines are the "float around on fire" or "shadow teleport" ones. Those are for swordsages. But of course none of that matters, because it never does in discussions like these.

In any case all of this is very far beside the point. I asked whether or not paladinn had actual experience with this genre he says "Tomb" of Battle feels too much like. Because honestly the reflexive comparison to wuxia in nearly every conversation about Tome of Battle is pretty tiresome and--let's not beat around the bush, when classes with "strong eastern[sic] influence" perforce do not and even maybe cannot feel like "a legendary warrior fighting" it starts sounding a little racist. "Oh no, the character options for attacks in Tome of Battle have such flowery names. 'Rapid Counter,' 'Disarming Strike,' 'Bonecrusher,' 'Hamstring Attack' and 'Flanking Maneuver' aren't things good Western fantasy characters do, they are solely the remit of characters from a genre with its origins in the exotic Orient." Not that I'm saying that's what paladinn here is maintaining; I honestly don't know how much actual familiarity he has with the wuxia genre. Which is, of course, why I asked. I'd like to know what he thinks goes on in (e.g.) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

I like warblade the best out of all ToB classes, exactly because it has the least magical stuff in it. I personally still don't feel great about readying maneuvers, from a simulationist aspect, as I've discussed before - and warblades still have a few maneuvers that really break the martial feel - but they can still be built to represent legendary fighters quite well.

In fact, I feel like a lot of these classes can be built to feel more like warriors. But if you just allow ToB as is, you're also going to get characters that do other stuff, too. And if that really bothers you, and you don't like the ready/refresh system because it doesn't feel martial either - than asking for ToB lite makes sense.

And saying "the reason I don't like ToB is because of swordsage's wuxia feel" is valid, I think.

NichG

2022-09-10, 12:01 PM

I mean, perhaps the issue with using ToB to model Hercules is that Hercules is often more about 'what he is, and can therefore do' rather than 'what he does by virtue of knowing how to do it'.

If you really wanted to make something that allowed someone to build Hercules 'authentically' rather than via re-fluffing, it'd make more sense to do some kind of Savage Species progression or LA buyoff thing where he gets Outsider HD, lots of stats from templates, and abilities that have more to do with being able to engage physically with the conceptual and apply stats and skills to those things rather than specific extra buttons to press. You could center it all around a single concept really, though it's difficult to express - something like 'Legendary Stat: Pick one stat. Even when this character is trying to do physically impossible or nonsensical things, as long as it involves the Legendary Stat then they still get to roll, and the DC is bounded to be no higher than the HD of the deity whose domain that aspect of the world is in'. So if you want to jump to the moon or drink the ocean or lift the sky, there are checks for those things that you can eventually reasonably make.

paladinn

2022-09-10, 12:28 PM

H_H_F_F

2022-09-10, 01:06 PM

Ok, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I've been treated like a moron because I misspelled a word (tomb instead of tome). And yes, I have watched wuxia movies. And no, I don't think that D&D combat needs to be like Crouching Tiger. And no, the fact that I think that certainly does Not make me a "racist." I truly resent being called one; but that is some people's go-to now. It's convenient to accuse someone of that because it is a true conversation-ender. In our society, there is nothing worse. So with that, I will not subject anyone to my "racist" views further. Thank you for making me feel very unwelcome and vilified.

On the one hand, I don't think you've wasted anyone's time at all. On the other, I think a lot of the criticism on your views (and mine) is valid and makes for an interesting discussion. I also think that whether or not any positions I hold are influenced by cultural biases is an interesting (and often important) question to ask myself.

However, it's ok if you don't feel the same. I would encourage you, though, to think about everything you did get from this post - there were many interesting answers given to you, including mine.

pabelfly

2022-09-10, 03:02 PM

On the one hand, I don't think you've wasted anyone's time at all. On the other, I think a lot of the criticism on your views (and mine) is valid and makes for an interesting discussion. I also think that whether or not any positions I hold are influenced by cultural biases is an interesting (and often important) question to ask myself.

However, it's ok if you don't feel the same. I would encourage you, though, to think about everything you did get from this post - there were many interesting answers given to you, including mine.

I think this is a pretty good response.

Anyway, here's a question for OP: would you be more interested in playing Tome of Battle classes if the attacks were renamed into attacks that were less ornate in their descriptions?

paladinn

2022-09-10, 03:48 PM

I think this is a pretty good response.

Anyway, here's a question for OP: would you be more interested in playing Tome of Battle classes if the attacks were renamed into attacks that were less ornate in their descriptions?

Probably not. It's adding a lot more complexity and crunch to an already-crunchy game. And in the case of fighters, replacing with warblade (as everyone here seems to insist on) is imposing that on the one class that isn't/wasn't meant to be crunchy.

And no, it's not because I have any sort of anti-Asian bias. I also wouldn't use Incarnum or Ghostwalk either.

Maat Mons

2022-09-10, 04:07 PM

Oh, so “tomb” was a typo. In threads like these, I’m never sure if “Tomb of Battle” is meant as a form of derision. “Tome of Battle is where the concept of martial characters goes to die. It’s the ‘Tomb of Battle.’” Or something like that. It’s good to know the thread title wasn’t intended as mockery of one of the more beloved/reviled books in 3.5. I’d considered asking about it, but I was afraid of what the answer might be.

pabelfly

2022-09-10, 04:17 PM

Probably not. It's adding a lot more complexity and crunch to an already-crunchy game. And in the case of fighters, replacing with warblade (as everyone here seems to insist on) is imposing that on the one class that isn't/wasn't meant to be crunchy.

