PDA

View Full Version : book of 9 swords -rant-



assassin8
2007-12-03, 10:28 PM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.

Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

Chronicled
2007-12-03, 10:32 PM
What? I don't use ToB to make broken characters. I use it because it makes melee FUN again.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-03, 10:34 PM
Brokenness?

What in the Tome of Battle, besides the Ruby Knight Vindicator's 7th-level ability and White Raven Hammer, is broken?

Armads
2007-12-03, 10:35 PM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.

Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

And...so the reason why ToB is broken is because it allows non-power gamers to play worthwhile melee characters?

RTGoodman
2007-12-03, 10:36 PM
I'll be the first to admit that I don't really like ToB, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's all broken. Stronger than standard melee classes, yes, but that's the point of the book. People complained that melee classes sucked, so they made ones that upped the ante to bring them closer to the power level of casters and other stronger classes.

Really, from what I've seen, it's a pretty well-balanced system (balanced against everything besides the normal melee characters that it was supposed to replace, anyway).

Armads
2007-12-03, 10:36 PM
Brokenness?

What in the Tome of Battle, besides the Ruby Knight Vindicator's 7th-level ability and White Raven Hammer, is broken?

White raven tactics and War Master's Charge. That's about it.

brian c
2007-12-03, 10:36 PM
Please explain why you think ToB is broken. In my opinion (and I believe the consensus of the boards) it's a well-balanced book that brings the power up melee classes up to the level of spellcasters, or at least close.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-03, 10:38 PM
It's really not that broken, it just makes melee more like casters in both playstyle and power (although still not the same with either). I don't really like it for that and for flavor (and neither does most of my group, so not really a problem there).

BTW, Love your avatar OP.

Chronicled
2007-12-03, 10:40 PM
The main reason it's everyone's first recommendation is that it's much more difficult to convince a group to decrease the power of mid-high level casters.

Green Bean
2007-12-03, 10:44 PM
Powergamers today have things too easy, with their newfangled 'splat books', and 'Char-op Boards'. You've all gone soft. In my day, all we had were the 3.5 core books, and we liked it! And by Asmodeus, if you wanted to play an overpowered martial class, you'd better be have been willing to break into your DM's house and secretly glue a few extra pages into the PHB!

assassin8
2007-12-03, 10:51 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

AtomicKitKat
2007-12-03, 10:51 PM
Improves the melee classes, but yeah, some of the "time manipulation"(White Raven) borders on the supernatural.

Green Bean
2007-12-03, 10:52 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

I dunno. I think the Core martial classes were doing a pretty good job of cheapening themselves. :smalltongue:

Skyserpent
2007-12-03, 10:53 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

But Core has the most problems out of any of the supplemental books. Wildshape Cheese, Polymorph, Divine Might, it's all in there.

I mean, how is this too different from

"I wanna be a good warrior!"

"Be a Cleric"

Chronos
2007-12-03, 10:54 PM
The real problem with Tome of Battle is that it firmly establishes a glass ceiling, ensuring that melee characters will never exceed casters. Without it, there was hope (albeit a very tenous hope), but with it, that feeble hope was shattered.

Why do I say this? The problem is that balance is about the differences between classes, not the similarities. If one class can do one thing well, and another class can some other thing well, then those classes are balanced. Or at least, they can be, if the two tasks are of comparable worth, and both come up about as often. But if two classes both do the same thing, then it's just a question of which of them does it better. Tome of Battle made melee characters into spellcasters, so they're now competing directly against Wizard et al., but the Tome of Battle spells aren't as good as wizard spells, so the melee characters are still kept in their place of inferiority.

If you want to balance the classes, then what you need to do instead is to decrease the spellcasters' ability to do something the mundane folks do well, or you need to find something that the casters can't do well currently, and give the other classes the capability to do it.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-03, 10:56 PM
The only thing about it that is 'broken' in terms that make some players grumpy is that it puts melee characters on par with combat casters in a fight. Usually very well. In any single encounter, a ToB melee character can deal as much damage as a wizard, and at higher level even have some semi decent crowd control...not to mention some blatently magical abilities, short range teleport anyone?

That alone isn't the part people call broken exactly...it is the continuation of that in a single 'game day'. A sword sage or warblade can simply spend a round or more being spiffy and boom...aside from maybe some healing, they are at full battle strength, 'spells' and all. Just like normal melee classes. As long as the heals keep comming, they can fight an indefinate number of encounters...and sometimes they can recover their abilities in the middle of combat.

Magic users can't really do that. Once they burn out, it doesn't matter how many heals they get, they are out of spells and now worse than a fighter with their equivalent BaB. They can get more spells, but it is at the cost of wands and scrolls and such that many other classes can use...they also cost XP and money to make/buy...a swordsage gets all that for free.

basically, a 1st level mage gets a magic missle 3-5 times per day, and some extra low little 1-2pt damage abilities...a warblade gets whatever power they get through their stance, and then can spam manuvers till the cows come home...

Now...if you used 'channeling' or recharge magic...then the casters would be back at their 'preferred' power level in regards to melee characters...able to throw their big spells around all day long...if a melee character is ever able to get a hand up on a wizard, they get pissy.

also, when you are trying to min-max...you look for the best of the best, when it comes to melee damage...you can't beat the extra abilities a class like 'warblade' gives you over straight fighter.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-03, 11:04 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

Yes, I completly agree with the fact that this is bad. Not broken in the sense that the word is used on these boards, but indeed bad. I seem to remember a passage in the DMG that said somthing about a no class ever being better than a fighter at fighting, a wizard at casting, a cleric at healing, a rogue at skillmonkeying, etc. Even the bard at Jacking-of-All-Trades.

Ofcourse, within core, the cleric/druid/wizard are better fighters. Not to mention the barbarian. The rogue even has a chance to do more melee damage with TWF and SA (in CORE, outside of that, leap attack, etc make this chance impossible).

Outside of that: ToB makes fighters null and void. The wizard still rules at casting, but the cleric is out healed by a sucky class (the healer) which he seems to be okay with since he rules at everything else, and the factotum can out skillmonkey the rogue (to which the beguiler and scout are almost as good, if not better in given situations). The factotum again out Jacks the bard (pun intended).

Zincorium
2007-12-03, 11:06 PM
In my own personal setting, there are no monks, paladins, or monks; they're directly replaced by tome of battle characters. And the spellcasting classes are replaced by favored souls for divine and beguiler/warmage/dread necro (depending on the character's flavor) for the various arcane. There are a few other changes to the remaining classes.

0 balance issues. If you screw with something enough, it will work.

AstralFire
2007-12-03, 11:16 PM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.

Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

Excuse me?

Just like the majority of the most broken caster builds do not result from Psionics, the same is true of melee and the Tome of Battle.

Tome of Battle is *easy* to use, you can pick it up and in an hour make a character that can contribute at any level. It is not *broken*. Broken was and is the situation that existed before it came along, and still exists now, just somewhat remedied.

How the hell is it broken to be able to make a TWF Fighter who doesn't suck? To be able to compete in a party *without* spending hours optimizing? I love to optimize, but frankly, I'd be pleased as punch if the CharOp boards went the way of the dodo because character creation and balance had improved to the point where they were no longer necessary. The Class forum would suffice for the occasional question.

Also, yes, the Warblade renders the Fighter pretty much null, and Swordsage does the same for Monk... big deal. They were ill-conceived against the Wizard and Cleric, and given that they conceptually fight in very similar manners, I don't see the issue in just taking the Warblade and Swordsage and replacing the Fighter and Monk with it. Barbarian/Paladin and Crusader's a little more complicated since the concepts don't quite line up - no Rage, no Special Mount - but yeah. A lot like how I'm often tempted to remove the Sorcerer and put in the Wilder, since they have approximately equal blasty strength, but the Wilder is sufficiently differentiated from the Wizard and Psion that you don't get people going "Man, I wish we just had a Wizard" and in general, Psionics is a harder system to screw yourself over with.

The only problem I have with the Tome of Battle is that it gives the XPH a serious run for its money in terms of concept, polish, and mechanical execution. It made me want to stop saying the XPH was the single best part of crunch published in 3.5, something I swore I'd never do. ;D

Snooder
2007-12-03, 11:17 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

Well yeah.

The core melee classes sucked. They were deeply flawed from the beginning and there was no way to fix that flaw without reprinting the PHB. And you just can't do that twice. So, instead WOTC took the better way out (the alternative is to just not bother) and printed a sourcebook with the design change. The martial classes aren't really "supplemental" classes nor should they be looked at that way. They are really just a way to showcase how the new design mechanic is supposed to work. You could easily play a fighter with all the capability of the warblade, or a monk with the capability of a swordsage, or a Paladin with the capabilities of a Crusader. But since the rules for the Fighter, Monk and Paladin have already been written, they had to come up with new classes.

Oh, and don't say they could do it with feats. Feat sucked.

Deepblue706
2007-12-03, 11:18 PM
In my own personal setting, there are no monks, paladins, or monks; they're directly replaced by tome of battle characters.

You hate monks so bad you had to mention them twice, eh? It's okay, I actually feel the same way.

Tren
2007-12-03, 11:19 PM
I have to agree with the sentiment that fighters were cheapening themselves pretty well on their own, in core. Just because it's core doesn't make it balanced or fun, especially when working in the the shadow of Batman and CoDzilla.

Zincorium
2007-12-03, 11:21 PM
You hate monks so bad you had to mention them twice, eh? It's okay, I actually feel the same way.

Well, I meant fighters. Most of my errors are because I switch mental gears in the midst of typing without realizing it. I kind of started listing them one way and then reversed it.

brian c
2007-12-03, 11:47 PM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

Um... being better than core melee classes doesn't mean it's broken. Broken means that it's hopelessly overpowered, easily "breaking the game" and beating things it's not supposed to beat, and doing it with ease.

Armads
2007-12-04, 12:09 AM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

Actually, not all core classes are weaker than ToB classes at whacking stuff. The barbarian is better at dealing damage than the warblade. And this problem already exists in core. "Don't be a fighter, be a cleric or druid instead", and stuff like that.

PnP Fan
2007-12-04, 12:26 AM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.

Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

1. Thankfully my self image isn't reliant upon your approval, so please continue to be dissapointed in me, especially since I'm not much of a power gamer. :smallyuk:

2. ToB isn't broken, as others have said, it makes mellee build effective at what they are supposed to do. (admittedly, it would be nice for an archery equivalent. . . )

3. And what exactly is the point of your post? What are you bringing to the table? A question? A point of debate? Or just complaining that WotC did something to greatly improve the lot of the mellee player, allowing him to be almost as flexible as a caster in preparing abilities for the day/encounter?

edit: My apologies, I overlooked the word "rant" in the title of your post. By that, I'm guessing your purpose is to complain about a product that is neither compulsory, nor required to play the game. Have fun!

Serenity
2007-12-04, 12:28 AM
no the brokenness comes from the "dont take a level of paladin take crusader cause paladins suck by comparison", "dont take fighter take warblade". They are "supplemental" classes, when people advise against core because of effectiveness and i use that word loosely, it cheapens the CORE classes.

*Laughs*

Assassin8, people were being advised not to play Paladins, Fighters, and Monks long, long before ToB was a glimmer in WotC's eye. You can't cheapen what's already worthless. A ToB character not only has enough power to actually contribute past 6th level, but can also do so in varied and interesting ways, rather than having the sole option of 'Power Attack for X'.

Also, the word broken does not mean what you think it means.

Solo
2007-12-04, 12:38 AM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.



I'm disappointed that people still do not embrace an optimized gaming experience. :smallamused:

You, sir, have chosen the path of defeat.

AslanCross
2007-12-04, 12:50 AM
Doesn't the most broken melee build involve Leap Attack, Power Attack, Shock Trooper and a greatsword? None of those are from ToB.

ToB gives melee players a good bunch of options, and I was also happy to learn that initiator level is still boosted by non-ToB classes. Core classes still have a place in a ToB-heavy world.

That said, I do understand the OP's anger regarding the "Forget paladin, play a crusader instead" deal. Those are iconic classes and ideally should still be worth playing. Unfortunately, a Crusader really does have more leadership-related abilities---White Raven stuff for tactical options, Devoted Spirit stuff for healing+smitage, Stone Dragon for more crushing power, etc. Paladin also gets into the dead level zone really quickly. That's one thing that ToB got rid of.

(Don't even get started on Monk vs. Swordsage. )

Draz74
2007-12-04, 12:52 AM
Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

Yeah, it took a lot of work to look up and copy the exact same Power Attack/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack feat combo that every other powergamed melee character in the world was using. :smalltongue:

Voyager_I
2007-12-04, 12:56 AM
You have chosen the path of defeat.

Fixed and QFT.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 12:58 AM
Yeah, it took a lot of work to look up and copy the exact same Power Attack/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack feat combo that every other powergamed melee character in the world was using. :smalltongue:

Eh, you could work at it by including Dodge/Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike/Mobility/Elusive Target/Knockback, for thoroughness. Oh, and Combat Expertise/Imp. Trip.

Tequila Sunrise
2007-12-04, 01:00 AM
Ok... So ive been reading some of the character maximazation threads and I must say I'm disappointed that everyone resorts to the broken-ness that is book of 9 swords.

Rather then working off normal martial classes I keep reading how the only way to make your character "worth while" is ToB. I remember when power gamers actually had to work at it.

People say all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they're worth listening to. Especially power gamers who like to drop snide remarks about the suckitude of this or that class. Yet back when 3e came out those same "optimizers" were raving about how cool those same classes were. I suggest that you promptly ignore anything you may accidentally come across from these guys with too much time on their hands.

Deepblue706
2007-12-04, 01:03 AM
Well, I meant fighters. Most of my errors are because I switch mental gears in the midst of typing without realizing it. I kind of started listing them one way and then reversed it.

I know all about that, I do it all the time. Just having a good laugh over it!

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 02:33 AM
That ToB is broken really isn't something that is in contest, at least not by my definition of a broken class.

In my mind, there are two types of broken classes:
A) A class that doesn't work at all (truenamer, monk, CW samurai)
B) A class that is superior to another class in every way. If there is no reason to be X class if Y class is available, then Y class is broken.

There is really no reason to be a fighter, monk, or paladin if Tome of Battle is being used in a game. Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are just strictly better. In every way.

Whic is not necessarily a bad thing. I personally think ToB pushed the melee classes up a little too far, instead of fixing the actual problem. What is needed is to push the casters down. Which has been done, in the form of classes like Warmage and WuJen, and Shugenja and Favored Soul. The problem is that no-one wants to voluntarily play a weaker class.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-12-04, 02:45 AM
Actually, yes. The Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords classes are strictly better in every single way than their core counterparts. Unarmed Swordsage to Monk, Crusader to Paladin, Warblade to Fighter. However,

This Includes being Superior Balance-wise.

The problem isn't that the ToB classes are overpowered, it's that the Core classes in question are grossly Underpowered. Both in comparison to a Wizard AND to the Monsters they are fighting. Tome of Battle fixes this. It's a much easier solution than "Nerf Wizards", since downsliding class power (Especially in "episodic Content" like this) is an unpopular decision, thus one of the main factors of Power Creep comes into play.

If you care to discuss this further, there's an easy way to test this! Let's hold an event over on the PbP post boards featuring three level 20 groups. One consisting of a Priest/Druid/Wizard, one consisting of a Monk/Fighter/Paladin, and one consisting of a Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader. All three will be pitted against a CR 20 encounter versus a monster, (Like a Pit Fiend or Dragon) and we will see who gets through the easiest. (Namely, who expends the least resources.) I'm sure we could find an impartial DM here SOMEWHERE. (Standard WBL, Standard point generation, Only allowed material is core + whatever book the character came out of...)

If you want we could repeat this for other classes, like the ToM classes (Shadowmage/Binder/Truenamer) or more obscure stuff like Knight/Warlock/Berzerker, or Incantatrix/Iot7FV/Ur-Priest...
Artificer/Factotum/Assasin?

Nebo_
2007-12-04, 02:55 AM
B) A class that is superior to another class in every way. If there is no reason to be X class if Y class is available, then Y class is broken.


I'd agree with you if the ToB classes weren't intended to do that. Why play a fighter if a Warblade is available? Because Warblade is the new fighter.

I don't think that the new casting classes really do much to fix caster/non-caster balance. Sure, those classes aren't broken, but it doesn't do anything to address the fact that the broken ones are still there.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 03:03 AM
That ToB is broken really isn't something that is in contest, at least not by my definition of a broken class.

In my mind, there are two types of broken classes:
A) A class that doesn't work at all (truenamer, monk, CW samurai)
B) A class that is superior to another class in every way. If there is no reason to be X class if Y class is available, then Y class is broken.

There is really no reason to be a fighter, monk, or paladin if Tome of Battle is being used in a game. Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are just strictly better. In every way.
That's true for the monk and Swordsage, because the unarmed Swordsage is like a monk that actually does know effective Kung Fu, but that's crap when it comes to Fighter/Warblade and Paladin/Crusader.

Fighters and Warblades build differently and do combat differently. If you want, I will build you a fighter that is going to be more hardcore once it gets into melee than a Warblade--fairly significantly, too. I've mentioned the pieces elsewhere:
-Power Attack/Imp. Bullrush/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack
-Dodge/Mobility/Elusive Target
-Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike (or, later on, Robilar's Gambit).
-Knockback.
-Stand Still and/or Improved Trip, if you like.
-Oh, yeah, Imp. Sunder and Combat Brute.

Add Endurance and Steadfast Determination in there to sort-of-cover your Will save.

Only the Fighter has the feats to do that kind of crap at all, much.
You charge, full power attacking. Heedless Charge your AC down into the single digits, and Power Attack for full. Hit your opponent's weapon or item, Sunder it horribly, and Sundering Cleave[/i[ (Combat Brute) into your opponent. Use Knockback to, well, knock them back. Oh, yeah, you're enlarged--Knockback pushes them through your threatened area. You get an AoO (add Deft Opportunist to the feat list.) for full Power Attack, again... assuming the enemy's not dead.

Now, there might be more enemies, or the enemy might have survived. If they move in, you take AoOs with Improved Trip or Stand Still. If they manage to move in and hit you, you hit them back--[i]for full power attack--every time they hit you, thanks to Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike.

Now let's add the Dungeon Crasher substitution levels from Dungeonscape, and give the Fighter flight (Wings of Flying, Winged Boots, Raptoran or Dragonborn race, potions, friendly spellcasters, etc etc). Charge in the air. When you Knockback them after doing huge damage, you bullrush them *into the ground*... and they take another 8d6 + 3x STR bonus from it.

The above is broken. It's a single trick--well, it's a set of a couple of synergistic tricks--that means you absolutely destroy things in melee combat, better than any ToB character could.


The thing is, Warblades have better defenses, are harder to stop in their tracks, and are more fun to play. That doesn't mean they do everything the Fighter does but better.


Similarily, Crusaders and Paladins play very differently. The Paladin gets a flying mount, maybe takes a lance and charging feats. He picks up Battle Blessing, and casts his spells as swift actions. He smites more often for more damage. Maybe he goes into Cavalier to multiply charge damage, or Grey Guard for to utterly destroy a big monster/BBEG 1/day by using all of his Lay on Hands pool to inflict damage.

The Crusader is great, more party-friendly, and better balanced, but he does not play the same way paladins do. Unless your paladin just stood there and sword-and-boarded it out, in which case fighters and barbarians play the same way your paladin does.


I like ToB a lot. The classes are better balanced and more fun to play.
They do not make the Fighter or Paladin "obsolete". They are different classes.


Which is not necessarily a bad thing. I personally think ToB pushed the melee classes up a little too far, instead of fixing the actual problem. What is needed is to push the casters down. Which has been done, in the form of classes like Warmage and WuJen, and Shugenja and Favored Soul. The problem is that no-one wants to voluntarily play a weaker class.
I think you're overestimating Tome of Battle. It's about on par with well-balanced classes like the Psychic Warrior, the Rogue, the Favored Soul (before it gets Miracle), the Psion (barring the few broken tricks, like the psionic Polymorph equivalent), and so on.

Kioran
2007-12-04, 03:10 AM
The ToB, just like Psionics, is but a large scale, in vivo playtest. Good thing about that is that it doesnīt only come down to people in the WotC/Paizo sphere to evaluate that, but to normal gamers as well, and since Wizards did a piss-poor job at balancing the first time around, well.....

Problem is, the larger pool might correctly gauge the power lvl - if only through preference, i.e. the more often it sees play, the more powerful it is. But the majority of them have no idea of game design. Their opinion would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Now what do we have here? A decent, if flavor and mechanics wise crappy (Yes, it works with 3.5, but the mechanics make me want to puke) fix for 3.87, where the Wizard casts Celerity.

But also the road to doom. With this, they finally capitulated on their effort to make melee classes use their own mechanics, or even (god forbid!) find an interesting way to make them powerful in the frame of the basic rules, instead of tacking on a new set of rules for every class.
Oh, wait, they didnīt do it - they just made spell-like effects available to all classes and slapped different paint jobs on them (*groan*)

And thatīs ToB.

Jayabalard
2007-12-04, 03:17 AM
And...so the reason why ToB is broken is because it allows non-power gamers to play worthwhile melee characters?non power gamers can play worthwhile melee characters without ToB (since non-power gamers don't equate the terms "worthwhile" and "powerful").

Aquillion
2007-12-04, 03:27 AM
That ToB is broken really isn't something that is in contest, at least not by my definition of a broken class.

In my mind, there are two types of broken classes:
A) A class that doesn't work at all (truenamer, monk, CW samurai)
B) A class that is superior to another class in every way. If there is no reason to be X class if Y class is available, then Y class is broken.
By that definition, every melee class in the game except CWar Samuari and Soulknife is broken, since there's no reason you would be either of those classes when any other melee class is available.

Sometimes, you know, the problem is that class X is broken.


That's true for the monk and Swordsage, because the unarmed Swordsage is like a monk that actually does know effective Kung Fu, but that's crap when it comes to Fighter/Warblade and Paladin/Crusader.

Fighters and Warblades build differently and do combat differently. If you want, I will build you a fighter that is going to be more hardcore once it gets into melee than a Warblade--fairly significantly, too. I've mentioned the pieces elsewhere:
-Power Attack/Imp. Bullrush/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack
-Dodge/Mobility/Elusive Target
-Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike (or, later on, Robilar's Gambit).
-Knockback.
-Stand Still and/or Improved Trip, if you like.
-Oh, yeah, Imp. Sunder and Combat Brute.

Add Endurance and Steadfast Determination in there to sort-of-cover your Will save.

Only the Fighter has the feats to do that kind of crap at all, much.
You charge, full power attacking. Heedless Charge your AC down into the single digits, and Power Attack for full. Hit your opponent's weapon or item, Sunder it horribly, and Sundering Cleave[/i[ (Combat Brute) into your opponent. Use Knockback to, well, knock them back. Oh, yeah, you're enlarged--Knockback pushes them through your threatened area. You get an AoO (add Deft Opportunist to the feat list.) for full Power Attack, again... assuming the enemy's not dead.

Now, there might be more enemies, or the enemy might have survived. If they move in, you take AoOs with Improved Trip or Stand Still. If they manage to move in and hit you, you hit them back--[i]for full power attack--every time they hit you, thanks to Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike.

Now let's add the Dungeon Crasher substitution levels from Dungeonscape, and give the Fighter flight (Wings of Flying, Winged Boots, Raptoran or Dragonborn race, potions, friendly spellcasters, etc etc). Charge in the air. When you Knockback them after doing huge damage, you bullrush them *into the ground*... and they take another 8d6 + 3x STR bonus from it.

The above is broken. It's a single trick--well, it's a set of a couple of synergistic tricks--that means you absolutely destroy things in melee combat, better than any ToB character could.The other thing, of course (the main thing, really) is that it's much easier to make a decent ToB character. Fighters need to know bazillion feats from multiple books and plan each one perfectly; counterintuitively, and contrary to what some of the people here are saying, it's really the fighter that is designed for twink-munchkin players, because the only thing it gets are a bunch of feats that are really only going to be useful if you spend ages thinking up combinations (or looking them up online.) With the limited way feats work, it's a class designed for pencil-pushing optimizers and nobody else.

I'm not saying it's a powerful class, even optimized; but its sole class feature is entirely centered around optimization and twinking. It's designed for people who like to customize and pimp their characters out as much as possible, not really for casual players... if you just pick a bunch of feats because they look cool, your fighter will be practically unplayable, barely better than the NPC warrior. If you do the same with a ToB character, you'll be perfectly fine; maybe not "optimal", but fun to play.

If there were two sets of rules for 'fighters', one using ToB rules and one using fighter bonus feats, nobody but the most shut-in optimization-obsessed gamers would choose the current fighter rules.

Fighters require careful planning and feat selection just to be playable--I'm not even talking about the nasty combos above, just for regular power attack builds. ToB classes don't. They're much more newbie-friendly and easy to use... that's why, in 4th edition, the entire fighter bonus feat system sounds like it's being pushed into the incinerator. It was just a bad idea for a class to begin with.

Jerthanis
2007-12-04, 03:27 AM
I remember walking out of seeing the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon thinking, "Holy Bandit Interlude Batman, telling that one girl's back-story took like seven years!"

Then I thought, "Man, those fights were stylish up/out the wazoo, I want to make a Fighter/Monk character that does stuff like that!" I went home and poured through my D&D books and said to myself... "I can't be that awesome, it's just not possible..." (Then I went and played Exalted off-and-on when we could get a game going) I suffered in silence for... (checks IMDB) about six long years, lacking vital Awesomeitude in my melee types... And then the Tome of Battle came out.

I can now slip my sword through a guy's plate with the emerald razor technique, delivering extra fire damage with Burning Brand, then switch to Soaring Dragon stance, leap up to the catwalk of the second story and throw a crossbowman to his doom effortlessly, then when the Golem bursts through the door on the third round, I've got the options of jumping down on it with Stone Dragon's Fury or doing Death from Above... I've got choices, and every one of them is awesome. I can be a badass, and I'm practically crying tears of joy. Oddly enough, I've still played them with Barbarians and Fighters and I haven't felt like I overshadowed them. I have more options, but in strict damage output/battlefield control respectively I'm still second to them.

So I'm ludicrously biased towards pretty much everything about Tome of Battle, except the fact that there's no ranged options beyond the Bloodstorm Blade, which is the silliest PrC I've read in a long time. So I would almost venture that people aren't even as much saying, "Don't play a Fighter, Warblades are better" as they are saying, "Don't play a Fighter, Warblades are more fun" It's not that it's more broken necessarily, as you could probably make a strictly better Fighter Trip Monkey, or Fighter Power Attacking Shock Trooper, or a Barbarian GRARRGHH DAMAGE!... or Paladin charge-smiter (this one maybe you can't build as well actually)... but ToB classes do them more simply and with more flair. That's not overpowered mechanics, that's better mechanics.

The best thing I've heard yet about 4th edition was that melee in general would be more similar to Tome of Battle.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 03:28 AM
The ToB, just like Psionics, is but a large scale, in vivo playtest. Good thing about that is that it doesnīt only come down to people in the WotC/Paizo sphere to evaluate that, but to normal gamers as well, and since Wizards did a piss-poor job at balancing the first time around, well.....
ToB, maybe. Psionics is a playtest? Yeah, no, you just made that up on the spot. Psionics has been around for a long time, and the latest incarnation is just that--the latest (and best) incarnation, not a playtest of 4E mechanics--there's absolutely no sign 4E magic will look like 3.5 psionics.


Problem is, the larger pool might correctly gauge the power lvl - if only through preference, i.e. the more often it sees play, the more powerful it is. But the majority of them have no idea of game design. Their opinion would have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Wizards is not sending every gamer a survey on class balance. The designers they have working on 4E are the same ones that worked on the well-balanced "3.75" books--like the MIC, which shows vastly better design principles than core items. The "Design and Evelopment" column on the Wizards site has a couple of entries for the MIC, and they show a good awareness of game design principles.


Now what do we have here? A decent, if flavor and mechanics wise crappy (Yes, it works with 3.5, but the mechanics make me want to puke) fix for 3.87, where the Wizard casts Celerity.
ToB is not a fix for games where the wizard casts celerity. Tome of Battle classes are not competitive with fully powergamed casters.
Tome of Battle is not balanced against Dire-Bear-shaped druids casting Bite of the Werebear (much less Fleshraker-shaped Druids casting Venomfire--ugh!). It is not balanced against Celerity, Shivering Touch, Polymorph, all that jazz.
It isn't even balanced again cheese-free Batman (optimized, but avoiding the above spells and those similarily broken).
It's balanced against Psychic Warriors, Rogues, Spirit Shamans, splatbook-having Rangers, and so on. If Wizards, CoDzilla, Artificers, and Archivist are the "top tier" and CWar Samurai, Monk, and Soulknife are the bottom tier, then ToB is balanced against the second and third tiers. (Out of, oh, five or six.)

As for the flavor and mechanics... well, you don't like the mechanics, but a whole lot of people do. Why? Because they're a hell of a lot more fun than just tripping and making AoOs. They give you options, resource management (in terms both of maneuvers and of swift/standard actions), and generally make things more fun. They also don't represent actual combat any more poorly than normal D&D mechanics do.
The flavor is fine. I think it's fairly interesting on its own right... and it's completely ignorable--I've yet to see the whole story with Reshar and the temples be integrated into a non-ToB-focused game The fluff is modular, and that's a good thing.


But also the road to doom. With this, they finally capitulated on their effort to make melee classes use their own mechanics, or even (god forbid!) find an interesting way to make them powerful in the frame of the basic rules, instead of tacking on a new set of rules for every class.
Oh, wait, they didnīt do it - they just made spell-like effects available to all classes and slapped different paint jobs on them (*groan*)

And thatīs ToB.
Oh no! Classes with their own mechanics! How horrible!
Wait, the only class without a unique mechanic is the Fighter.

ToB maneuvers are NOT spell-like effects. The things they do and the things spells do are very, very different... beyond a small subset of maneuvers, which were designed to be magic-like. ToB covers both the Gritty, Super-Tough, Mundane Fighter and the chi-powered wuxia fighter. That's because it's flexible, part of why it's good. I can represent a lot more things well with the ToB classes than I can with Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

Hell, even the Swordsage can cover both ends of the scale. I recall someone saying it on these boards before--a Swordsage makes a great gritty infighter using styles resembling kali (for two knives) and Muay Thai for fist/foot/elbow striking. Skip Burning/Searing blade and there won't be anything supernatural about it.

Aquillion
2007-12-04, 03:37 AM
non power gamers can play worthwhile melee characters without ToB (since non-power gamers don't equate the terms "worthwhile" and "powerful").Again, though... what does the bonus feat system offer a non-power gamer? If you just pick them arbitrarily based on what looks good, you'll end up with a character that simply doesn't work mechanically -- I'm not saying it'll be underpowered, I'm saying it will not work. With very few exceptions, you can't just take one fighter bonus feat and have it give you a workable option in combat; you have to carefully plot out feats just to be able to do anything at all. Different people optimize this to different degress, but I submit that, given the option (and viewed without sentiment), the only people who would actually like the fighter are people interested in extreme twinking. That's all it's good for.

The ToB classes give you a bag of shiny toys and let you choose whatever you want from it. The bonus feat system is explictly designed to reward careful optimization and harshly, cripplingly punish any attempt to play to flavor or fun. It's obvious which one is more designed for casual, flavor-oriented gamers, and which one is designed for hardcore munchkin optimizers; the only reason there's any argument about it is that the ToB classes are currently in a supplement instead of in core.

What you have to understand, more than anything else, is that WotC does not care about us. They don't worry about what people like the ones you hear on this board say; they know perfectly well we'll all buy the 4th edition books eventually anyway. What they're aiming at is the casual gamer market, people who might like D&D if they make it more accessible. The basics of ToB system -- making it easy to make an effective character, eliminating the hardcore-munchkinish focus on intradependant feats -- are all about that. Whether it's more or less powerful in the hands of super-optimizers, WotC couldn't care less. What they're interested in is making sure that Little Johnny has fun and can make a copy of that neat samurai-ninja he saw in his videogame or on teevee.

If Little Johnny takes toughness and weapon focus and monkey grip, there's a good chance that somewhere during the game he's going to yawn, throw the book across the room, and loudly suggest that he and his friends play a different game. Should Little Johnny have stopped worrying about effectiveness and just enjoyed the RP? Sure, but you know and I know that the Little Johnnies out there often won't. He signed on to play because he wanted to be Sephiroth or whoever and kill the BBEG, not so he could watch his friend outshine him.

WotC feels Little Johnny's pain. They don't care how you feel. You're going to buy everything 4th edition anyway, no matter what you say now.

brian c
2007-12-04, 03:44 AM
That's true for the monk and Swordsage, because the unarmed Swordsage is like a monk that actually does know effective Kung Fu, but that's crap when it comes to Fighter/Warblade and Paladin/Crusader.

Fighters and Warblades build differently and do combat differently. If you want, I will build you a fighter that is going to be more hardcore once it gets into melee than a Warblade--fairly significantly, too. I've mentioned the pieces elsewhere:
-Power Attack/Imp. Bullrush/Shock Trooper/Leap Attack
-Dodge/Mobility/Elusive Target
-Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike (or, later on, Robilar's Gambit).
-Knockback.
-Stand Still and/or Improved Trip, if you like.
-Oh, yeah, Imp. Sunder and Combat Brute.

Add Endurance and Steadfast Determination in there to sort-of-cover your Will save.

Only the Fighter has the feats to do that kind of crap at all, much.


Okay, I have two books sitting in front of me. One is the 3.5 PHB, the other is Tome of Battle. Let's see... Fighters get 11 bonus feats by 20th level, plus feats for leveling and possibly human bonus or flaws. Total standard number of feats is 18, max of 21. You list 15 feats there. Warblades get 4 bonus feats, plus the same set of 7 to 10 other feats, depending on race and whether or not you take flaws. That gets their total feat number at 11-14. Plus they get maneuvers and stances. Maybe I can't build a warblade to do the same exact things that your fighter build there does, but I can damn sure make a warblade that does melee better overall.