And no, it's not because I have any sort of anti-Asian bias. I also wouldn't use Incarnum or Ghostwalk either.

I don't view Warblade as a Fighter fix because when I want to play Fighter I want something relatively simple to learn and build, and Warblade too complex to be that. But the Tome of Battle classes are probably the most well-designed martial classes in 3.5. There's some extra effort in learning how Tome of Battle works, sure, but the same can be said of any of the higher-tier martials with scaling abilities.

The easiest way to actually fix Fighter, in my opinion, is to combine it with OP races and/or templates, shore your weaknesses up with your feat and ACF choices and how you spend your money, and not to be afraid of the occasional dip to greatly improve your character's versatility.

Thirdtwin

2022-09-10, 08:59 PM

I like warblade the best out of all ToB classes, exactly because it has the least magical stuff in it. I personally still don't feel great about readying maneuvers, from a simulationist aspect, as I've discussed before - and warblades still have a few maneuvers that really break the martial feel - but they can still be built to represent legendary fighters quite well.

In fact, I feel like a lot of these classes can be built to feel more like warriors. But if you just allow ToB as is, you're also going to get characters that do other stuff, too. And if that really bothers you, and you don't like the ready/refresh system because it doesn't feel martial either - than asking for ToB lite makes sense.

And saying "the reason I don't like ToB is because of swordsage's wuxia feel" is valid, I think.

I mean, it's fair to like what you like and dislike what you dislike, nobody's going to like everything. But swordsage is one class. There are three base classes in the book, never mind the prestige classes. It's going to spoil the whole book for you because one class isn't to your tastes? You never hear people dumping on the entire Tome of Magic because truenamers were so bad. Or to say that Complete Arcane is too much like military propaganda films because it has the warmage.

Ok, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I've been treated like a moron because I misspelled a word (tomb instead of tome). And yes, I have watched wuxia movies. And no, I don't think that D&D combat needs to be like Crouching Tiger. And no, the fact that I think that certainly does Not make me a "racist." I truly resent being called one; but that is some people's go-to now. It's convenient to accuse someone of that because it is a true conversation-ender. In our society, there is nothing worse. So with that, I will not subject anyone to my "racist" views further. Thank you for making me feel very unwelcome and vilified.

Phew. This is a lot.
a) What Maat Mons said. It's hard to tell sometimes just how derogatory people are being.
b) I didn't call you racist. I said that a trend in discussions about Tome of Battle may have (a little bit of) racist implications. See, this isn't just about you. It's about years upon years of "controversy" about a game that's had the kung-fu fighting monk and/or mystic class in it for literal decades because suddenly somebody tried to make a fancy system for melee combat. It's about my being an actual fan of wuxia film, even back to obscure 70s stuff like The Mystery of Chessboxing, and yet having never seen somebody conjure flames out of their butts or create a garrote out of literal shadow. I mean, even calling it anime (which still often has orientalist implications, mind you-Japan didn't invent the concept of martial arts that also have mystical overtones either) makes more sense than a genre which has largely been "people punching or kicking each other, only individual punches and kicks have fancy names, and maybe they can fly some." The historical context of people calling ToB wuxia has generally been that they don't actually have much, if any, experience with what wuxia actually is, they just looked for a word to call it and came upon that. And it's worth interrogating why that's the word they came up with.
c) You don't want Dungeons and Dragons combat to look like this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzkhVVFRIIg) ...I mean, fair cop, it's not a guy covered in 50 pounds of metal clomping through a 5 foot wide hallway until he splats into a cube of invisible cave snot. I find scenes like these inspirational for any sort of weapon-based combat, but it's also true that a guy in a full set of plate armor probably isn't going to be doing that one move with the spear where she jumped five feet in the air.
d) I'm sorry you feel vilified but like. This isn't society, it's a message board. I'm just one guy who, again, didn't call you racist. I said that a trend you played into has some bad implications; that doesn't make you "a racist" and I'm certainly not trying to run you out of town with a lynch mob chasing after you. (see what I did there? yuk yuk yuk) This doesn't have to be a conversation ender at all, if you don't want it to be. Of course, the opposite is also true; I can't make you keep talking if you don't want to. So really it's on you.

paladinn

2022-09-10, 10:19 PM

Darg

2022-09-10, 10:36 PM

Disagreed. I think people are just looking for words to express why they don't enjoy ToB's style of martial, and land on Wuxia to express the fact that it feels more like "Sword Magic" (a term literally used there) with strong eastern influence than like a legendary warrior fighting.

That is a result of the mechanics of maneuver readying and recovery being reminiscent of vancian casting and not feeling like what a fighter would do, the clearly supernatural (rather than superhuman) elements of many of these maneuvers, and also of the fluff.

A lot of people immediately respond to these complaints by saying "guy at the gym fallacy", but that's not necessarily the point.

Hercules can grapple huge monsters and win, he can withstand anything and beat anything. He is capable of strength and tenacity far beyond those of a human. At one point he carries the entire sky on his shoulders. He is closer to being a god than a guy at the gym.