Jerthanis
2007-12-04, 03:46 AM
ToB maneuvers are NOT spell-like effects. The things they do and the things spells do are very, very different... beyond a small subset of maneuvers, which were designed to be magic-like. ToB covers both the Gritty, Super-Tough, Mundane Fighter and the chi-powered wuxia fighter. That's because it's flexible, part of why it's good. I can represent a lot more things well with the ToB classes than I can with Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

Hell, even the Swordsage can cover both ends of the scale. I recall someone saying it on these boards before--a Swordsage makes a great gritty infighter using styles resembling kali (for two knives) and Muay Thai for fist/foot/elbow striking. Skip Burning/Searing blade and there won't be anything supernatural about it.

This is something I missed in my post. While I'm amazingly in favor of the Wuxia style of the Swordsage, it's entirely my choice, build and preference influencing my build. I could easily have chosen differently and been an entirely down to earth fighter.

I've played in a seperate game with a Warblade who never even brought up that he was doing anything special in combat at all. To us he was just hacking our enemies apart and occasionally shouting orders. He was just an ex-squad commander flavorwise, and never did anything to contradict that flavor. If he'd have been a Marshal it'd've been the same flavor, but he wouldn't have had as much fun with the mechanics.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 03:49 AM
If there were two sets of rules for 'fighters', one using ToB rules and one using fighter bonus feats, nobody but the most shut-in optimization-obsessed gamers would choose the current fighter rules.
That's not actually true. People are tragically and shockingly not all identical, and have different preferences.


Fighters require careful planning and feat selection just to be playable--I'm not even talking about the nasty combos above, just for regular power attack builds. ToB classes don't. They're much more newbie-friendly and easy to use... that's why, in 4th edition, the entire fighter bonus feat system sounds like it's being pushed into the incinerator. It was just a bad idea for a class to begin with.
It wouldn't have been that bad an idea if they'd thought feats out better. As is, there's no consensus on what a feat can/should do, how powerful it can be, et cetera. Feats abilities scaling with BAB would be a good start. Feats giving you far more options than they do would be another (normal characters only get, what, 7? C'mon).

You're more or less wrong about ToB classes being "more newbie-friendly" and better than their unoptimized counterparts, BTW. Unoptimized core fighter types and unoptimized ToB fighter types are on about the same level.

I just dug up an old post I vaguely remembered with google--it's Rachel Lorelei's comparison of an Unoptimized Fighter and an Unoptimized Warblade. They come out about the same, and in fact the Fighter even has a slight advantage: take a look (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2966002&postcount=61). In fact, that oughtta be required reading for everyone discussing ToB vs. Regular Melee balance.


(Then I went and played Exalted off-and-on when we could get a game going) I suffered in silence for... (checks IMDB) about six long years, lacking vital Awesomeitude in my melee types... And then the Tome of Battle came out.
Really, if you want Awesomeitude, Exalted is pretty much where it is at.

"A nuke explodes beside you."
"Heavenly Guardian Defense! I parry the nuke. With my sword. Boo-yah. Also I am a reborn god-king who can cut nigh-effortlessly through mortal armies."


I can now slip my sword through a guy's plate with the emerald razor technique, delivering extra fire damage with Burning Brand, then switch to Soaring Dragon stance, leap up to the catwalk of the second story and throw a crossbowman to his doom effortlessly, then when the Golem bursts through the door on the third round, I've got the options of jumping down on it with Stone Dragon's Fury or doing Death from Above... I've got choices, and every one of them is awesome. I can be a badass, and I'm practically crying tears of joy. Oddly enough, I've still played them with Barbarians and Fighters and I haven't felt like I overshadowed them. I have more options, but in strict damage output/battlefield control respectively I'm still second to them.
That's a good summation. I'll not like I did before that many of the same mechanics are simultaneously good for non-wuxia swashbuckling heroes and for gritty fighters.

For example, a wiry tough type with a knife in each hand dashes in, blocking your sword near the hilt of one dagger while the other cuts at your arm, and follows up with a snap-kick to the chest as you stagger back. He ducks your overhand swipe; you turn it into a diagonal cut, but he catches it in a cross-parry with both knives, pushes it to the other side and away, and steps in to land an elbow to your throat, then slip to the side from your haphazard return thrust and back away. When you rush him, he steps in and to the side your sword isn't, and shoves you past him.

Unarmed Swordsage variant. In mechanical terms, he moved in and used Wolf Fang Strike on one round, avoided an attack with his high AC or with Baffling Defense on your round, then hit you with Sapphire Nightmare Blade and tumbled 15 feet away. When you charged him, he used Counter Charge and beat your roll.

See, folks? Same class, both Wuxia action and gritty infighting. And that's for the *most* wuxia class of the three.

Aquillion
2007-12-04, 04:00 AM
That's not actually true. People are tragically and shockingly not all identical, and have different preferences.Yes, well, maybe I exaggerated just a tad. :smalltongue:

But I think it's pretty clear where WotC intends to be going with this change. They want people to be able to grab abilities on a whim and still have a generally effective character. Having your character totally dependant on extra feats is for experienced gamers, who will know enough not to shoot themselves in the foot even if they hate optimizing; while new system is aimed at Little Johnny, who grabs whatever looks shiny.

Note the way 4th edition fighters are going to have to choose certain weapon 'paths' and stick to them. It's the same thing again; explicitly bad choices--taking contradictory things from different paths that can't be used together, say--is prevented, or at least made more difficult to do by mistake. Little Johnny is less likely to trip over his ability selections.


You're more or less wrong about ToB classes being "more newbie-friendly" and better than their unoptimized counterparts, BTW. Unoptimized core fighter types and unoptimized ToB fighter types are on about the same level.

I just dug up an old post I vaguely remembered with google--it's Rachel Lorelei's comparison of an Unoptimized Fighter and an Unoptimized Warblade. They come out about the same, and in fact the Fighter even has a slight advantage: take a look. In fact, that oughtta be required reading for everyone discussing ToB vs. Regular Melee balance.Yeah, sure -- at low levels. That's what that post is focusing on. At slightly higher levels, though, when the Warblade can take better maneuvers while the Fighter meets the prerequisites for exactly nothing? Yeah. You're going to have to give me a more detailed explaination of how exactly you think the Fighter can stand up then.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 04:04 AM
See, folks? Same class, both Wuxia action and gritty infighting. And that's for the *most* wuxia class of the three.

Now try again, but actually take manuevers from the Swordsage restricted styles. I challenge you to demonstrate the same style with Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools.

I like ToB, generally, but it isn't something that fits in all settings. I would have had to rip the guts out of it to make it fit into my Cytir campaign.

I would very much prefer weapon-style based manuevers (which is one of the few good things I have heard about 4th- they are trying to do that0.

WhiteHarness
2007-12-04, 04:09 AM
I'm disappointed that people still do not embrace an optimized gaming experience. :smallamused:

You, sir, have chosen the path of defeat.

Wait....you're saying that, if my characters aren't optimized, with maximum scores in the necessary attributes, etc. that my game is on the "path of defeat?"

The_Snark
2007-12-04, 04:14 AM
Now try again, but actually take manuevers from the Swordsage restricted styles. I challenge you to demonstrate the same style with Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools.

... Why? Those aren't the styles you pick when you want gritty, non-supernatural fighters. Those are the ones you pick when you want Wuxia or a warrior who blends in bits of magic with his fighting. You can practically count the number of non-superatural maneuvers from each discipline on one hand.

(Bloodletting Strike, Death in the Dark, Drain Vitality, Hand of Death, Stalker in the Night, most of the stances. Technically, the teleportation and incorporeality ones aren't listed as supernatural either, but... really. They ought to be. And really, almost every one of these maneuvers describes drawing on black energy or the power of shadows.

Desert Hand has Desert Tempest, Flashing Sun, Wind Stride, and Zephyr Dance.)

Edit- For the record, I'm also of the opinion that Tome of Battle classes don't fit into all settings that well either, even divorced of fluff. Gritty, low-powered settings, for example.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 04:22 AM
Okay, I have two books sitting in front of me. One is the 3.5 PHB, the other is Tome of Battle. Let's see... Fighters get 11 bonus feats by 20th level, plus feats for leveling and possibly human bonus or flaws. Total standard number of feats is 18, max of 21. You list 15 feats there. Warblades get 4 bonus feats, plus the same set of 7 to 10 other feats, depending on race and whether or not you take flaws. That gets their total feat number at 11-14. Plus they get maneuvers and stances. Maybe I can't build a warblade to do the same exact things that your fighter build there does, but I can damn sure make a warblade that does melee better overall.
I don't think you're understanding the quantities of damage the above Fighter build flings around. They absolutely dwarf the Warblade's "x4 on one hit" from Diamond Nightmare Blade, "+10d6" from Rabid Wolf Strike, "full attack with extra Raging Mongoose attacks", et cetera.

Flaws don't count. The fighter can use flaws, too--and if he does, he'll have each set of pieces of that combo earlier, so the level at which you compare the two goes down. Without flaws, let's say it's level 14: a human fighter has 14 feats there, and I listed extraneous ones. Power Attack for 14 points with a greatsword gets 28 damage. With Leap Attack and Combat Brute, that turns into either 84 or 112 points, depending on if you read Leap Attack as it's intended to be or as errata says it should be... plus weapon and 1.5x STR, per hit.
After that hit, the Fighter uses Knockback and Dungeon Crasher to smash his enemy into the floor. Add another 8d6 (28) + 3x STR bonus...
Start with 17 STR (representing the Fighter's advantage over the Warblade's MAD--the Warblade needs more INT and more DEX), add +3 from levels and a +6 item, +2 more from Enlarge Person, that's 28 STR, or +9. Another 27.
So here we have, by the conservative reading*, 139 points of damage, before weapon, enhancement, and even STR to damage is factored in. Let's say 3d6, or 10 average, for the enlarged greatsword, a +5 greatsword, and that +9 STR bonus translating into 13 points. The grand total is 167 points of damage on that hit.

And that's just the one hit! This is where having a reach weapon and Enlarge Person kick in, and Robilar's Gamit does, too: if the enemy survived and (or there's another enemy who) tries to move away from the fighter, he gets an AoO and is either held in place (stand still) or tripped and hit again for another 167 points. And if they try to attack the fighter, the fighter will hit back on every attack (Robilar's Gambit), for another 167 points on each.

If I really cared to, I could get that damage up to 200 in various ways (Water Orc or Goliath race, various items)... or there's the 3.0-but-from-an-unupdated-source Valorous enhancement which doubles damage on a charge.

And, oh yeah--I included Elusive Target for a reason: if my enemy is a dragon, or a gish with a greatsword... and they survive, and cast Wraithstrike, and then Power Attack me back for full...
...well, they're my Dodge target, and I don't take any Power Attack damage. So they're hitting me back for far, far less than I'm counterattacking them for with Robilar's Gambit.

*Leap Attack as written adds +100% power attack damage, so it'll be doing 112 not 84

God forbid that this Fighter can Pounce (items, the Feral template, a Barbarian dip while making the lost feat up with a second barbarian level and a variant that gets the right feat or a PsyWar level), in which case he'll be hitting thrice on his turn--or four times, with haste or Boots of Speed--for that much before getting into his AoO routine.

This Fighter is totally broken. He either wins or he loses. He has no more defenses against magic than normal fighters, except for the fact that his Will save runs off of CON if he has Steadfast Determination so he can dump WIS and focus on CON at chargen and with items, giving him maybe five points of Will save over the usual. His touch AC is something like negative seventeen thousand.
But he absolutely destroys anything in melee with a huge damage output that doubles to quintuples when he gets counterattacked, and he controls the battlefield with his reach plus stand still and/or tripping while he does it.

This does not make the Fighter a good or powerful class. There's a reason I think the Warblade is a better class in pretty much every way.
But it DOES mean that a Fighter can be a melee god on a level the Warblade just can't reach. The Warblade's advantages are mobility, flexibility, tactical options, defenses, team play, out-of-combat capabilitymore defenses--they are not Direct Melee Capability. The Warblade doesn't do the same thing and doesn't play the same. It's not a "Fighter replacement", it's a different class. It builds differently and plays differently.
That's not to say that it's bad to replace Fighters with Warblades in your game; it's a pretty good move, in fact.
But it DOES mean that "Warblade being availible means no one has any reason to play a Fighter" is just plain wrong.

Yes, I list 15 feats there, a level 20 Fighter gets more. I can list you a bunch of other feats I'd like to have (Mage Slayer/Pierce Magical Protection, for example), or I can take off a whole big handful of feats that aren't necessary for the core of this build: the basic Leap Attack/Shock Trooper + Combat Reflexes/Karmic Strike combo can be had at level 6. By level 9, you've included either Elusive Target or Combat Brute. And so on. The Fighter gets each combo and each combo of comboes earlier, often a lot earlier.

Warblades get 4 bonus feats from a sharply limited list, and have appealing feats like Extra Readied Maneuver and Adaptive Style that they can take. What's more, their maneuvers further restrict their feat choices--for example, if the Warblade isn't focusing on White Raven he'll never have Shock Trooper: you can't use Strikes at the end of charges. If he is, he's locked himself into a single specific tactic and can't Shock Troop once he's used his one or two "charge with +10/20 damage and no AoO" maneuvers. He's also not going to have the battlefield control and the

Kioran
2007-12-04, 04:23 AM
ToB, maybe. Psionics is a playtest? Yeah, no, you just made that up on the spot. Psionics has been around for a long time, and the latest incarnation is just that--the latest (and best) incarnation, not a playtest of 4E mechanics--there's absolutely no sign 4E magic will look like 3.5 psionics.

Yeah right - but it might have been. 3rd Edition Psionics have nothing specifically Psionic about them. Ask anyone: Could 95% of the Psions powers be translated effortlessly (with less effort than a mundane reflavouring of ToB btw.) into Magic? Yes.
ToM and the Warlock were other mechanics thrown into the ring for this. They appear in supplements and were new mechanics. With ToM, Incarnum or EPH there were even entire supllements dedicated to it. And ToM and Incarnum werenīt even required to correct some error - they introduced new ideas. 1 year before the announcement of 4th ed development in the case of ToM. Yeah right.
They were a playtest. Good odeas get recycled, things like Incarnum, which never caught on, drop.



Wizards is not sending every gamer a survey on class balance. The designers they have working on 4E are the same ones that worked on the well-balanced "3.75" books--like the MIC, which shows vastly better design principles than core items. The "Design and Evelopment" column on the Wizards site has a couple of entries for the MIC, and they show a good awareness of game design principles.

Argh.......but they do get feedback on cons, in Forums, or can pick up general trends. ToB has had rave reviews from many newer and younger gamers, ToM rarely sees play, Incarnum totally dropped, people are salivating over the MIC. Psionics are considered alright and used occasionally, and have a devoted following of people, many of which are dissatisfied with Vancian casting as a whole. Thatīs feedback. They can work with that.
And no, these Desginers do not all convince me. Mike Mearls for example, is hugely overrated, and pushing the power acceleration in almost anything he does. MIC is power creep, and decent handling of the f****** DMG guidelines would have yielded some results ("Eternal wands", *blearch*) much earlier. But oh, itīs use-activated-item-of-true-strike-OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!111eleven
Yeah, Core isnīt balanced, but some people definitely not being mature and clever enough to handle it doesnīt help. That includes some WotC designers, btw. have you ever read the rant why keen and imp-critical should stack? That guy is right. He is a WotC designer. He got shot down by his compatriots (Eric Monaīs name gets dropped as well).



ToB is not a fix for games where the wizard casts celerity. Tome of Battle classes are not competitive with fully powergamed casters.
Tome of Battle is not balanced against Dire-Bear-shaped druids casting Bite of the Werebear (much less Fleshraker-shaped Druids casting Venomfire--ugh!). It is not balanced against Celerity, Shivering Touch, Polymorph, all that jazz.
It isn't even balanced again cheese-free Batman (optimized, but avoiding the above spells and those similarily broken).
It's balanced against Psychic Warriors, Rogues, Spirit Shamans, splatbook-having Rangers, and so on. If Wizards, CoDzilla, Artificers, and Archivist are the "top tier" and CWar Samurai, Monk, and Soulknife are the bottom tier, then ToB is balanced against the second and third tiers. (Out of, oh, five or six.)

They outperform anyone not optimized to huge effect. They come out of the box with a level of optimization that is, even for rogue or psychic warriors, only attainable through moderate optimization. They do not mtch CoDzilla, but were made for games heīs in. If they could match a Full Caster, that be bad - you know, because evey idiot could see where the power is. And that is bad, because in my experience, people always go for maximum power. Then, everyone would be batman. But a ToB-char can keep up with 90% of the builds. With a lot less effort put in. And shuts down all other "effortless" builds with lesser power. That cuts options.


As for the flavor and mechanics... well, you don't like the mechanics, but a whole lot of people do. Why? Because they're a hell of a lot more fun than just tripping and making AoOs. They give you options, resource management (in terms both of maneuvers and of swift/standard actions), and generally make things more fun. They also don't represent actual combat any more poorly than normal D&D mechanics do.
The flavor is fine. I think it's fairly interesting on its own right... and it's completely ignorable--I've yet to see the whole story with Reshar and the temples be integrated into a non-ToB-focused game The fluff is modular, and that's a good thing.