But he cannot stand on columns of fire he creates, teleport through shadows, run on walls, or create bursts of blinding light. When folks say "it's wuxia" they mean "I want to be a marine at level 1 and Hercules at 20, not this sorcerer that does spells with a sword".

And yet people think flying carpets and monks are perfectly fine in their games? Everyone has a preference. Doesn't mean that people aren't weirdly hostile and closed minded about things they "dislike" or "don't enjoy." It's a phenomenon found all over the world from young children to the elderly. And ToB in particular strikes that nerve.

In D&D, every player character above level 1 can perform superhuman feats if they survive long enough. ToB is literally reusing mechanics already possible with other martial characters. Teleport through shadows? Shadowdancer. Run on walls? Up the Walls feat. Etc. It has nothing to do the the supernatural/extraordinary abilities and fluff is just as easily refluffed. It has everything to do with that knee jerk reaction.

Fizban

2022-09-11, 12:36 AM

A player will always have some complicated subsystem to learn with their first character. Sometimes their character is a sorcerer, and they have to figure out when to cast their best spells. Sometimes it's a fighter, and they need to figure out the intricacies of melee combat. Sometimes it's a binder, and they have to understand how exactly binding works. But some of these subsystems are more complicated than others, and it really is not harmful to push new players to the relatively uncomplicated ones. Giving someone a simple melee class as their first character doesn't lock them into those forever! People will naturally explore the system and try new characters!
Will they? I think you're still contradicting yourself- every character will have something complicated to learn, so it's fine to give them the uh. . . least? complicated to what, bait them in? If they can't handle a certain amount of complexity, if they aren't driven to explore and master it, if they've been taught that actually DnD 3.5 is easy you just charge or cast the win spells and don't really need to pay attention to any of that positioning stuff that some characters are on about, will they actually explore the system and try new, more complex characters, which will just so happen to give them a deep understanding of basics they never knew? The basics of movement and attacks are important for all players to understand, even if none of the characters use them the monsters still do. Getting someone into the game with what I might even call a false pretense, and hoping they'll just get with the program later, seems like a bad idea. While the next iteration after a charger or list of spells is usually building a more powerful charger or finding ways to power up spells.

(I think there's actually a whole arc/circle/journey/etc of "optimization discovery" that I've viewed in both myself and others, and if you skipped basic combat at the beginning it doesn't show up again until the very end, if ever.)

Look, D&D 3.5 has an immense amount of rules, and it really does overwhelm new players. If someone is still asking 'wait, how do I calculate my attack bonus' once per session, don't expect them to have internalized the proper way to play melee in 3.5! If someone is a bit confused what triggers AoOs again, then telling them to be play warlock, spam Eldritch Blast, and wield some shiny noncombat powers that actually work like you'd expect is not a bad idea.
I literally played alongside that player, and it was maddening. And sure, if they can't handle playing a martial combat character, getting them to play something else might work to keep them in the game, as long as you can compensate for them not getting certain parts of it in general. But I would never expect that player to "git gud" later.

All I'm saying is that, for the very first time someone touches the game, they're too occupied with the day-to-day workings of the rules to also force them to consider what those rules incentivize. Once someone has the basics of the rules down, which is more complicated than reading the PHB once and will not happen in the first (or second, or third) session, then you can let them grapple with the fine art of AoO maximization and action sequencing.
What other day to day workings of the rules? What basics? Stuff like the entire Combat section of the PHB is the day to day working basics. This isn't about building Jack B. Quick, this is about "hey if you run straight at that guy you leave the wizard exposed, ready an action instead," and "hey that monster has a lot of attacks, if you use the ancient martial art of backing away slowly it won't get as many attacks," etc.

This is also in a way, a whole point of 1st level characters, and the presumption that new games (and thus new players) should start at the beginning. At 1st level you aren't even seriously interacting with full attacks yet, making the base complexity of the tactical combat lower, just as the characters' abilities are fewer. Of course, starting at 1st can backfire if the players think they've learned everything when some stuff literally wasn't there to learn yet (at which point you introduce the new thing and they adapt or die), but I think that's a less likely backfire than starting people at higher levels where they're already in the deep end (and then get a bunch of extra leniency for who knows how long while they try to catch up their DnD skill).

As I said, I played (and also DM'd) with a player who could not seem to remember where their attack bonus was on their sheet between individual rounds of combat. And this never changed even after at least a year of playing, and it was maddening. Honestly their characters were pretty much superfluous no matter what was happening, just getting dragged along like Tails in a Sonic game, while the player was disappointed in their efficacy. If someone is still grappling with "roll die and add the number clearly labeled on your sheet" within the first couple of sessions, then 3.x is not the game for them. There are systems where most of the game happens in narration and you only occasionally need to consult one of a very few numbers on your sheet, and those games would be a better fit. Cutting out the tactical part of 3.x's tactical wargaming aspect is one of the major ways people make the game not make sense.

Edit: It might be that when you think of a player new to the game grappling with the rules, you're thinking of character creation. Since I think the most important part of the game for a new player is learning how to play the game, I will shortcut whatever is necessary to get the player in the game, so they can start learning the game by playing and from there actually have a stake and some opinions on what character they want in their permanent character. You shouldn't be seriously building characters to keep until you actually have some idea of what you're doing. If I've got a totally new player who didn't already dive in and read everything and submit a character without prompting, then they're probably already running something I either handed or built most of for them. So I would have already made it simple.

I'm just looking for options to beef up fighters of Any genre without needing to embrace the whole ToB framework.
Did you take a look at the feat tree I suggested? The main thing ToB does is grant a bunch of ways to add damage to standard action attacks, and respond to enemy actions, with a limit that you can't do the same thing every turn. Those feat scribblings are meant to do the same thing with a handful of feats.

Saying "beef up" implies you have some specific ways in which you find the Fighter deficient, presumably in raw power. The record holder in damage isn't even a ToB build- it was straight Fighter as I recall. If it's defenses you want, there are actually a lot of defensive feats people never bother to take because they're not on the Fighter list (and even if they were they would take offensive feats instead), thus I suggested adding a defensive feat progression. If it's raw damage on every possible hit, increase the numbers on Weapon Spec/Mastery/etc.

H_H_F_F

2022-09-11, 04:33 AM

I mean, it's fair to like what you like and dislike what you dislike, nobody's going to like everything. But swordsage is one class. There are three base classes in the book, never mind the prestige classes. It's going to spoil the whole book for you because one class isn't to your tastes? You never hear people dumping on the entire Tome of Magic because truenamers were so bad. Or to say that Complete Arcane is too much like military propaganda films because it has the warmage.

I think that someone not liking ToB because of swordsage isn't at all analogous to someone not liking CAr for warmage. If what bothers you about the book is the aesthetic of Swordsage, it's very hard to salvage. You'd need to throw out swordsage, and martial study + martial stance, and Shadow Sun Ninja. You'd make Master of Nine far less viable, and you'd lose out 3/9 weapons of legacy.

That is not at all to say that you can't use ToB without Swordsage. Sure you can. But it's not just a class the book happened to have - it's baked into the system. It's inter-connected. It's more analogous to disliking Magic of Incarnum because of the Incarnate than disliking ToM for Truenamer.

And I think someone who looks at all that and concludes that they don't want to mess with this book, instead of trying to finesse their way through it, is much more sensible than you give them credit for.

And yet people think flying carpets and monks are perfectly fine in their games? Everyone has a preference. Doesn't mean that people aren't weirdly hostile and closed minded about things they "dislike" or "don't enjoy." It's a phenomenon found all over the world from young children to the elderly. And ToB in particular strikes that nerve.

In D&D, every player character above level 1 can perform superhuman feats if they survive long enough. ToB is literally reusing mechanics already possible with other martial characters. Teleport through shadows? Shadowdancer. Run on walls? Up the Walls feat. Etc. It has nothing to do the the supernatural/extraordinary abilities and fluff is just as easily refluffed. It has everything to do with that knee jerk reaction.

If you think most people are fine with the concept of "just replace the fighter with Shadowdancer and Psychic Warrior", then sure. But come on. It's bot about what is and isn't possible in the fiction of the world. It's about what is and isn't magic.

Thirdtwin

2022-09-11, 08:35 AM

I guess I just see the racist label thrown around for anything nowadays. If you don't like someone or what s/he had done or said, just call racism. If it's used haphazardly, it really loses its meaning and impact.

I have zero problem with Asian-themed games. Back in my 1e days, I thought Oriental Adventures was super-cool, especially being the first real expansion for 1e. But EGG and company designed D&D to be based in a Western background. That was familiar, and it remained the core of the game for a Long time. Even today, 5e is much the same way, even though monks, samurai, ninjas, etc. are very much accommodated. And I have no problem with even wuxia-themed options. Options are good. If a DM wants that sort of flavor to his/her game, go for it.

I see ToB as such an option. And I put it in the same category as Arcanum or Ghostwalk or some of the other 3e expansions that are more "peripheral." Again, if someone wants to use it, go for it. I think I'm a little annoyed that it seems like whenever the topic of fighters and improving such comes up, the immediate response is "Warblade!!!" We've gone from fighter as a European-themed man-at-arms (of whatever variety) to "Let's accommodate the Asian theatrical style (wuxia)" to "Convert to ToB or you may be a racist." I know D&D is a global game, and that's fine. But if it's fine for someone to want to style a game after Crouching Tiger, it should still be fine for me to style my game after Middle Earth or even Game of Thrones.

Sorry for the tirade. I'm just looking for options to beef up fighters of Any genre without needing to embrace the whole ToB framework. Does any of that make sense?

If you're noticing that people are saying more things are racist these days, maybe consider the possibility that some things... actually are racist. That people aren't misguided, or lying, or arguing in bad faith, or trying to make you personally feel bad, when they say something like that. I mean, some may have been, of course, people aren't perfect. But everybody?

That's one thing. The next is that I would implore upon you not to misrepresent my position. Nobody in this conversation has said "Convert to ToB or you may be a racist," except you. Firstly, racism isn't always, or even most of the time, about individual bigoted agents. There are patterns, and systems, and trains of thought, and memes (not cat memes) that people may not even consciously want to emulate but end up doing so inadvertently. Because it's easy to just... not bother questioning your own assumptions. It's easy to just function on mental autopilot.