Tripping and AoO builds are stupid, just like most ToB effects. whereas the ToB effects are at least, shall we say, a little more flexible. Itīs not everyone always flopping around on the ground or similiar stupidity.
BUT - reflavouring ToB is homebrew. HOMEBREW. You know, that kind of stuff that could actually fix combat mechanics for more than three classes


Oh no! Classes with their own mechanics! How horrible!
Wait, the only class without a unique mechanic is the Fighter.

ToB maneuvers are NOT spell-like effects. The things they do and the things spells do are very, very different... beyond a small subset of maneuvers, which were designed to be magic-like. ToB covers both the Gritty, Super-Tough, Mundane Fighter and the chi-powered wuxia fighter. That's because it's flexible, part of why it's good. I can represent a lot more things well with the ToB classes than I can with Fighter, Monk, and Paladin.

Hell, even the Swordsage can cover both ends of the scale. I recall someone saying it on these boards before--a Swordsage makes a great gritty infighter using styles resembling kali (for two knives) and Muay Thai for fist/foot/elbow striking. Skip Burning/Searing blade and there won't be anything supernatural about it.

See - PAINTJOB. ToB has a semi-mundane paintjob, but gets resolved almost like spells. These are spell-like effects. Or if you want to divorce the mechanics from their origins - powers. See 4th ed.
Still, theyīre playing a game reserved for themselves, instead of making a fix available for everyone, and the play it almost like Wizards.

And that comparison by Rachel Lorelei? Bull****. On the one hand we have a reasonable Fighter build that wastes two Feats (Weapon Focus + Spec), on the other hand we have a Dwarf that dumps STR and CON in favor of Charisma and picks mediocre maneuvers.
While the Fighter is not optimal, the Warblade is intentionally gimped. Or, if we assume less hostile intent, the Warblade is unoptimized, while the Fighter is halfway there, meaning semi-optimized.

Thatīs no comparison, thatīs propaganda. Even if the warbalde is weaker. On low levels, you know. For a while. You know, before she totally owns the Fighters ****/is less useless. Except for a straight-out duel on flat ground, expect the Warblade to have the upper hand.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 04:31 AM
Re: All the stuff Reel On Love said

All of that work you put into the fighter puts him above the power level of a standard Warblade. Which actually proves my point. You have to whore out a fighter to put him at the same power level of a warblade. The exact same reason that monk is weaker than fighter is the reason that fighter is weaker than warblade.

It takes a greater amount of optimization to be on the same level of power.

Dhavaer
2007-12-04, 04:33 AM
Yeah right - but it might have been. 3rd Edition Psionics have nothing specifically Psionic about them.

Okay. 3rd edition magic has nothing specifically magical about it.



Ask anyone: Could 95% of the Psions powers be translated effortlessly (with less effort than a mundane reflavouring of ToB btw.) into Magic? Yes.

And 95% of spells could be translated into powers.

Brawls
2007-12-04, 05:46 AM
This does not make the Fighter a good or powerful class. There's a reason I think the Warblade is a better class in pretty much every way.
But it DOES mean that a Fighter can be a melee god on a level the Warblade just can't reach. The Warblade's advantages are mobility, flexibility, tactical options, defenses, team play, out-of-combat capabilitymore defenses--they are not Direct Melee Capability. The Warblade doesn't do the same thing and doesn't play the same. It's not a "Fighter replacement", it's a different class.


I'm currently in a campaign where I am multiclassing to fighter 6 /warblade 1 from a pure fighter build. My character is hardly optimized, having several feats that provided benefit early in the game but now are only useful in limited circumstances. Some I took for RP flavor, which is just fine with me, some represent less than optimized planning. The group I play with does not optimize and my fighter at level 6 still is the dominant party member in combat (rest of the party consists or a Rogue, Bard, and Sorcerer). In fact, even unoptimized I feel I can add my initial Diamond Mind manuevers from warblade to shore up some of the melee classes weaknesses (will & reflex saves) and still be a dominating force. I like the ToB's flexibility that I can continue to take specialized manuevers and stances and still have a tactical, experienced fighter as my core concept for flavor and RP.



Warblades get 4 bonus feats from a sharply limited list, and have appealing feats like Extra Readied Maneuver and Adaptive Style that they can take. What's more, their maneuvers further restrict their feat choices--for example, if the Warblade isn't focusing on White Raven he'll never have Shock Trooper: you can't use Strikes at the end of charges. I thought I read on the Wizard's boards that the Warblade has access to all the bonus feats a fighter gains access to, only he is considered a fighter of two levels lower for feats with level qualifications?

Brawls

brian c
2007-12-04, 05:55 AM
I thought I read on the Wizard's boards that the Warblade has access to all the bonus feats a fighter gains access to, only he is considered a fighter of two levels lower for feats with level qualifications?

Brawls

Warblades can access fighter-specific feats, such as Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, etc, with an effective fighter level equal to their Warblade level -2. However, the list of Warblade bonus feats is much smaller than the list of Fighter bonus feats.

AslanCross
2007-12-04, 06:01 AM
I thought I read on the Wizard's boards that the Warblade has access to all the bonus feats a fighter gains access to, only he is considered a fighter of two levels lower for feats with level qualifications?

Brawls

The Warblade has its own bonus feat list. A Warblade can qualify for limited fighter feats (such as the Weapon Specialization tree). This is actually good for the Warblade, because he can use his Weapon Aptitude to shift his feats to apply to another weapon.

EDIT: Wow, I literally got Ninja'd this time.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 06:03 AM
Ah, warblades and their EWP : whatever I feel like today

almost makes EWP worth taking.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:03 AM
Now try again, but actually take manuevers from the Swordsage restricted styles. I challenge you to demonstrate the same style with Desert Wind and Shadow Hand schools.
Um. Why? That's like saying "I challenge you to show me a strong warrior who smashes things with his greatsword, with a high Dex and Weapon Finesse."
If I want to play a "mundane" gritty Swordsage, I don't take Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. My point was that the class, and ToB as a whole, lets you make all kinds of melee characters, from "gritty mundane infighter" to "Errol Flynn-movie swashbuckler" to "Exalted-style glowing guy who throws around his chi and leaps from tree to tree".

I can show you how to take Desert Wind and Shadow hand without making it Wuxia, though: "It's arcane magic." Support for that is already partially built in to the Swordsage (check their level 7 ability). Now suddenly they have the same flavor as Duskblades and Hideous Blow or Eldritch Glaive using Warlock builds and all that jazz.



But I think it's pretty clear where WotC intends to be going with this change. They want people to be able to grab abilities on a whim and still have a generally effective character. Having your character totally dependant on extra feats is for experienced gamers, who will know enough not to shoot themselves in the foot even if they hate optimizing; while new system is aimed at Little Johnny, who grabs whatever looks shiny.
Take a look at the core Fighter's options--the feats that look shiny are pretty much the ones you're doing pretty well to take.

Note the way 4th edition fighters are going to have to choose certain weapon 'paths' and stick to them. It's the same thing again; explicitly bad choices--taking contradictory things from different paths that can't be used together, say--is prevented, or at least made more difficult to do by mistake. Little Johnny is less likely to trip over his ability selections.


Yeah, sure -- at low levels. That's what that post is focusing on. At slightly higher levels, though, when the Warblade can take better maneuvers while the Fighter meets the prerequisites for exactly nothing? Yeah. You're going to have to give me a more detailed explaination of how exactly you think the Fighter can stand up then.
It's not that easy. Build a Warblade wrong, and you won't qualify for a lot of good higher-level maneuvers. An unoptimized Warblade might have most of the maneuvers from one school and a bunch from another. These maneuvers won't work with each other or with his feats.
The Fighter will, just by taking the obvious fighter choices (focus/spec/greater focus/greater spec/etc) work his way up a chain. If somebody is SO poor at making a character that they can't manage to pick up Combat Expertise or Power Attack.

The prereqs for Shock Trooper are just Power Attack and Improved Bullrush, for Elusive Target just Dodge and Mobility, for Combat Brute just Power Attack and Imp. Sunder. C'mon, newbie or not, odds are a player's gonna have one of those. Then he can take whatever looks good. When I see people who don't know how to optimize, they generally take Power Attack/Cleave/sometimes Great Cleave, one or two Improved Xs, and the Weapon Focus/Spec line. Those'll make for a fighter who's not going to do much worse than a Warblade with crappy maneuver choices.

If you get into, I dunno, level 20... why is a newbie playing at level 20? They're going to be screwed no matter what they play. Sure, at that point the Warblade taking one particular school all the way up is going to be better off than the fighter, but by that point the player will have 20 levels of game experience--that's a lot of playtime. By then they'll have noticed "man, I suck! I can't do anything!" and they'll have talked to their buddies, or gone to CharOp, or just started figuring stuff out.

Until the mid-high levels, Warblades and Fighters are about as newbie-friendly. Someone who has no clue what they're doing is going to suck either way.



Yeah right - but it might have been. 3rd Edition Psionics have nothing specifically Psionic about them. Ask anyone: Could 95% of the Psions powers be translated effortlessly (with less effort than a mundane reflavouring of ToB btw.) into Magic? Yes.
Um, "specifically psionic"? How would you make "specifically psionic" mechanics? Psionics is just another word for Wacky Supernatural Powers. And what on earth does that have to do with "3.5 psionics is playtesting for 4E!!"?


ToM and the Warlock were other mechanics thrown into the ring for this. They appear in supplements and were new mechanics. With ToM, Incarnum or EPH there were even entire supllements dedicated to it. And ToM and Incarnum werenīt even required to correct some error - they introduced new ideas. 1 year before the announcement of 4th ed development in the case of ToM. Yeah right.
They were a playtest. Good odeas get recycled, things like Incarnum, which never caught on, drop.
Uh, or maybe they were just introducing new things because that's how they sell more books. Of COURSE they're looking at what worked well and what didn't--why would they want to carry over things that worked poorly? That doesn't mean the systems were a playtest. It definitely doesn't mean they were designed as one.


Argh.......but they do get feedback on cons, in Forums, or can pick up general trends. ToB has had rave reviews from many newer and younger gamers, ToM rarely sees play, Incarnum totally dropped, people are salivating over the MIC. Psionics are considered alright and used occasionally, and have a devoted following of people, many of which are dissatisfied with Vancian casting as a whole. Thatīs feedback. They can work with that.
ToB has had rave reviews from a lot of older and experienced players, as well. Do NOT pull out the "hurr, ToB is anime stuff for the kiddies" strawman. ToM had rave reviews from precisely the kind of people who post on forums.

I'm not actually sure what your point is. Of course they're going to be more likely to keep highly successful things than unsuccessful things. Are you suggesting they should do the opposite? That doesn't mean that the heathen masses are going to ruin your precious game. And, heck--when playtesters told them "keep the monk alignment restrictions!" they basically decided "no, the playtesters are just plain wrong here"... as they were.


And no, these Desginers do not all convince me. Mike Mearls for example, is hugely overrated, and pushing the power acceleration in almost anything he does. MIC is power creep, and decent handling of the f****** DMG guidelines would have yielded some results ("Eternal wands", *blearch*) much earlier.
I don't think you understand power creep. You want power creep, look at RIFTS. The DMG guidelines are worse than MIC items, and MIC items are as a whole very well done. They make the game better. Does everybody want a Healing Belt at lower levels? Hell, yes! Why? Because constantly running out of HP at low levels--and just imagine, if you don't have a cleric--isn't fun. The item isn't overpowered, it's fixing a basic flaw in the game.

Eternal wands are not power creep. Oh, and they're not MIC-original, they're from Eberron (just like Changelings and Warforged were in the MM3, y'know?).

The two worst things in the MIC are the Belt of Battle (which is *strong*, but isn't going to *break your game*) and the Vest of Lolhax (which costs 200,000 gp, so it doesn't come into until it doesn't even matter anymore).
Compare that with Core's worst offenders... the Candle of Invocation (literally gamebreaking) and... what? Greater Metamagic Rod (Quicken)? Rod of Absorption? No, here it is--the Mirror of Opposition.



But oh, itīs use-activated-item-of-true-strike-OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!111eleven
Yeah, Core isnīt balanced, but some people definitely not being mature and clever enough to handle it doesnīt help. That includes some WotC designers, btw. have you ever read the rant why keen and imp-critical should stack? That guy is right. He is a WotC designer. He got shot down by his compatriots (Eric Monaīs name gets dropped as well).
Sure, Keen should probably stack with Imp. Crit. That's a very small matter; critical multiplying/extending effects were nerfed because of 3.0's huge mess with bladed gauntlets, Vorpal, Weapon Master, etc. I can't help but think that that's totally irrelevant to the high quality of the MIC's design. Seriously, read the Design and Development articles: they figured out the biggest problems with core magic item "design", and figured out what to do about it. "Allow people to add stat boosts/AC boosts to existing items!" isn't power creep, it's fixing a design problem: there are tons and and tons of magic items NO ONE EVER USES, because they NEED their stat/AC/save boosters! Allowing people to add +2 DEX to their Gloves of Whatever isn't going to make them MORE powerful, it'll just make them more interesting to play--they'd be buying something else with that gold, after all. Or saving it for another stat or AC booster.

As for "OMFG USE ACTIVATED ITEM OF TRUE STRIKE," god, who the hell cares? Wow, you can swift-action True Strike once or twice a day! WOOOOO! Oh, wait. That's not actually a big deal.


They outperform anyone not optimized to huge effect. They come out of the box with a level of optimization that is, even for rogue or psychic warriors, only attainable through moderate optimization. They do not mtch CoDzilla, but were made for games heīs in. If they could match a Full Caster, that be bad - you know, because evey idiot could see where the power is. And that is bad, because in my experience, people always go for maximum power. Then, everyone would be batman. But a ToB-char can keep up with 90% of the builds. With a lot less effort put in. And shuts down all other "effortless" builds with lesser power. That cuts options.
The problem with this is, once again, you made it up. Your posts make it obvious that you do NOT understand game balance very well, and you have provided NO basis for your opinion.

You want an unoptimized Warblade 15? Here it is:
Feats: EWP(Bastard Sword), Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave, Imp. Critical.
Maneuvers:
1: Douse the Flames, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Steely Strike, Stone Bones. Stonefoot Stance
2: Sudden Leap
3: Tactical Strike
4: Leading the Charge stance, Stone Bones ->Claw at the Moon
5: Exorcism of Steel ("Dude! That sounds so freaking sweet!")
6: Steely Strike -> Flesh Ripper ("Dude! Hardcore!")
7: Mind Strike ("I hit him in the MIND!")
8: Sapphire Nightmare Blade -> Fountain of Blood ("Dude! EVEN MORE hardcore!")
9: Elder Mountain Hammer
10: Sudden Leap -> Pouncing Charge. Giant's Stance.
11: War Leader's Charge
12: Claw at the Moon -> Moment of Alacrity ("Manticore Parry sounds cool, but I can't take it... this thing gives +TWENTY! DUDE!")
13: Avalanche of Blades!
14: Mind Strike -> Ancient Mountain Mammer!
15: Adamantine Bones. DR 20!

That. Character. Sucks. He sucks at least as bad as an unoptimized fighter picking stuff by coolness, or an unoptimized psychic warrior, or an unoptimized archery ranger (who at least has his archery feats and a bow).

And before you say something? No, that is not actively DE-optimized. If I wanted to do that, I'd show you a build that takes the worst maneuvers at every level and makes itself unable to qualify for higher level ones.

Your opinions of Tome of Battle are totally baseless. You've yet to support ANY of them. Well, I just showed you a level 15 Warblade. Yeah, I'd love to see that character go up against an Adult Red Dragon... a Planetar... a Nighwalker... a Horned Devil... hell, an Adept 16 NPC.


Tripping and AoO builds are stupid, just like most ToB effects. whereas the ToB effects are at least, shall we say, a little more flexible. Itīs not everyone always flopping around on the ground or similiar stupidity.
BUT - reflavouring ToB is homebrew. HOMEBREW. You know, that kind of stuff that could actually fix combat mechanics for more than three classes
No, "homebrew" is working up new mechanics. It's NOT dropping the fluff, which is something people do all the time. It requires all of zero effort. There was no guy named Regdar and in fact ignore that history chapter. DONE.
If you're talking about reflavoring the maneuvers... um, NO, that's not homebrew. That's not even "dropping the fluff", because the maneuvers HAVE no fluff beyond their effects. Something like "Wolf Fang Strike" is an out-of-game name. The book itself says that different groups call their maneuvers different things. What Wolf Fang Strike DOES is... it lets you move up to someone, try to hit them, and then try to hit them again with your other hand.
Gosh, that sounds just like that Fighter feat, Two-Weapon Pounce.
"Burning Blade" makes your weapons be on fire for a bit. Don't think that suits your character? Don't take the maneuver, you have like ten other choices!