The point being that no one's screaming from the top of the rooftops "PALADINN IS RACIST" or even "PALADINN MAY BE RACIST." It's not your personal identity, what you fundamentally are, that's being questioned. Nobody has written your name in the Book of Grudges in permanent marker. It's an individual action you've taken, or pattern of thought that you've exhibited. People think and do weird stuff all the time; that doesn't indelibly mar their soul or anything. If you want me to like... absolve you or something then sure, I can do that, I don't have any more authority than the next guy, but I'll tell you you aren't racist if you want me to. You, paladinn, are not racist. There. That doesn't mean the kneejerk association of ToB with a specifically Chinese genre of fantasy--and denoting that as suddenly a bad thing when the game has been full of multicultural influences for, again, decades, is a fraught line to try and balance without inadvertently othering some group of people.

I mean, let's talk about annoyances for a sec--you're annoyed at people suggesting the Warblade for a fighter replacement. Fine. I'm annoyed that one guy clomping around in the same plate mail, wielding the same masterwork bastard sword, punching the same kobolds in the throat, is somehow more "wuxia" than the other guy just because he can substitute a Concentration skill check for a Willpower save every once in a while and doesn't know how to shoot a bow and arrow. I mean, jeez, warblades can't even fly on their own! If warblades were the only class in Tome of Battle, and everybody still went on about how wuxia-flavored the book was, and I'd bought it on the strength of all that, well, I'd be upset then because somebody sold me a bill of goods! Richard Baker et al. bent over backwards to make an engaging gamist system of encounter-based resource management and stapled it onto what may as well have been a bog-standard fighter and paladin on a diegetic and play-role level. If anything I might argue it doesn't go nearly far enough in (in their words) "deliberately blend[ing] the genres of Far East action games and the 'typical' D&D game world."

Secondly, it really doesn't bother me if you use ToB or not. Really! You are a person I have only met in the auspices of an internet-based talk forum about a game that both of us happen to play, but most probably will not play together. A person I only know by a pseudonym, who knows me only by a pseudonym. A person who could literally be on the other side of the planet from me. You do not need to embrace any game framework you do not want to. You could light your Tome of Battle book on fire, which I personally would consider a waste of good money and good paper but is otherwise no skin off my back. You can do anything you want at zombo.com. The only thing I can do that crosses through your sphere of influence is type some words. So no, you, paladinn, do not have to "convert" to ToB or turn into a racist, neither fork of that statement is accurate. I didn't say that about you; please don't imply that I did.

Lemme take a break and ask you a question. Do you think that when an initiator does (say) Shadow Blade Technique, that they have to say "Shadow Blade Technique" out loud? That it is a prerequisite of the move working that its name be called out?

Thirdtwin

2022-09-11, 08:55 AM

I think that someone not liking ToB because of swordsage isn't at all analogous to someone not liking CAr for warmage. If what bothers you about the book is the aesthetic of Swordsage, it's very hard to salvage. You'd need to throw out swordsage, and martial study + martial stance, and Shadow Sun Ninja. You'd make Master of Nine far less viable, and you'd lose out 3/9 weapons of legacy.

That is not at all to say that you can't use ToB without Swordsage. Sure you can. But it's not just a class the book happened to have - it's baked into the system. It's inter-connected. It's more analogous to disliking Magic of Incarnum because of the Incarnate than disliking ToM for Truenamer.

And I think someone who looks at all that and concludes that they don't want to mess with this book, instead of trying to finesse their way through it, is much more sensible than you give them credit for.

You don't have to go as far as banning Martial Study and Martial Stance, perfectly cromulent feats for picking extra maneuvers in the disciplines you already have access to. All you have to say is, "maneuvers from the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind disciplines aren't valid character options in my game." Setting Sun is not supernatural at all and mostly about throwing people, which makes it weird to be only for swordsages, but that's the design choice they made.

In fact if you did that, you wouldn't even have to go so far as to ban swordsages, since Diamond Mind, Setting Sun and Stone Dragon are still available to them. You'd screw Shadow Sun Ninja, yeah, as well as Jade Phoenix Mage, so that would suck. Master of Nine would have to be Master of Seven, but that's not the biggest nerf ever; none of their class stuff mandates that they have maneuvers from literally every discipline, only as many as possible. And let's be honest, nobody uses weapons of legacy. Those were arguably wasted space in a book already short on room. (Even then you'd only have to ban 2, not 3.)

So no, trimming the mystical fat is not nearly as insurmountable a task as all that, and... I'm not here to applaud the level of sensibility some hypothetical person exhibits in choosing what to use out of their D&D books. Like, good for you, you don't use one splatbook in a game with a bajillion splatbooks, you get a patented Thirdtwin-brand cookie? No, that's not my point at all. I'm just tired of the hardline stance against wuxia influences in a game that historically has never given a fig about genre purity, and find the often-inaccurate comparisons to have some problematic undertones when you sit back and take stock of them.

Ulsan Krow

2022-09-11, 09:00 AM

I find Oriental Adventures very racist. Tome of Battle I do not. The response to it of shutting it down for being overly 'wuxia' or 'anime' I do not inherently find racist either because those reasons that I find Oriental Adventures racist is also contingent on the fact that DnD is a Western setting. When we talk generic/base line expectations for what DnD looks like we're really talking about generically Western fantasy. So being too 'wuxia' or 'anime' especially if the exact traits that differentiate it can be defined, seems like a reasonable enough grounds for opposition to me.