What I was talking about was how you describe your actions. I can describe Sapphire Nightmare Blade as my character yelling "SAPPHIRE NIGHTMARE BLAAAAADE!" and his sword leaving a blue flash of light as he executes GGXX Johnny's Mist Finer move... or I can describe it as my character ducking under his enemy's arm and hitting him with an elbow in the face.
It's just like you can describe your "full attack, one attack hit, three missed" as two parries followed by a feint and a lunge, or as four giant smashes of my sword complete with action lines.


As for "fixing" the Fighter, WotC can't do that. You think ToB caused an outcry? Imagine if they'd "errataed" the fighter. "OH MY GOD WHAT THE HELL! THIS IS RIDICULOUS/STUPID/ETC! THEY ARE CATERING TO POWER GAMERS I AM LEAVING 4EVER!!!"

Tripping and AoOs are stupid.... just like most ToB effects, although you have yet to give ANY explanation as to why.


See - PAINTJOB. ToB has a semi-mundane paintjob, but gets resolved almost like spells. These are spell-like effects. Or if you want to divorce the mechanics from their origins - powers. See 4th ed.
Still, theyīre playing a game reserved for themselves, instead of making a fix available for everyone, and the play it almost like Wizards.
No, I don't see the "PAINTJOB". No, maneuvers do not get resolved like spells any more than feats do.

ToB can be used to build characters you then describe as doing Wuxia things, whose maneuvers have wuxia effects. It can also be used to build iron-tough samurai, arcane-magic-wielding warrior-mages, pirate-movie swashbucklers, blood-and-guts mundane soldiers, warrior-leader tacticians, and gritty street brawlers. Just pick the right maneuvers and add a bit of description (you know, the same kind of description you use when your fighter attacks... unless you just say "I attack, Does an 18 hit?")

That's not "a mundane paintjob". That's "a fun, flexible set of mechanics suitable for a wide variety of games".

I think you just can't get past the fact that OMG THEY CALLED THEM MANEUVERS. And maneuvers are a kind of POWER. (You know--as opposed to feats.)

Edit: in fact, let's go over all the maneuvers I used to describe a "gritty scrapper" take on a Swordsage:
Wolf Fang Strike: You hit him. Then you hit him again. Wow, I can feel the arcane power exploding, here.
Sapphire Nightmare Blade: You focus, and hit him in a precise spot at a precise moment. HOLY CRAP, somebody cast Antimagic Field!
Counter Charge: You step out of the way of somebody's rush and push them past you. Judo is magic, REAL MAGIC!

My bad, I guess. I can totally see how those are the same as firing energy missiles from your fingertips, summoning a golden badger, and firing a burst of psychedelic colors that knocks people unconscious. ToB is ARCANE SPELLCASTING IN DISGUISE.
(Oh, wait. That's completely wrong.)


And that comparison by Rachel Lorelei? Bull****. On the one hand we have a reasonable Fighter build that wastes two Feats (Weapon Focus + Spec), on the other hand we have a Dwarf that dumps STR and CON in favor of Charisma and picks mediocre maneuvers.
While the Fighter is not optimal, the Warblade is intentionally gimped. Or, if we assume less hostile intent, the Warblade is unoptimized, while the Fighter is halfway there, meaning semi-optimized.
WTF? You're either incredibly biased, or you haven't seen new/mechanically-inexperienced players for years. That Fighter build (a) sucks (Forget Weapon Spec--EWP: Bastard sword?! Sword and board?! INT isn't 13, WIS IS 8 while CHA is 11) and (b) is, I swear to god, exactly--exactly--the sort of build I've seen again and again over the years from people who are new, don't care much about mechanics, or don't know how to optimize right.

The Warblade is NOT intentionally gimped. In fact, it's remarkably *un*gimped compared to the Fighter. New players don't dump CHA like experienced ones do--and putting a 12 in CHA is not "dumping STR and CON in favor of CHA". Furthermore, 15-14-14-14 is not a bad stat array for the Warblade, who is much less reliant on STR than the Fighter.
As for the maneuver choices... except for the lack of Moment of Perfect Mind (which won't be obvious to a newbie), those are close to optimal choices. Mountain hammer at 3rd level? . It's a toss-up between Mountain Hammer and Rabid Wolf Strike for the best 3rd-level pick, and a new player would probably avoid something that gives him a -4 AC penalty. Steel Wind, Charging Minotaur, Wall of Blades, and Stone Bones are all good picks for a Warblade at those levels. Sapphire Nightmare Blade isn't great but isn't bad. The only actually bad choice is Stonefoot Stance (which still isn't all that bad, since it combines with Charging Minotaur well and ogres are very common level 3/4 enemies).


Thatīs no comparison, thatīs propaganda. Even if the warblade is weaker. On low levels, you know. For a while. You know, before she totally owns the Fighters ****/is less useless. Except for a straight-out duel on flat ground, expect the Warblade to have the upper hand.
Reading the thread, the post was a response to arguments that "it's OK that ToB is better at high levels, but it's bad because it makes Fighters totally suck in comparison at LOW levels". When that was disproven, the cry of "no, we mean UNOPTIMIZED fighters will suck in comparison at low levels".

"Dwarf taking a bunch of Stone Dragon stuff" is a perfectly reasonable choice for an unoptimized Warblade.
And at higher levels, it'll suck. At lower levels, it's okay, just like taking Weapon Focus/Spec, Cleave, and EWP(Bastard Sword) at lower level is okay.

Yes, the Warblade IS probably going to be better off at high levels. So what? "Fighter sucks at high levels" is common knowledge, and the unoptimized Warblade will not be doing well.

You seem to think that ToB is some kind of magic salve that lets you stay up to par with a "Batman Wizard" without any optimization.
You're wrong. Thinking that shows that you've never played with the ToB and you're bad at analyzing mechanics, you've never read through the ToB, or you have no idea of what a Batman Wizard can do.

Fully optimized ToB characters still can't keep up with optimized spellcasters. They do keep up with optimized Psychic Warriors, Rogues, Rangers, Favored Souls, Spirit Shamans, etc... which is good. It's exactly as it should be.

Meanwhile, unoptimized ToB characters are going to suck. They will suck, as with everyone else, more or less, depending on just how unoptimized they are. Someone who has no clue what they're doing will suck more than someone trying to optimize in a misguided fashion ("Monkey Grip! All the maneuvers that add damage dice, as many big ones as I can get!") will suck more than someone who actually knows what they're doing.




Re: All the stuff Reel On Love said

All of that work you put into the fighter puts him above the power level of a standard Warblade. Which actually proves my point. You have to whore out a fighter to put him at the same power level of a warblade. The exact same reason that monk is weaker than fighter is the reason that fighter is weaker than warblade.

It takes a greater amount of optimization to be on the same level of power.
Where are you getting that? That Fighter isn't at the same power level as a Warblade: in melee, he's vastly better than any Warblade I, at least, can build in melee... in fact, he's broken. He destroys any melee opposition within five levels in one to two rounds, by himself. (The "unoptimized warblades are still great! Much better than unoptimized fighters/psywars/rogues/etc!" thing, I think I blew away above.)

My point was that my pimped-out Fighter blows a Warblade away in melee, to show that no, Warblades existing does NOT mean no one has any reason to play a Fighter.

Keep in mind that "there are reasons to play a Fighter" is not the same thing as "the two classes are equally well balanced". The Warblade isn't just better designed, he's better balanced... which includes being more powerful than the Fighter (after a certain level, at least. Probably 9 or so, maybe not until 11).
I'm not arguing that the Fighter is just as powerful as the Warblade at all levels.
I'm arguing that when you say "There is really no reason to be a fighter, monk, or paladin if Tome of Battle is being used in a game.", you are WRONG.
Well, you're right about the monk.
But you're wrong about the other core classes. I think I showed that pretty well by pointing out things the core classes could do better than the Tome of Battle classes--and in the Fighter's case, that includes dirty feat-synergy whoring for absolute melee power. There are other things I could have mentioned (like archery), too.

Capiche?

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-04, 06:13 AM
Well. you're right on at least one point. Warblades aren't superior to fighter in the 1-9 level range. Which is half the game, so maybe you have a point.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 06:28 AM
Well. you're right on at least one point. Warblades aren't superior to fighter in the 1-9 level range. Which is half the game, so maybe you have a point.

And while they may be superior defensively and mobility-wise, they don't become superior offense-wise until level, oh 15 or 16, when they're tossing around White Raven Hammer, Diamond Nightmare Blade, and Swooping Dragon Strike.

Sure. For the last five levels, the Warblade is all-around better than the Fighter.
He'd bloody well better be! All the other decent classes are.


"There's no point in playing a Fighter/monk/paladin if the ToB is availible" is a really strong statement that is in no way borne out by the numbers and facts.

Nebo_
2007-12-04, 06:42 AM
Re: All the stuff Reel On Love said

All of that work you put into the fighter puts him above the power level of a standard Warblade. Which actually proves my point. You have to whore out a fighter to put him at the same power level of a warblade. The exact same reason that monk is weaker than fighter is the reason that fighter is weaker than warblade.

It takes a greater amount of optimization to be on the same level of power.

Did you actually read that? He was saying that the fighter is far, far more powerful.

Edit: I got ninja'd by, like, a whole page of thread. Damn.

Kioran
2007-12-04, 10:07 AM
It's not that easy. Build a Warblade wrong, and you won't qualify for a lot of good higher-level maneuvers. An unoptimized Warblade might have most of the maneuvers from one school and a bunch from another. These maneuvers won't work with each other or with his feats.
The Fighter will, just by taking the obvious fighter choices (focus/spec/greater focus/greater spec/etc) work his way up a chain. If somebody is SO poor at making a character that they can't manage to pick up Combat Expertise or Power Attack.

The prereqs for Shock Trooper are just Power Attack and Improved Bullrush, for Elusive Target just Dodge and Mobility, for Combat Brute just Power Attack and Imp. Sunder. C'mon, newbie or not, odds are a player's gonna have one of those. Then he can take whatever looks good. When I see people who don't know how to optimize, they generally take Power Attack/Cleave/sometimes Great Cleave, one or two Improved Xs, and the Weapon Focus/Spec line. Those'll make for a fighter who's not going to do much worse than a Warblade with crappy maneuver choices.

If you get into, I dunno, level 20... why is a newbie playing at level 20? They're going to be screwed no matter what they play. Sure, at that point the Warblade taking one particular school all the way up is going to be better off than the fighter, but by that point the player will have 20 levels of game experience--that's a lot of playtime. By then they'll have noticed "man, I suck! I can't do anything!" and they'll have talked to their buddies, or gone to CharOp, or just started figuring stuff out.

Until the mid-high levels, Warblades and Fighters are about as newbie-friendly. Someone who has no clue what they're doing is going to suck either way.

But the Warblade has extensive options for retraining and can repick his maneuvers every three levels. A Fighter cannot, at least without UA retraining rules. So you could pick your maneuvers and stances specifically for the Tier youīre playing in (Punishing stance is solid in the beginning, and sucks later on - for example).
Fighters are stuck with stuff like Weapon spesh which is okayish in the beginning, but starts to suck very soon.


Um, "specifically psionic"? How would you make "specifically psionic" mechanics? Psionics is just another word for Wacky Supernatural Powers. And what on earth does that have to do with "3.5 psionics is playtesting for 4E!!"?

No, it isnīt. There are a few more powers focusing on mind domination or the idea of "mind over matter", but many of these are analogues of Arcane spells, and even openly admit it. You have magic transparency. But, worst of all:

Dorjes. The name alone drives me to fits, but thatīs beside the point. Point is, they are wands, and I know of no Psionic stories including wands. Same with scrolls. Itīs a veiled playtest to replace magic and has done so for a while with some groups. Doesnīt mean itīs bad, but it was clearly built as a replacement.



Uh, or maybe they were just introducing new things because that's how they sell more books. Of COURSE they're looking at what worked well and what didn't--why would they want to carry over things that worked poorly? That doesn't mean the systems were a playtest. It definitely doesn't mean they were designed as one.

There is a difference between, say, Complete adventurer and ToM. ToM introduces new mechanics, and seeing it was introduced so late, clearly with the aim of evaluating them for later use. Notice that none of these really, all new books have been published since a few months prior to the 4th Ed announcement.
As said, itīs not a capitalism rant, Itīs just that these are in-vivo playtests. Doesnīt mean I canīt enjoy them. In fact, ARSS (Axelistisches Rollenspielsystem, a homebrew of mine) was a two-year playtest, involving my friends. It was never quite finished, but was thoroughly enjoyed after two months.
Still a playtest, though.


ToB has had rave reviews from a lot of older and experienced players, as well. Do NOT pull out the "hurr, ToB is anime stuff for the kiddies" strawman. ToM had rave reviews from precisely the kind of people who post on forums.

I'm not actually sure what your point is. Of course they're going to be more likely to keep highly successful things than unsuccessful things. Are you suggesting they should do the opposite? That doesn't mean that the heathen masses are going to ruin your precious game. And, heck--when playtesters told them "keep the monk alignment restrictions!" they basically decided "no, the playtesters are just plain wrong here"... as they were.

I do think that thewseplaytesters arenīt the best ones around. See that article about "a blanket +2 to saves" "not being sexy enough". So Yeah, thatīs not the heathen masses, thatīs bad playtesting. And I do think ToB is more popular among younger gamers, but not necessarily because itīs immature or Animwe (clarification: I do thorughly enjoy anime, and I am still young. I just think ToB sucks).


I don't think you understand power creep. You want power creep, look at RIFTS. The DMG guidelines are worse than MIC items, and MIC items are as a whole very well done. They make the game better. Does everybody want a Healing Belt at lower levels? Hell, yes! Why? Because constantly running out of HP at low levels--and just imagine, if you don't have a cleric--isn't fun. The item isn't overpowered, it's fixing a basic flaw in the game.

Eternal wands are not power creep. Oh, and they're not MIC-original, they're from Eberron (just like Changelings and Warforged were in the MM3, y'know?).

Eternal wands were there since the DMG. The original authors of core are not responsible for people being too moronic to realize you can, in fact, build a command word activated items with 2 daily uses for 720*CL*Spell level.
Hooyah. With the eternal wands, you even pay idiot tax of 30 GP. So no, they ainīt broken. Itīs just disappointing that people need such items spelled out and then wonders why these are "wands" you do not even need to know the spells for. Bang up job.
Healing belts are power creep. But necessary. With the shorter Lifespans of characters in combat due to increased offensive of everything, you need people to focus on things besides healing. Still, I dislike them, and they have no place in an unoptimized game.


The two worst things in the MIC are the Belt of Battle (which is *strong*, but isn't going to *break your game*) and the Vest of Lolhax (which costs 200,000 gp, so it doesn't come into until it doesn't even matter anymore).
Compare that with Core's worst offenders... the Candle of Invocation (literally gamebreaking) and... what? Greater Metamagic Rod (Quicken)? Rod of Absorption? No, here it is--the Mirror of Opposition.

I know. Itīs not single broken items. Itīs a general increase in power usable by every moron around, and it replaces more flavorful and clever items.


Sure, Keen should probably stack with Imp. Crit. That's a very small matter; critical multiplying/extending effects were nerfed because of 3.0's huge mess with bladed gauntlets, Vorpal, Weapon Master, etc. I can't help but think that that's totally irrelevant to the high quality of the MIC's design. Seriously, read the Design and Development articles: they figured out the biggest problems with core magic item "design", and figured out what to do about it. "Allow people to add stat boosts/AC boosts to existing items!" isn't power creep, it's fixing a design problem: there are tons and and tons of magic items NO ONE EVER USES, because they NEED their stat/AC/save boosters! Allowing people to add +2 DEX to their Gloves of Whatever isn't going to make them MORE powerful, it'll just make them more interesting to play--they'd be buying something else with that gold, after all. Or saving it for another stat or AC booster.

As for "OMFG USE ACTIVATED ITEM OF TRUE STRIKE," god, who the hell cares? Wow, you can swift-action True Strike once or twice a day! WOOOOO! Oh, wait. That's not actually a big deal.

My gripe is not with these things in the MIC - itīs with people too stupid to use waht is in the DMG. the DMG, you know. You can already stack magic properties on top of another for a 50% increase. That people need it spelled out for them is depressing.
And the Use-activated item of true strike is a generic straw man against the Item Creation Guidelines because it can give you a +20 to all attack rolls for 2000 GP. Iīm not even talking about whatever MIC-gimmick you mean, because itīs not a use activated items of true strike.



The problem with this is, once again, you made it up. Your posts make it obvious that you do NOT understand game balance very well, and you have provided NO basis for your opinion.

I do not make things up. You can use your Warblade as a stupid Fighter. You can dump Cha and INT to make him charging meatsack, just like the Fighter. You can not do three dirty tricks, but you do two. You can build a red-cloud warblade. It will take a little longer, but can be done. Just build him like a stupid Fighter. Sure, that will make him a worse Warblade, but he still can copy the Fighter, has better HD, and still has maneuvers to fall back on. Heīs probably 5% worse than the Fighter in a direct confrontation, but can, under almost all other condition (i.e. fighting in difficult terrain) hand him his ass. And if not, you still have IHS and Stances, and stand better chances in all situation where red cloud overkill doesnīt help.