H_H_F_F

2022-09-11, 09:29 AM

You don't have to go as far as banning Martial Study and Martial Stance, perfectly cromulent feats for picking extra maneuvers in the disciplines you already have access to. All you have to say is, "maneuvers from the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind disciplines aren't valid character options in my game." Setting Sun is not supernatural at all and mostly about throwing people, which makes it weird to be only for swordsages, but that's the design choice they made.

In fact if you did that, you wouldn't even have to go so far as to ban swordsages, since Diamond Mind, Setting Sun and Stone Dragon are still available to them. You'd screw Shadow Sun Ninja, yeah, as well as Jade Phoenix Mage, so that would suck. Master of Nine would have to be Master of Seven, but that's not the biggest nerf ever; none of their class stuff mandates that they have maneuvers from literally every discipline, only as many as possible. And let's be honest, nobody uses weapons of legacy. Those were arguably wasted space in a book already short on room. (Even then you'd only have to ban 2, not 3.)

So no, trimming the mystical fat is not nearly as insurmountable a task as all that, and... I'm not here to applaud the level of sensibility some hypothetical person exhibits in choosing what to use out of their D&D books. Like, good for you, you don't use one splatbook in a game with a bajillion splatbooks, you get a patented Thirdtwin-brand cookie? No, that's not my point at all. I'm just tired of the hardline stance against wuxia influences in a game that historically has never given a fig about genre purity, and find the often-inaccurate comparisons to have some problematic undertones when you sit back and take stock of them.

Agreed that banning two disciplines and therefore losing two PRCs covers most issues, though this is of course a change that requires a pretty deep understanding of ToB, one that someone instantly turned off by Shadow Hand and Desert Wind (and to me, a lot of Devoted spirit, but that's not the "Wuxia" aesthetical argument so we'll leave it aside) wouldn't be able to find.

I also empathize with the sentiments expressed in your last paragraph.

However, I don't think you can make the string of arguments you've made and still go on a "what do you want, a cookie?" Tirade. You've said ToB isn't the issue, it's just swordsage that people dislike - and they throw out the baby with the bathwater. I've responded that I think that's a legitimate reason to dislike ToB -the hypothetical person who dislikes ToB because of swordsage was brought up by you, not by me.

You then argued that your hypothetical person was not, in fact, reasonable being against ToB because of swordsage, and that this would be like being against CAr for warmage. I've shown that this is not a good analogy, and brought up a better one with incarnate and incarnum.

Spending half a paragraph telling me you're not here to applaud the sensibility of some hypothetical person feels like one of us lost the thread of conversation. To me, you brought up the hypothetical person as representative of a lot of resistance to ToB, and that this was bad because these people weren't being reasonable. I, for the sake of argument, accepted your stance that "disliking swordage" was the true reason behind a lot of people disliking ToB, and defended the stance as more reasonable than you, who brought it up, gave it credit for.

I'm not demanding any cookies, and I'm not telling you to cease believing there are racist undertones to disliking ToB. I'm just saying that you've essentially portrayed throwing ToB aside for the swordsage reason as dumb even if one accepts disliking "wuxia" as a valid reason, and I disagree.

Thirdtwin

2022-09-11, 10:02 AM

Agreed that banning two disciplines and therefore losing two PRCs covers most issues, though this is of course a change that requires a pretty deep understanding of ToB, one that someone instantly turned off by Shadow Hand and Desert Wind (and to me, a lot of Devoted spirit, but that's not the "Wuxia" aesthetical argument so we'll leave it aside) wouldn't be able to find.

I also empathize with the sentiments expressed in your last paragraph.

However, I don't think you can make the string of arguments you've made and still go on a "what do you want, a cookie?" Tirade. You've said ToB isn't the issue, it's just swordsage that people dislike - and they throw out the baby with the bathwater. I've responded that I think that's a legitimate reason to dislike ToB -the hypothetical person who dislikes ToB because of swordsage was brought up by you, not by me.

You then argued that your hypothetical person was not, in fact, reasonable being against ToB because of swordsage, and that this would be like being against CAr for warmage. I've shown that this is not a good analogy, and brought up a better one with incarnate and incarnum.

Spending half a paragraph telling me you're not here to applaud the sensibility of some hypothetical person feels like one of us lost the thread of conversation. To me, you brought up the hypothetical person as representative of a lot of resistance to ToB, and that this was bad because these people weren't being reasonable. I, for the sake of argument, accepted your stance that "disliking swordage" was the true reason behind a lot of people disliking ToB, and defended the stance as more reasonable than you, who brought it up, gave it credit for.

I'm not demanding any cookies, and I'm not telling you to cease believing there are racist undertones to disliking ToB. I'm just saying that you've essentially portrayed throwing ToB aside for the swordsage reason as dumb even if one accepts disliking "wuxia" as a valid reason, and I disagree.

...I did? ****. No, I'm obviously not communicating well if that's what you picked up from what I was saying, and I apologize. I think it's fine if you use (or don't use!) ToB with or without swordsages, and taking what you want out of a splatbook isn't dumb at all. One of the points of the game is to make it work how you want it. I probably should go to sleep and come back to this later.