Racher Lorelei Warblade was played as intended - using maneuver progression so you can be effective without being a meatsack, but a meatsack warblade can almost match a Fighter at low lvls - heīs only missing at lvl 4, but has 5 additional HP and skills, even things like Balance. A Warblade is not really MAD - unless you want to play him as intended. Play him as a meatsack with maneuvers, and many MAD issues disappear.
Thatīs why the comparison sucked. They were never on equal footing.



Capiche?

Most emphatically not.

Fawsto
2007-12-04, 10:42 AM
Tome of Battle isn't an all broken book at all... We just find it so because the classes outmatch the previews meleers easily. Broken? Not at all... Druids are Broken, ToB isn't!

ok, but can't a Fighter take 1 level in warblade or the feats that allows him to use manouvers and stances and use the rest of the feats to go for a "melee style" or "battlefield control" modes?

Would it Still suck?

Btw, a Paladin, charging smite of course, couldn't simply focus on Divine Feats to improve herself in combat and become a good meleer? I mean using divine power to bolster himself in combat would look, for anyone passing by, very similar to what a Crusader does. For Example, let's assume a lvl 20 Pally with a 22 Cha Score and 18 Con Score, ok? He casts Divine Shield, meaning +6 divine bonus to his shield. By lvl 20, if his shield does is not a + 10, now it is, for 10 rounds. He moves a little back, and in next turn, Divine Vigor, meaning 19d10 + 80 (con score) + 10 (first lvl dice) + 40 = 230 average HP for him, for 6 minutes; also + 10 feet movement as bonus. Them he strikes all enemies with full attacks dealing + 6 damage. Not even close to the damage output of a Caster or a Martial Adept, but still decent. Ok, a Cleric can do the same and do better, but this is the closest thing I can imagine working for a pally... Also, one or 2 Extra Turnings to keep him fueled.

Is he still SO underpowered compared to a lvl 20 Crusader? Ok, the obvious thing is that the Crusader needs no fuel, but the Pally also has spells (considering the use of Draconic Might, things can get nasty), and as a Charging Smiter, can deal more damage with his Smite attempts... Dunno... I am still reluctant in adopting the ToB... I don't want to simply neglect the existance of the good n' old (or not so good) Fighters, Paladins, Monks and Barbarians...

Sorry to bring it to the Pallys side, but I am a Fan, so I always want to improve them as much as I can. Crusaders are nice, indeed, but I still favor the Paragon of Good.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 11:14 AM
But the Warblade has extensive options for retraining and can repick his maneuvers every three levels. A Fighter cannot, at least without UA retraining rules. So you could pick your maneuvers and stances specifically for the Tier youīre playing in (Punishing stance is solid in the beginning, and sucks later on - for example).
Fighters are stuck with stuff like Weapon spesh which is okayish in the beginning, but starts to suck very soon.
Fighters pick up Greater Weapon Specialization later, and then Melee Weapon Mastery, and then Weapon Supremacy. And, y'know, those aren't great, but they're OK. Pretty good, even, with MWM.

The Warblade does NOT have "extensive options for retraining". He can swap out a maneuver for a new one every other level. That means that a Warblade who screwed himself prerequisites-wise can undo it, over 3 or 4 levels... and then be behind in terms of high-level maneuvers and of disciplines known.
And regardless of that, swapping out old maneuvers doesn't help you if you keep picking bad ones. Oh, and he CAN'T swap out stances: pick Punishing Stance at level 1 or 4 and you're stuck with it forever.

You have no point, here. I've provided you with builds that prove you wrong; all you're doing is insisting you have to be right. Why? I don't know--you've never tried to back it up.

I showed you an unoptimized Level 15 Warblade build, and pointed out why it sucked. I also pointed out that this was just *un*optimized, not actively *de*optimized. What's your counterpoint? "He can swap his maneuvers out"? If he'd been swapping them out for the best ones availible, then he wouldn't be unoptimized, now would he? He can start trying to correct the error now, but that means he needs to waste levels and maneuvers qualifying for, say, White Raven Hammer, or Diamond Nightmare Blade. And you know something? Even if the character took Diamond Nighmare Blade, it'd still suck. It can't stand up to CR-appropriate challenges. Being a Warblade doesn't magically rescue it from that fate.
You really need to accept that "it doesn't take any optimization to make a ToB character good" is a total myth. I just showed you an example.


No, it isnīt. There are a few more powers focusing on mind domination or the idea of "mind over matter", but many of these are analogues of Arcane spells, and even openly admit it. You have magic transparency. But, worst of all:

Dorjes. The name alone drives me to fits, but thatīs beside the point. Point is, they are wands, and I know of no Psionic stories including wands. Same with scrolls. Itīs a veiled playtest to replace magic and has done so for a while with some groups. Doesnīt mean itīs bad, but it was clearly built as a replacement.
You're paranoid.
But that aside, I don't know of any magic stories involving a mage creating a rainbow pattern that hypnotizes people; does that mean Hypnotic Pattern isn't really arcane?
D&D psionics is its own thing. It works a lot like arcane magic because that was a good model to base it on--they tried different things with it in previous editions, and they didn't work.
Dorjes work like wands, yes. Why? Because wands are a good mechanic.. Some powers are analogues of useful spells.

Psionics are not inteded to REPLACE magic, because they're also meant to function in games TOGETHER. That's what the transparency rules are for! What's more, "arcane psionics", the Spell Point variant, was introduced in Arcana Unearthed. It, and psionics, have nothing to do with 4E from anything we know about it.

You need to understand the different between "more options" and "made as a replacement". That's like saying the Spellthief or Scout were in CAdv so they could be playtested as Rogue replacements... rather as, you know, extra options.


There is a difference between, say, Complete adventurer and ToM. ToM introduces new mechanics, and seeing it was introduced so late, clearly with the aim of evaluating them for later use. Notice that none of these really, all new books have been published since a few months prior to the 4th Ed announcement.
As said, itīs not a capitalism rant, Itīs just that these are in-vivo playtests. Doesnīt mean I canīt enjoy them. In fact, ARSS (Axelistisches Rollenspielsystem, a homebrew of mine) was a two-year playtest, involving my friends. It was never quite finished, but was thoroughly enjoyed after two months.
Still a playtest, though.
Complete Adventurer (or was it CArc or CDivine?) introduced new mechanics--Swift and Immediate actions.
ToM introduces new mechanics because they'd already done so much with the old ones. When you say "clearly with the aim of evaluating them for later use", it's "clear" only to you--rational people who don't think everything is a conspiracy know better. You have zero evidence besides "IT'S A NEW MECHANIC!"
Know what else was a new mechanic? Relics. I guess Complete Divine was a playtest.
Oh, wait.
"New mechanic" does not equal "playtest for 4E". It equals "new stuff to sell a book about the new stuff."


I do think that thewseplaytesters arenīt the best ones around. See that article about "a blanket +2 to saves" "not being sexy enough". So Yeah, thatīs not the heathen masses, thatīs bad playtesting. And I do think ToB is more popular among younger gamers, but not necessarily because itīs immature or Animwe (clarification: I do thorughly enjoy anime, and I am still young. I just think ToB sucks).
If ToB is more popular among younger gamers, it's because the older ones are set in their ways.
You have yet to express a single good reason ToB sucks that wasn't easily debunked. You have yet to counter a single point about its mechanics--for example, that they don't work like spells, and that they can easily represent gritty mundane fighters.
Please, try backing some of your statements up for once.


Eternal wands were there since the DMG. The original authors of core are not responsible for people being too moronic to realize you can, in fact, build a command word activated items with 2 daily uses for 720*CL*Spell level.
Hooyah. With the eternal wands, you even pay idiot tax of 30 GP. So no, they ainīt broken. Itīs just disappointing that people need such items spelled out and then wonders why these are "wands" you do not even need to know the spells for. Bang up job.
2/day Command Word item is not the same thing as an Eternal Wand (for example, the Arcane restriction).
The guidelines in the DMG are also not good to use on their own. Why? Because they're so easy to break. You seem to be saying that those guidelines should be used instead of the MIC.
But you're wrong, because the guidelines in the DMG suck, and because tons of the cool stuff in the MIC can't be replicated that way (Runestaffs, for example. Or the various glove, boot, etc. abilities for melee characters. Or all the swift-action activation items.)


Healing belts are power creep. But necessary. With the shorter Lifespans of characters in combat due to increased offensive of everything, you need people to focus on things besides healing. Still, I dislike them, and they have no place in an unoptimized game.
No, they're not power creep. Patching a flaw isn't power creep. They have a BIG place in an unoptimized game: that's where players will need it. Healing is a major pain at low levels, especially when you have no cleric. The belt makes it much less frustrating and annoying. Optimizers will just buy a wand of Lesser Vigor.


I know. Itīs not single broken items. Itīs a general increase in power usable by every moron around, and it replaces more flavorful and clever items.
"Every moron around"? You've got an awfully low opinion of people who play D&D for someone who plays D&D. You have yet to show how the MIC is "a general increase in power".


My gripe is not with these things in the MIC - itīs with people too stupid to use waht is in the DMG. the DMG, you know. You can already stack magic properties on top of another for a 50% increase. That people need it spelled out for them is depressing.
And the Use-activated item of true strike is a generic straw man against the Item Creation Guidelines because it can give you a +20 to all attack rolls for 2000 GP. Iīm not even talking about whatever MIC-gimmick you mean, because itīs not a use activated items of true strike.
People aren't too stupid to use the DMG guidelines--they're too smart. Most DMs don't allow them, and rightfully so: they're broken. A use-activated True Strike item would be an example. Constant Lion's Charge another, and constant Wraithstrike another. There's plenty of other tricks, for all price ranges. The DMG guidelines don't work.

Stacking properties for a 50% increase is very different from what the MIC allows you to do. The 50% price increase makes adding some kind of stylish by minor effect to your cloak unfeasible--you should just save that 1500 gold and get a Ring of Protection +1 soon. If you can add the save boost to your cloak for no price increase, though... then those minor items get used.



I do not make things up. You can use your Warblade as a stupid Fighter. You can dump Cha and INT to make him charging meatsack, just like the Fighter. You can not do three dirty tricks, but you do two. You can build a red-cloud warblade. It will take a little longer, but can be done. Just build him like a stupid Fighter. Sure, that will make him a worse Warblade, but he still can copy the Fighter, has better HD, and still has maneuvers to fall back on. Heīs probably 5% worse than the Fighter in a direct confrontation, but can, under almost all other condition (i.e. fighting in difficult terrain) hand him his ass. And if not, you still have IHS and Stances, and stand better chances in all situation where red cloud overkill doesnīt help.
Stop talking about it and BUILD IT. What you're doing, here, is lying. You know this isn't true, because it's very easy to count feats: at level 6 a Warblade has 3 feats to the Fighter's 7, at level 12 it's 5 feats vs. 13, and so on. It won't take "a little longer"--a Warblade can't put together Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Dodge, Mobility, and Elusive Target until level 18, 15 if he's human. Meanwhile, the Fighter's got all of that at level 6. And at 9 he's added Combat Reflexes and Karmic Strike, and by 12 he's got Knockback and Combat Brute in there.
And, oh, yeah, "take a little longer"? When you're talking in terms of 3-9 levels, that's not "a little longer". That's a character who can't do his primary trick for game after game after game.

He can't hand the fighter his ass under all other conditions. That fighter would smear any Warblade into a red mist. Difficult terrain? Who cares, the Fighter's flying! Direct confrontation is most of what you DO in D&D. The Fighter has a broken offense the Warblade can't match, and broken counterattacks to make matters much, much worse.

Build a Warblade. At level 9, if he has Shock Trooper, he won't have Elusive Target and Karmic Strike, so he'll be vulnerable to counterattacks and get smashed by Power Attackers. If he has Elusive Target, he doesn't have Shock Trooper. You just can't do the things you can do with a Fighter.

The Warblade isn't "5% worse". He does HUNDREDS of damage less per turn. That's enormous. In the time the Warblade wounds one creature, the Fighter has killed them all.


Racher Lorelei Warblade was played as intended - using maneuver progression so you can be effective without being a meatsack, but a meatsack warblade can almost match a Fighter at low lvls - heīs only missing at lvl 4, but has 5 additional HP and skills, even things like Balance. A Warblade is not really MAD - unless you want to play him as intended. Play him as a meatsack with maneuvers, and many MAD issues disappear.
Thatīs why the comparison sucked. They were never on equal footing.

Playing a Warblade as a meatsack is a waste, because it quickly becomes less effective than a properly played Warblade. What is he "only missing at level 4", a feat? No, he's missing feats at levels 1 and 2 as well.

The comparison was two unoptimized characters. It was perfectly valid.

Fawsto
2007-12-04, 11:44 AM
I think I am growing old in D&D... After the past posts I am, kind of, astonished... But this doesn't matter...

Lets see my other points...

Again, sorry for the use of Pallys for Comparisson... I am to reapeat myself on this...

Have you ever noticed that Crusaders posess around 7 class features? Counting the ability to use stances, manouvers and recharging them as one: "Martial Adept". Well... Be astonished, but Paladins have around 10 class features, if you say that "Partial Caster" only counts as one. So why Crusaders are overwhelmingly better than Pallys, in the eyes of many?

The Answer: All Crusader class features do only one thing: They Kill opponents and make him rule in the Battlefield. That is what happens to any ToB classes, they are pure battlefield rulers. That is their sole pourpose. Paladins and Monks use a few class features to interact peacefully with the world while they can handle themselves in battle. It is ok.

The Problem here is the fighter and, pehaps the Barbarian. These 2 were made to rule the Battlefield, but they don't. Martial adepts rule combat. Meaning that the Fighter was poor designed. Ok, I am beating a dead horse here, everybody knows that.

But them, Martial Adepts are good in one solely thing: Kill. As the Fighter was intended to, but aren't as good as them.

Them, what is the diference between a Fighter and a Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage by the eyes of a Wizard? NONE. For the wizard all of them are combatents oriented to Kill everything in sight. The wizard, them, is plain better! At high levels a wizard can rule battlefield some times in a day, but he can do one thing a Martial Adept or fighter can't: He can Rule Pacific Interactions too.

You know what ToB did to Steel Vs. Spells? Nothing. Steel is still worse than magic, because magi is simply more versatile.

Thats why ToB isn't Broken. They can make steel as good as they want, magic will always be better. ToB classes aren't as Good as Casters, they are just better at fighting than the previews fighting classes. IMO, ToB, is irrelevant to class balance. It is meant to give you new options and help you to kill anything the wizard is to busy to kill.

streakster
2007-12-04, 11:48 AM
You know, I'm gonna avoid the whole power issue by bypassing it.

It's not the numbers that are important - common consensus has the monk as weaker than all other core classes (And no, we are not going to debate that here) but you know what? People still play monks. They don't care that they might not get their numbers as high as the rest of the party - if they equated high numbers with fun, they'd just play Pun-Pun or the Omniscifer. DnD isn't about doing as much damage as possible - it's about having fun with friends. This (http://www.geocities.com/whoisceres2/dndquotes.html) is the true spirit of DnD.

Take your very best optimized fighter, and multiply all his stats by - oh, I don't care - ten, say. Take an average Warblade or Swordsage, and make all their attacks half as powerful, or subtract ten from all their stats, or whatever.

I'll take the ToB character every time.

See, when I first tried the fighter, I got bored as heck. While a first-level magician (sorc, wiz, war, dru, clr, etc...) can do all sorts of neat things, my options as a fighter were "Hit it with a sword. Hit it with a bow. Hit it with an axe... " I now refuse to play any class that doesn't get at least partial casting, or some other magic mechanic, simply because being a fighter isn't fun. It's a boring feat-juggling exercise - you almost really need to go to Fighter College, ala Roy. My combat role could have been filled with a little sign that said "I hit it with my sword."

But a ToB melee character, much like the melee characters from the MUD GodWarsII, is fun. You have options - it's not just repetitive grinding to be a meat shield anymore.

Broken in terms of numbers, of stats, of whatever? I'll let others debate who has .01 more damage per second. But broken in terms of fun? Yeah, maybe. ToB shines over the fighter and the monk in terms of fun in every way possible.

Just my two cents, anyway...

VTC
2007-12-04, 12:02 PM
Streakster, I feel exactly the same way. You, sir, are awesome.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 12:10 PM
I
Again, sorry for the use of Pallys for Comparisson... I am to reapeat myself on this...

Have you ever noticed that Crusaders posess around 7 class features? Counting the ability to use stances, manouvers and recharging them as one: "Martial Adept". Well... Be astonished, but Paladins have around 10 class features, if you say that "Partial Caster" only counts as one. So why Crusaders are overwhelmingly better than Pallys, in the eyes of many?
Because not all class features are equal. "Spellcasting" is a class feature--you want to compare that to Cure Disease?


The Answer: All Crusader class features do only one thing: They Kill opponents and make him rule in the Battlefield. That is what happens to any ToB classes, they are pure battlefield rulers. That is their sole pourpose. Paladins and Monks use a few class features to interact peacefully with the world while they can handle themselves in battle. It is ok.
But that's not true. The Crusader gets Diplomacy, gets Mettle to resist spells, heals his allies, etc. With a Mountain Hammer maneuver, he carves passages through rock walls.