Ulsan Krow

2022-09-11, 10:15 AM

...I did? ****. No, I'm obviously not communicating well if that's what you picked up from what I was saying, and I apologize. I think it's fine if you use (or don't use!) ToB with or without swordsages, and taking what you want out of a splatbook isn't dumb at all. One of the points of the game is to make it work how you want it. I probably should go to sleep and come back to this later.

How genial :smallcool: very nice

My personal preference for 'maneuver' like abilities are not so much ToB style, I preference the Combat Tricks from Pathfinder's Combat Stamina system. The idea and mechanics of it anyway, not the actual largely underpowered list of choices provided under it. Basically each fighter feat you have gains some expendable use to it, which key off of a single resource pool, combat stamina. Said points recharge while resting, out of combat. I think the idea of having 'maneuvers' naturally arise from the features you have is such a cool and sensible concept.

In practice though most of the choices are just + bonuses to X and Y rolls for X and Y actions so its not frequently that interesting. But there are cool ones like expending stamina points to be treated as one size larger for special attacks like trips, bullrushes, turning a potential status effect into another weaker/stronger one etc.

lylsyly

2022-09-11, 11:44 AM

1st give the fighter d12hd, all good saves, 6 skill points and let them choose any 10 skilss as class skills (plus craft and profession). Lose the fighter bonus feat list and let them choose any feat they meet the prereqs for.

Now to pick up just a bit of ToB: (fighter levels count as inititator levels)

3rd one stance
5th one maneuver (must be from the same discipline as the stance chosen at 3rd)
7th one stance
9th one maneuver (must be from the same discipline as the stance chosen at 7th)
11th one stance
13th one maneuver (must be from the same discipline as the stance chosen at 11th)
15th one stance
17th one maneuver (must be from the same discipline as the stance chosen at 15th)
19th one maneuver (may be from any discipline that you already know a stance from)

must meat the initiator level prereqs for any stance or maneuver you select, any other prereqs are ignored.
stances can be switched as a swift action
maneuvers can be used once per round with no recovery mechanic BUT you can only use a maneuver if you are in a stance from the same discipline

if you don't like a discipline, stance, or maneuver simply ban it. and yes I only filled up the empty levels ;-)

edit: Also consider letting them take the class features as bonus feats from the UA generic classes.

Dienekes

2022-09-11, 02:52 PM

I guess I just see the racist label thrown around for anything nowadays. If you don't like someone or what s/he had done or said, just call racism. If it's used haphazardly, it really loses its meaning and impact.

I have zero problem with Asian-themed games. Back in my 1e days, I thought Oriental Adventures was super-cool, especially being the first real expansion for 1e. But EGG and company designed D&D to be based in a Western background. That was familiar, and it remained the core of the game for a Long time. Even today, 5e is much the same way, even though monks, samurai, ninjas, etc. are very much accommodated. And I have no problem with even wuxia-themed options. Options are good. If a DM wants that sort of flavor to his/her game, go for it.

I see ToB as such an option. And I put it in the same category as Arcanum or Ghostwalk or some of the other 3e expansions that are more "peripheral." Again, if someone wants to use it, go for it. I think I'm a little annoyed that it seems like whenever the topic of fighters and improving such comes up, the immediate response is "Warblade!!!" We've gone from fighter as a European-themed man-at-arms (of whatever variety) to "Let's accommodate the Asian theatrical style (wuxia)" to "Convert to ToB or you may be a racist." I know D&D is a global game, and that's fine. But if it's fine for someone to want to style a game after Crouching Tiger, it should still be fine for me to style my game after Middle Earth or even Game of Thrones.

Sorry for the tirade. I'm just looking for options to beef up fighters of Any genre without needing to embrace the whole ToB framework. Does any of that make sense?

I do think some of the point is muddled a bit since I've played several Warblades and Crusaders now, and none of them have been the least bit Wuxia inspired. But, moving on.

I'll reiterate, comparing what you want to ToB, even ToB lite proved more troublesome than it was worth to your goals. You want solved some of the problems that ToB solved, but you really, really do not wish to engage in any of the means by which those problems were solved. What you want is not so much a ToB lite, it's Fighter 2.0, tone down some of the ridiculous feat chains, please.

And while I personally think ToB will always be more interesting than what you're asking for, I might as well see if what you want can be done.

See if this floats your fancy. Fighter 2.0, no fancy shmancy flowery names, no long list of maneuvers, no refresh mechanics, in fact, no resource management at all. No need to look up complex builds and feat lists to be reasonably effective.

FIGHTER 2.0
BaB: Full
Saves: All high
Hit Die: d12
Proficiencies: Simple and Martial Weapons, all armors, all shields
Skills: 4 + Int

1: Feat
2: Martial Skill
3: Parry
4: Whirling Strike, Clever Ploy
5: Precise Strike, Hard Strike
6: Pounce, Shove Hard
7: Improved Martial Skill
8: Terrifying Strike
9: Staggering Strike
10: Even More Improved Martial Skill

Martial Skill: At 2nd level, a Fighter 2.0 no longer provokes an Attack of Opportunity from opponents when performing any Special Attacks. In addition, if your use of one of the special attacks would cause you to suffer a penalty on an attack roll, you may ignore up to -4 from that penalty.

Parry: When attacked, you can choose to forgo a use of your Attacks of Opportunity to grant yourself a bonus to your AC equal to your Attack Bonus against that attack.