The Problem here is the fighter and, pehaps the Barbarian. These 2 were made to rule the Battlefield, but they don't. Martial adepts rule combat. Meaning that the Fighter was poor designed. Ok, I am beating a dead horse here, everybody knows that.

But them, Martial Adepts are good in one solely thing: Kill. As the Fighter was intended to, but aren't as good as them.
Read the last page or two in the thread. I pointed out a Fighter build that kills enemies dead so badly it's broken--far more effectively than a Martial Adept can. The Barbarian, likewise, is going to have a higher damage output at most levels than the Warblade.

What's more, all of the Martial Adepts are more versatile out of combat than the Fighter--the Swordsage has a buttload of skills, plus utility maneuvers like the teleports, the Warblade and Crusader have Diplomacy, the Warblade has a few other things.


Them, what is the diference between a Fighter and a Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage by the eyes of a Wizard? NONE. For the wizard all of them are combatents oriented to Kill everything in sight. The wizard, them, is plain better! At high levels a wizard can rule battlefield some times in a day, but he can do one thing a Martial Adept or fighter can't: He can Rule Pacific Interactions too.

You know what ToB did to Steel Vs. Spells? Nothing. Steel is still worse than magic, because magi is simply more versatile.
Martial Adepts can and do have social skills. And just because the most powerful classes in the game are spellcasters, that doesn't mean ToB did nothing.


Thats why ToB isn't Broken. They can make steel as good as they want, magic will always be better. ToB classes aren't as Good as Casters, they are just better at fighting than the previews fighting classes. IMO, ToB, is irrelevant to class balance. It is meant to give you new options and help you to kill anything the wizard is to busy to kill.
No, ToB isn't non-broken because magic is better. If that were the case, clerics wouldn't be broken because Archivists are worse. ToB isn't broken because of how it balances with the balanced classes.

The ToB classes *aren't* better at *fighting*.
They're better at mobility, at defending themselves and keeping themselves in the fight, at utility...
They aren't, however, better at pure fighting.

Aquillion
2007-12-04, 12:25 PM
No, it isnīt. There are a few more powers focusing on mind domination or the idea of "mind over matter", but many of these are analogues of Arcane spells, and even openly admit it. You have magic transparency. But, worst of all:

Dorjes. The name alone drives me to fits, but thatīs beside the point. Point is, they are wands, and I know of no Psionic stories including wands. Same with scrolls. Itīs a veiled playtest to replace magic and has done so for a while with some groups. Doesnīt mean itīs bad, but it was clearly built as a replacement.You're wrong. First, you have to understand how long psionics have been around; they've been in their current general system since pretty early in 3.0. If they were intended to replace the existing system, they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

Second, you have to understand the history here. There was a time back in 2.0 when WotC made their own, entirely seperate psionic system. There were no Dorjes or anything like that, no psudo-scrolls, no levels 1-9, few spell-equivilents.

And it sucked. Some people will argue otherwise, but what it came down to was that it didn't work well with the rest of the system. It was hard to balance with existing things, hard for DMs to account for when planning encounters, hard to work into campaigns... you get the idea.

So when they made the new psionics, they just threw up their hands and made it as close to spellcasting as they could get away with. Even if that isn't perfectly balanced, the rest of the game has been built around it, and they knew it could be easily worked into campaigns. A little dull? Yeah. But the fact is, magic points were available as a varient rule long before modern psionics rolled around. They just grabbed them for psionics because it was an easy way to graft them in without worrying too much about balance etc.

From the sounds of it, things like Reserve Feats are actually closer to what they were floating for 4th edition spellcasters.

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 12:28 PM
The Warblade does NOT have "extensive options for retraining". He can swap out a maneuver for a new one every other level. That means that a Warblade who screwed himself prerequisites-wise can undo it, over 3 or 4 levels... and then be behind in terms of high-level maneuvers and of disciplines known.
And regardless of that, swapping out old maneuvers doesn't help you if you keep picking bad ones. Oh, and he CAN'T swap out stances: pick Punishing Stance at level 1 or 4 and you're stuck with it forever.

I think he was referring to the ability to change specific weapon-related feats with just some practice.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 12:34 PM
I think he was referring to the ability to change specific weapon-related feats with just some practice.

But that ability isn't powerful. You could remove it and most Warblades wouldn't even notice.

streakster
2007-12-04, 12:36 PM
Streakster, I feel exactly the same way. You, sir, are awesome.

Heh, thanks VTC. :smallredface:

That really means a lot...

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 01:02 PM
But that ability isn't powerful. You could remove it and most Warblades wouldn't even notice.

I don't disagree, but when combined with the ability to use it on Exotic Weapons and the ability to swap out maneuvers, it does help make the ToB classes a bit harder to mess up via inexperience.

I know that you said

And regardless of that, swapping out old maneuvers doesn't help you if you keep picking bad ones.

But people do typically get better at playing their class over time if optimization is at all a goal for them. And the bad options in maneuvers - Blistering Flourish from Desert Wind comes to mind - can be negated somewhat by the fact that you'll never be able to ready everything you know past level 1 or 2 anyway, so if you're not using all of your maneuvers known it's not necessarily a big loss. Taking a full-round action to swap out your maneuvers with Adaptive Style is nice, but not always practical to be honest.

By contrast, a Fighter always has access to all of his feats, unless they do something rare and special x/day or x/encounter, like Martial Study. If the Fighter's feats aren't all being utilized in an encounter - Disarming and Tripping in a campaign where you're regularly fighting Dragons, for example - then the Fighter is taking a much bigger hit to his operating power than a Warblade is. Without using the PHB II retraining feature, even if the Fighter player shapes up or - worse - the campaign changes focus mid-way, there's not much he can do about it.

An idiot couldn't pick up a Warblade and use it any more effectively than a Fighter, no, but Tome of Battle optimization is something all of my players can do. One of my players is interested in optimization to the point that he's not going to obviously throw away something better unless it goes against character, but he's not interested enough in it to spend days tweaking every little bit of power from a character the way that I will. An hour or two with Tome of Battle and he's got something nice, as opposed to potentially hours or days with a Fighter if you're not using a variation on the Charger or Gatling Gun Tripper.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-04, 01:08 PM
One thing I find broken about it is how you can level dip at higher levels to get the high level maneuvers, and that's it (aside from White Raven maneuvers).

AstralFire
2007-12-04, 01:13 PM
One thing I find broken about it is how you can level dip at higher levels to get the high level maneuvers, and that's it (aside from White Raven maneuvers).

Eh. I wouldn't mind if that sort of design philosophy was more common. Notice you don't see a single Eldritch Knight/Mystic Theurge type prestige class... the Jade Phoenix Mage and Ruby Knight Vindicator are not only considerably more flavorful, they actually provide unique abilities rather than being a featureless "slowed dual progression" class. They compare more to the Geomancer, Bladesinger, Shadowbane Inquisitor and their ilk.

Fhaolan
2007-12-04, 01:13 PM
Second, you have to understand the history here. There was a time back in 2.0 when WotC made their own, entirely seperate psionic system. There were no Dorjes or anything like that, no psudo-scrolls, no levels 1-9, few spell-equivilents.


Technically, the 2nd edition psionics system was created by TSR, not WotC, as WotC didn't own D&D at that time. However, that's nitpicking. :smallsmile:

I was under the impression that 3rd edition psionics is very heavily rooted in the later version of the DarkSun variation of 2nd edition psionics. 2nd edition psionics got completely reworked several times during that edition, which tells you something. The 1st edition version of psionics was just as weird.

The main objection to psionics in those editions was that it was an alien system. It didn't mesh with anything else in the rulesets, it really felt like a whole different game welded on at the last minute with just a tinge of desperation. No matter what they did to it, it still had that feeling. But, it's always been there. If TSR/WotC was using it to test a magic replacement system, it's been an *awfully* long playtest session... :smallbiggrin:

SpikeFightwicky
2007-12-04, 02:33 PM
(...snip...)

Broken in terms of numbers, of stats, of whatever? I'll let others debate who has .01 more damage per second. But broken in terms of fun? Yeah, maybe. ToB shines over the fighter and the monk in terms of fun in every way possible.

Just my two cents, anyway...

*Applause* ^this is it for me. A full attacking power attacking fighter may shell out loads of damage, but it's boring as heck...

It irks me that some narrowminded individuals would label me as a 'broken powergamer' simply because I'd want to play a Warblade over a fighter.
For me, playing a fighter amounts to:
Approach monster, try to hit with sword with power attack. This basic formula is repeated ad nauseum from level 1-20. Going through a typical feat progression (W Focus, W Spec, MWM, Etc...), this is pretty much your role for the life of your character. Oh, and if you dare use a shield (just a shield instead of an animated shield), other players and forum optimizers will scoff at you, claiming shields are useless next to the might of a greatsword.

For a warblade, I can use a shield AND have lots of different viable options for combat, and be more dynamic crunch-wise than 'charge... power-attack... roll to hit...' This is just one example, too. I can go dual-wielding or 2 handed if I wanted, or even unarmed.

Sure, the wizard can still change the fundamentals of the physical universe, but I can swing a sword in more ways than a 'power-attack to inifinite damage!' can.

Jerthanis
2007-12-04, 03:47 PM
You really need to accept that "it doesn't take any optimization to make a ToB character good" is a total myth. I just showed you an example.


I've found this to be very true, I've been playing in games with consistent use of the ToB, and more work goes into creating effective characters using that than into Fighters. Part of this is the fact that we're already familiar with a lot of Fighter builds, so know about feats, but it's also because feats are simpler to keep track of than maneuvers. Maneuvers have prerequisites and retraining periods, and you have to keep track of which ones you got in which order, and keep track that you don't retrain yourself out of a prerequisite. Because of this there's a bit more exacting planning of our ToB characters than otherwise, but it's so worth it.

To make this process simple I've been thinking of creating a web diagram of each school with concentric circles representing how many maneuvers of that school you need to know in order to qualify for each maneuver. The higher level maneuvers are on the inside and you sort of "trace" your path by having an indicator that says at what levels you picked up a specific maneuver, and when you dropped it, so you can tell how many you have of each level, and how many you can afford to drop without failing to fulfill your prerequisites. I have a feeling it'd be a handy reference.



Take your very best optimized fighter, and multiply all his stats by - oh, I don't care - ten, say. Take an average Warblade or Swordsage, and make all their attacks half as powerful, or subtract ten from all their stats, or whatever.

I'll take the ToB character every time.

...

Broken in terms of numbers, of stats, of whatever? I'll let others debate who has .01 more damage per second. But broken in terms of fun? Yeah, maybe. ToB shines over the fighter and the monk in terms of fun in every way possible.

This is exactly my opinion, to such an extent that I cannot add anything whatsoever.

Chronicled
2007-12-04, 04:06 PM
You know, I'm gonna avoid the whole power issue by bypassing it.

It's not the numbers that are important - common consensus has the monk as weaker than all other core classes (And no, we are not going to debate that here) but you know what? People still play monks. They don't care that they might not get their numbers as high as the rest of the party - if they equated high numbers with fun, they'd just play Pun-Pun or the Omniscifer. DnD isn't about doing as much damage as possible - it's about having fun with friends. This (http://www.geocities.com/whoisceres2/dndquotes.html) is the true spirit of DnD.

Take your very best optimized fighter, and multiply all his stats by - oh, I don't care - ten, say. Take an average Warblade or Swordsage, and make all their attacks half as powerful, or subtract ten from all their stats, or whatever.

I'll take the ToB character every time.

See, when I first tried the fighter, I got bored as heck. While a first-level magician (sorc, wiz, war, dru, clr, etc...) can do all sorts of neat things, my options as a fighter were "Hit it with a sword. Hit it with a bow. Hit it with an axe... " I now refuse to play any class that doesn't get at least partial casting, or some other magic mechanic, simply because being a fighter isn't fun. It's a boring feat-juggling exercise - you almost really need to go to Fighter College, ala Roy. My combat role could have been filled with a little sign that said "I hit it with my sword."

But a ToB melee character, much like the melee characters from the MUD GodWarsII, is fun. You have options - it's not just repetitive grinding to be a meat shield anymore.

Broken in terms of numbers, of stats, of whatever? I'll let others debate who has .01 more damage per second. But broken in terms of fun? Yeah, maybe. ToB shines over the fighter and the monk in terms of fun in every way possible.

Just my two cents, anyway...

Indeed! Well put.

Also, thanks for the link :smallbiggrin:.

streakster
2007-12-04, 04:10 PM
Heh, I didn't think my sentiments were so widely agreed with...:smallredface:

Oh, and Jerthanis, that is a great idea. It would be so much better than Swordsage Solitaire....

mostlyharmful
2007-12-04, 04:29 PM
Streakster says it all, thanks streakster.:smallsmile:

variety = fun:smallbiggrin:
power attacking monotony = boredom:smallyuk:

Kioran
2007-12-04, 06:24 PM
Okay......you made me do the unspeakable.......and research in the ToB. The conclusions are.....almost what I had expected. With one exception:

Warblade bonus Feats suck. I suppose you could use Blade meditation or imp Init, maybe push the saves, but thereīs nothing in there to be added as fuel for the cheese........

For let us be clear, at the bottom of the red cloud Fighter is cheese. Serious Limburger.

Fortunately, a Warblade of our choice can avoid the fate of being disintegrated quite handily at level 6. By aiming straight for Elusive Target like thereīs no tomorrow. Then, he can still go for the cheese, and will reach it at level 12

Bear in mind that I never played a ToB char and read the book for the second time in my life. And no, my distaste hasnīt abated. But the maneuvers and stance I took are more or less taken on the spur of moment, and do not betray familiarity. I will limit myself to Diamond Mind and Iron Heart, since they looked the most promising. Assuming an Elite Array, I propose the following build for a "meatsack" warblade:

Human, with a two-handed Bastard sword.
Str: 15, Dex:13(Mobility!), Con: 14,
Int 12 (canīt hurt not to be terribly stupid) Wis 10 Cha 8 (being ugly canīt hurt either)

Feats:
1st: Dodge, Power Attack (human Bonus)
3rd: Mobility
5th: Blade meditation (bonus damage is bonus damage + increased DCs. Warblade Bonus)
6th: Elusive Target (as long as youīre aware, youīre safe from instant dismemberment. The Fighter has lost his greatest advantage).
9th: Imp. bullrush, Imp. Init (warblade Bonus)
12th: Shock Trooper (no leap attack yet, but now weīre cooking. Maybe the Fighter is already immune at this juncture, but still - Maneuvers for advantage)
13th: Iron Will (warblade Bonus. oh well, will saves)
15th: Leap attack (better late than never)
17th: Lightning Reflexes (warblade Bonus)
18th: Whatever you desire......letīs say EWP (whatever), since you can retrain them for flavor of the week.

Stances:
1st: Punishing stance
4th: Stance of clarity (sucks not to have 3rd lvl stances available. Oh well......)
10th: Hearing the Air (do not, ever, let anything with power attack get the drop on you. seriously)
16th: Stance of Alacrity (time advantage)

Maneuvers:
1st: Steel wind, Moment of perfect mind, Sapphire nightmare blade
2nd: Steely strike (and how bad it sucks.......)
3rd: Wall of blades (obviously good)
4th: Switch out Steely strike for "Action before thought"
5th: Iron heart surge
7th: Lightning recovery (or bounding assault. Both very useful, because rerollong/charging without usual restrictions = kewl)
9th: Disrupting Strike (EVIL!!!)
11th: Manticore Parry
13th: Quicksilver Motion
15th: Adamantine Hurricane
17th: Strike of perfect clarity
18th: Switch out "Steel wind" for "Time Stands still"
19th: Diamond nightmare Blade

Do note that it took me approx 80 minutes to build this, and to my understanding, as soon as it reaches lvl 6, it stands a very good chance of defeating the Fighter because it neutralizes the Shock Trooper effect. it also has better chances of saving against various effects or recovering from them, and can attack the Fighter normally at a good fraction of the Fighterīs own power. Without his maneuvers, heīd probaly lose, but several of them make the necessary difference to win (wall of blades comes to mind).

Of course, when one of these two gets the drop on the other, the unlucky party is toast. But in a fair, stand up fight, the Warblade can probably hand the Fighter his ass.

Reel on, I challenge you. prove me wrong. make a build, and weīll face these two of against each other on lvls 1, 6, 10, 15 and 20. I think I can win at least two of them, if not more.......

Hyfigh
2007-12-04, 06:41 PM
Kioran, I tip my hat for you in that you're trying but I have little faith that your Warblade as it stands will be able to defeat an opposing Fighter 20. The Karmic Strike, Robilars Gambit will make your strikes much less effective than you seem to think that are. I'll even try to take up the challange and build a fighter in opposition.

Frosty
2007-12-04, 06:53 PM
I think he means that even an unoptimized Warblade can easily beat unoptimized fighter.

I think that Warblades are easier to get to a competent level than Fighter, but harder to get to the Optimization level.

Da Beast
2007-12-04, 06:55 PM
Bear in mind that I never played a ToB char and read the book for the second time in my life. And no, my distaste hasnīt abated.