Whirling Strike: As a standard action, make a single attack against all creatures within your Reach. This counts as a Special Attack.

Dirty Trick: As pathfinder, essentially

Precise Strike: As a standard action, make a single attack against a creature, double your base attack bonus for this attack. This counts as a Special Attack.

Heavy Strike: As a standard action, make a single attack against a creature, add your base attack bonus to the damage if the attack is successful.

Shove Hard: If you push an opponent in any direction, increase the distance by 5 feet.

Improved Martial Skill: Any successful special attack you make that does not normally deal damage, now comes with a free attack

Terrifying Strike: As a standard action, hit and the target has to make a Will save to avoid Frightened condition while you're within eyesight

Staggering Strike: As a standard action, hit and the target has to make a Con save to avoid getting Staggered for 1 round.

Even More Improved Martial Skill: Once per turn, you can replace a single attack with a Special Attack that would normally take a standard action.

Mind you this is a rough draft, probably broken, and a little silly.

But is this the kind of thing you, paladinn, are actually looking for?

StSword

2022-09-11, 03:05 PM

Maybe taking inspiration from Lost Sphere's Lost Path Voltaic for the Path of War system?

They don't learn maneuvers with feats or leveling, but through a eureka! like system called the "spark system," through rolling natural 20s during combat (replacing the normal benefits of a critical hit) or an enemy rolling a natural 1 against them. They can know up to BAB plus intelligence mod maneuvers.

Since it's suggested that players make a list of moves they want to learn ahead of time rather than slowing play down book flipping in the middle of combat, it would make it easy to veto any abilities that aren't viewed as appropriate.

And instead of maneuver use being vancian style, it's more of a spell point system using the Combat Stamina (https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Combat%20Stamina&Category=Stamina%20and%20Combat%20Tricks) system. So instead of firing and forgetting, they just get tired if they expend all their stamina, rather like the Book of Martial Action system I mentioned before.

One could also use the stamina system to boost feats if one wanted.

AsuraKyoko

2022-09-12, 11:57 AM

Go look up spheres of might. It’s a 3rd party pathfinder system that lets martial characters build a talent-based fighting style. It’s based around attack actions (special standard action that is one attack.) It doesn’t have the wonky maneuver preparing mechanic. You just know a bunch of abilities.

It generally scales in power with bab, not number of talents. The number of talents provide fewer or more options. So it works very well with e6 type games. The only maneuvers with prerequisites are called out as legendary talents and require permission to take already.

http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-might

I'm going to second this recommendation. You can use feats to grab Talents, too, so you don't necessarily need to change the class, though I'd suggest giving something like 1 talent/level. You can also look at the Conscript class in Spheres of Might, if you want something that gets more talents; it's kinda like a build-your-own martial class.

Additionally, there is a good amount of non-combat utility in some of the spheres, especially Alchemy (My personal favorite sphere).

Thirdtwin

2022-09-12, 06:04 PM

Spheres of Might is Pathfinder material. It's great, don't get me wrong, but I think paladinn was looking for 3.5 stuff in particular. (Correct me if I'm wrong though!)

Drelua

2022-09-13, 12:08 AM

I definitely agree that it's strange at the least to call it too "wuxia," considering it's not nearly as wuxia as a monk. I've watched a decent amount of kung fu movies, and I've never seen anything like desert wind or shadow hand manoeuvres. Except maybe Five Deadly Venoms, where one guy's whole thing was that he could stand on walls. I think if I was giving that guy stats he'd be a monk with the feat to give him the spider climb stance, except he could only do walls not ceilings, so he has a weaker version. Calling it too anime makes more sense, because I've actually seen warriors conjure fire and do weird things with shadows in anime, but it's still weird because those things happen in western cartoons too, so I feel like you could just say it's too cartoony without specifying where the cartoons are from, or associating it with Asian cultures.

Or you just don't like the mechanics, that's fine too. I find swordsages overwhelming, but I also don't play full casters which are usually way more complicated. Even Fighters get more choices if you count ACFs from all the different splatbooks, but they get 11 bonus feats while Warblades get 4, plus 14 manoeuvres and 4 stances, so a total of 22 things to choose in character creation at level 20. Twice as many choices as the class that just gets feats isn't that many. Wizards get 40 spells prepared, or 50 if they specialize, with probably a lot more in their spellbook. Clerics get even more, 47 spells plus 9 domain, (if I can count today) and if they want they can prepare completely different spells 2 days in a row. Plus Warblades choose from a way smaller list, for levels 1-3 they have like 10 manoeuvres to choose from, while I don't even know how many cleric or wizard spells are out there. Dozens, maybe hundreds per level.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with not liking it, whether it's the fluff or the crunch, or the atrocious art. I wouldn't blame you if the pictures made you not want to look at the thing, it does that to me sometimes and I love the book. I'm just saying that I find some of the ways people criticize it to be odd. The most common complaints I would say are more true of some core classes. I don't know, maybe they don't really know why they don't like it, which is fair, so they have a hard time coming up with an answer when people ask why. I can see how it might feel to some people like they're playing a caster just because of the way it's structured, and that could throw someone off when they're playing a Fighter, fluff-wise, but feel more like they're casting spells.

Oh, and by the way, insulting someone's intelligence because of a misspelling is rude and very much not cool. Please no one do that, everybody makes mistakes.