So basically you’re combining your irrational hatred for the system with your non-existent knowledge of the system to prove that it’s broken based on the fact that it can be used to make characters that outshine what is commonly accepted to be one of the game’s worst classes. Am I missing something here or is that about right?

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 07:05 PM
So basically you’re combining your irrational hatred for the system with your non-existent knowledge of the system to prove that it’s broken based on the fact that it can be used to make characters that outshine what is commonly accepted to be one of the game’s worst classes. Am I missing something here or is that about right?
Seeing as the person he's trying to refute is asserting that the fighter is still useful despite the existence of the warblade...

What's your point?

Reel On, Love
2007-12-04, 07:11 PM
So basically you’re combining your irrational hatred for the system with your non-existent knowledge of the system to prove that it’s broken based on the fact that it can be used to make characters that outshine what is commonly accepted to be one of the game’s worst classes. Am I missing something here or is that about right?

These? These things, right over here? They're lulz. Know what they're doing?
They're ensuing.

Well played.


Kioran - I don't think you know what you're getting into. I will admit that I forgot that you can take Elusive Target to negate Shock Trooper, but that doesn't matter: monsters don't have Elusive Target. Put our builds up against melee monsters (CR from equal to ours to several points higher), and that'll be more telling--but with our Leap Attack/Shock Trooper not working on each other, the Fighter will still smack you down. Note, for example, that you spend pretty much all your feats on Elusive Target/Shock Trooper. What I'm going to do is take COmbat Reflexes, Combat Brute, Knockback, Robilar's Gambit, and the PHB II's level 16 fighter substitution feature.

With those feats, every time you attack me, I'm going to attack you back. For double damage. I'm also going to break your equipment and keep hitting you while I do it. And on each hit, I get the chance to bullrush you back out of my reach, and get more AoOs (with Stand Still or Imp. Trip) when you move back in. Your maneuvers aren't going to help with that.

I'll draw up a more detailed build later, if you really want to have a duel, but then there's the issue of equipment. I'm familiar with most of the books and can optimize my equipment, probably a lot better than you can; I don't want to put you at a disadvantage--but running this without WBL-appropriate gear would be pretty pointless, since gear makes such a huge difference.


(I'll also note that the only reason your build gets Elusive Target ASAP is to protect itself from my build, which you know Shock Troops.)

The_Snark
2007-12-04, 07:12 PM
2nd: Steely strike (and how bad it sucks.......)

Has it been a while since you played at level 1 or 2...? +4 to an attack is quite a bit at those levels. Sure, it's not much good if you're fighting more than 1 enemy, but in that case, you just use Steel Wind.

Tokiko Mima
2007-12-04, 07:33 PM
One thing I find broken about it is how you can level dip at higher levels to get the high level maneuvers, and that's it (aside from White Raven maneuvers).

Not to be a stick in the mud, but isn't the level of manuevers you can take based on Martial Adept level? I thought that was what was on the side of that cleverly hidden table. :smallwink:

Normally, I house-rule it so that you get martial adept levels for any class that doesn't grant spellcasting (manuevers and stances are only given for actually ToB classes, of course!), but it would be nice to be wrong and find out that manuever level is based on total CL/ECL by RAW instead.

tyckspoon
2007-12-04, 07:38 PM
(I'll also note that the only reason your build gets Elusive Target ASAP is to protect itself from my build, which you know Shock Troops.)

With all the nasty melee monsters that have been printed it's a pretty good idea for any melee build that can afford the feats to get Elusive Target. Kioran's Warblade strikes out for Elusive Target as soon as possible in order to maintain parity with a fighter who is going for Shock Trooper as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean it's an unnatural or overly-specific feat chain for the Warblade to pick up (unlike what you might be able to claim if the Warblade was using Disarming Strike or Exorcism of Steel.)

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 07:38 PM
Initiator level, actually. Which any classes not specified as having full advancement for automatically grant half-advancement in. Yes, you can jump in late and get access to (somewhat) high level maneuvers, though prerequisites are nasty.

Stick a couple levels of Warblade on a dragon sometime. It's amusing.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-04, 07:40 PM
These? These things, right over here? They're lulz. Know what they're doing?
They're ensuing.

Well played.

lol internet.

The drama is strong in this thread; if people would stop bolding their comments for each other, and being so vicious, better answers might be had.

Ryshan Ynrith
2007-12-04, 07:44 PM
For the whole AOO thing, note that things like White Raven's Covering Strike will completely remove the abilities to take attacks of opportunity for 3 rounds, effectively neutering Robilar's Gambit and Karmic Strike.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-04, 07:47 PM
The drama is strong in this thread; if people would stop bolding their comments for each other, and being so vicious, better answers might be had.

Obi-Wan: The drama is strong with this one.

namo
2007-12-04, 07:51 PM
Covering Strike, indeed.

And the Warblade can reach really high damage with Stormguard Warrior, can bypass reach fighters with the WR charges... but of course a given Warblade is not equipped to deal with any one optimized Fighter, just as a given Fighter cannot have counters for all Warblade tricks.

Da Beast
2007-12-04, 08:07 PM
Seeing as the person he's trying to refute is asserting that the fighter is still useful despite the existence of the warblade...

What's your point?

Who cares if a warblade could be built to defeat Reel on's fighter. One on one combat is a bad way to compare class power. Reel on has shown that fighters can still be useful by making a build that can dish out sick amounts of damage; much more than Kioran's warblade can. It doesn't matter if Kioran's warblade could take Reel on's fighter (which Reel on has already made a good argument for it not being able to) Because the fighter is still useful.

Kioran
2007-12-04, 08:22 PM
Who cares if a warblade could be built to defeat Reel on's fighter. One on one combat is a bad way to compare class power. Reel on has shown that fighters can still be useful by making a build that can dish out sick amounts of damage; much more than Kioran's warblade can. It doesn't matter if Kioran's warblade could take Reel on's fighter (which Reel on has already made a good argument for it not being able to) Because the fighter is still useful.

But canīt do a DC 25 Will Save, is subject to numerous debuffs, is less mobile....of course the Fighter is still useful, but Reel onīs single argument was that Fighters win by having access to insane damage output/dangerous Feat Chains early on. That the have a dominance bordering on overkill in direct combat. If they lost in direct combat, thereīs literally nothing left for them to do, and I fear Fighters might lose in a lot of situations.
Even if the Warblade loses more often, his inherent Warbladitude and maneuvers give him more versatility. He can fight underground, in bad terrain, make some of his saves.....Actually not that bad.

Oh, and want me to build an Anti-Fighter Warblade? Iīd change the Feats and maneuvers to get more mobility, using spring attack and similiar for single, high powered attacks. Denying the Fighter his Full attack or oodles of counterattacks is the way to go. Maybe avalanche of blades + Reach weapon/Dancing blade form? If he canīt counterattack, he canīt lay the smack down. And he canīt power Attack, since Iīm a Elusive target. In fact, he shouldnīt, since low AC + Avalance of Blades = Ouch.
The only thing a Warblade needs are Standard actions adjacent to the Fighter, and one Strikes of perfect clarity + Diamond Nightmare strike later, chances are the Fighter is dead.

Let me reiterate this:

The warblade wins if he can fight the Fighter to a draw. he probably even wins if he is narrowly defeated. Because he still has more Skills and versatility.

If the Fighter is to have any meaning, heīd better be able to wipe the floor with all martial adepts he meets.

Da Beast
2007-12-04, 08:40 PM
Let me reiterate:

It doesn't matter if a warblade would beat a fighter in melee because that's not what the game is about and it's a stupid way to compare the usefulness of different classes.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-04, 08:44 PM
Ok...but if the warblade doesn't wipe the floor with the fighter, what are you complaining about exactly?

That they made a new class less capable of attaining the maximally abusive melee techniques, and more capable of being generally useful, of surviving when things don't go entirely according to plan, and of doing more than a single repetitive trick? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the ToB supporters are asserting...

Draz74
2007-12-04, 08:45 PM
Okay......you made me do the unspeakable.......and research in the ToB.
[snip]
Bear in mind that I never played a ToB char and read the book for the second time in my life. And no, my distaste hasnīt abated.
[snip]
Do note that it took me approx 80 minutes to build this,

I have a solution that will make everyone happier. Kioran, I can make it so you never have to read the book or waste 80 minutes again. Send me your copy of ToB as a Christmas present. :smallamused:

Zincorium
2007-12-04, 08:47 PM
Even if the Warblade loses more often, his inherent Warbladitude and maneuvers give him more versatility. He can fight underground, in bad terrain, make some of his saves.....Actually not that bad.

The warblade wins if he can fight the Fighter to a draw. he probably even wins if he is narrowly defeated. Because he still has more Skills and versatility.

What's funny to me is you've been arguing for so long you're now stating some very good arguments for replacing the fighter with the warblade altogether.

TimeWizard
2007-12-04, 09:51 PM
I hate to rerail a perfectly good thread, but in regards to Assassin8, I have ths to say: Your points are invalid and I consider your argument misinformed. Please continue the Fighter vs. Warblade scenario.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-04, 10:07 PM
Covering Strike, indeed.

And the Warblade can reach really high damage with Stormguard Warrior, can bypass reach fighters with the WR charges...

Or just with Tumble, which is a class skill for warblades.

"Reach? Lulz. I ignore your reach on a ... 1. Now, let's see ..."

Arbitrarity
2007-12-04, 11:04 PM
*Fighter grabs Crusader's Strike and Thicket of Blades*

Oops, ToB. HAX! :smallbiggrin:

assassin8
2007-12-05, 12:37 AM
my point is this, ToB is not a replacement for core classes or else it would say so, thus people need to stop treating it like it is. It should not be the first place people jump to for suggestions. I'm not saying dont ever suggest it but at least consider the friggen core classes. I will admit that broken was not the appropriate word and in hearing people argue has moderately changed my view but it should not be the end all be all of melee classes.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 01:00 AM
Stick a couple levels of Warblade on a dragon sometime. It's amusing.

Ouch. That's Mean.

Hey! I have an idea! Take a Dragon and replace its sorcerer casting with a swordsage manuever progression instead. If only I had a group of PCs who could handle that.


my point is this, ToB is not a replacement for core classes or else it would say so, thus people need to stop treating it like it is. It should not be the first place people jump to for suggestions. I'm not saying dont ever suggest it but at least consider the friggen core classes. I will admit that broken was not the appropriate word and in hearing people argue has moderately changed my view but it should not be the end all be all of melee classes.

Yes, well . . . WotC didn't mean for monk to be an NPC class, either. Or for Truenamer and Samurai to be NPC classes. They also aren't listed that way in the books. But they certainly aren't on the same power level as the rest of the pack. Fighter and Paladin are also below the curve, although not as badly as the others I mentioned. Giving the 4+int skill points and a few more class skills would go a long way. Not towards balancing with casters, but towards balancing with other fightery classes. I don't often see any more than a two level dip in fighter, monk, or paladin.

Kioran
2007-12-05, 01:09 AM
What's funny to me is you've been arguing for so long you're now stating some very good arguments for replacing the fighter with the warblade altogether.

Hmmm. Doesnīt change my position, which is ever thus:

There are three things wrong with the Fighter
- Fighters strengths in combat are too situational and do not scale properly
- Fighters are useless out of combat
- Combat in general is too specialized and the Fighter isnīt in on it.

ToB fixes 2,25 of these 3 issues quite decently - ToB Chars have a much better survivability (their greatest "numerical" advantage - maneuvers that greatly enhance your save or grant DR), are capable of doing a variety of things and are difficult to cut out of the action (no binary Iīm dead or heīs dead in the first round like with the Pala-Charger or red cloud charger) and gives some martial adepts some kind of utility out of combat.

My main gripe with it remains:
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)
- most important: It does not make this fix available to everyone or integrate it into core combat rules (meaning the basic mechanics, like Trip or somesuch)

ToB is a stopgap, kind of a Jury Rig for 3.5, that works around most glaring flaws. It doesnīt fix anything, and more importantly, is not the best basis for a design of core classes - even NPC Classes shouldnīt need to be boring and situational in a fight.

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 01:31 AM
My main gripe with it remains:
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)

Flavor-wise, I highly disagree for anything but Shadow Hand and Desert Wind.

Mechanically, yes, they do. That's because the spell mechanic is pretty much the only thing in D&D that allows for a wide variety of individualized effects. That has something to do with the fact that the 'spell mechanic' is pretty much just a bunch of Game Designers with blank cards saying "Write whatever you want that's cool and see how it works." It's rather difficult not to do something that is comparable in both power and variety that is *not* at some level a derivation or relation to the spell mechanic.

And you know what?

As long as I can legitimately fluff a Warblade so someone with no knowledge of D&D mechanics wouldn't be able to hear my attack descriptions and fighting style and differentiate the Warblade from a Fighter I was playing, I'm cool with that.


- most important: It does not make this fix available to everyone or integrate it into core combat rules (meaning the basic mechanics, like Trip or somesuch)

Uh, Martial Study and Stance *are* Fighter bonus feats and anyone can take 'em. There's nothing wrong with the basic mechanic for trip, just with how you go about getting good at tripping.

tyckspoon
2007-12-05, 01:33 AM
Hmmm. Doesnīt change my position, which is ever thus:

My main gripe with it remains:
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)
- most important: It does not make this fix available to everyone or integrate it into core combat rules (meaning the basic mechanics, like Trip or somesuch)


How would you have suggested they make it more available to everyone than it already is short of issuing an errata massive enough to qualify as a re-print of the PHB? Levels in non-initiator classes still contribute to initiator level, and other classes can take Martial Stance and Martial Study feats to partake in the maneuver system; there are even scrolls and other magic items that grant the use of a maneuver, as weird as that is. What more do you want? Have the fighter rewritten to include an initiator progression? If they were to do that, they may as well go ahead and just excise 'fighter' from the PHB and paste in 'warblade'.

KBF
2007-12-05, 01:36 AM
Well, how would you downright fix the fighter how you described, without seriously changing the class? So they changed it up a little to separate the classes from the monk/fighter/pally and made an entire book around them.

Now there is reason to play both, yet they still fixed it for the people that wanted it.
Except for people that still haven't bought it. :smallfrown:


EDIT: Ninja'd, see sig.

You know who did pretty much what you were asking for? Fax. (http://corporation.walagata.com/fax/wiki/index.php/Tome_of_Battle_Core_Class_Update)

Counterspin
2007-12-05, 01:42 AM
my point is this, ToB is not a replacement for core classes or else it would say so, thus people need to stop treating it like it is. It should not be the first place people jump to for suggestions. I'm not saying dont ever suggest it but at least consider the friggen core classes. I will admit that broken was not the appropriate word and in hearing people argue has moderately changed my view but it should not be the end all be all of melee classes.

People suggest TOB because they enjoy using it. Plain and simple. As for your presumption to dictate what people should say when they're being helpful, take a hike man. This board has a good mix of optimizers and rpers, and if the TOB classes come up more than often, it is because they are well regarded. If you don't want to hear what the board members have to say, don't read the threads. Those core classes ceased to be useful to me when I got my TOB, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise for some random guy with a beef against the book.

namo
2007-12-05, 01:54 AM
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)
This has been beaten to death, but just to reiterate : take the time to read the fluff text preceding the maneuvers. Filter away the grandiloquence, and you generally get : "You swing your weapon." (for strikes anyway)

For extraordinary maneuvers, the only similarity to spells is the existence of 9 levels. Why not just give the tiers names ? Novice... Aspirant... all the way to Grand Master. There, no more resemblance. They don't involve concentration, nor somatic/verbal/material components, they work in AMFs ; they do involve weapons.


- most important: It does not make this fix available to everyone or integrate it into core combat rules (meaning the basic mechanics, like Trip or somesuch)

ToB is a stopgap, kind of a Jury Rig for 3.5, that works around most glaring flaws. It doesnīt fix anything, and more importantly, is not the best basis for a design of core classes - even NPC Classes shouldnīt need to be boring and situational in a fight.
How would you fix those flaws without... publishing a new edition ? I'm curious, what kind of houserules do you use to make Fighters and the like more interesting without introducing new mechanics ?

IMHO, the design is just fine. You have a variety of interesting and valid choices, both at build time and during play ; the abilities granted scale with levels.

Also, why not just use ToB classes for NPCs too ?

Jerthanis
2007-12-05, 02:16 AM
my point is this, ToB is not a replacement for core classes or else it would say so, thus people need to stop treating it like it is. It should not be the first place people jump to for suggestions. I'm not saying dont ever suggest it but at least consider the friggen core classes. I will admit that broken was not the appropriate word and in hearing people argue has moderately changed my view but it should not be the end all be all of melee classes.

It's good to know you did enter this discussion ready to be convinced, at least enough to sway a little ways away from your original position. There are enough people in the world who whine without being ready to listen. I suppose you do have a fair point about us ToB lovers coming into threads of "How do I make a Fighter/Barbarian Two Weapon Fighter build?" and saying, "Play a Tiger Claw Warblade!" because that's like going into a "How do I make my Ranger better in combat?" and someone says, "Play a Cleric with the Travel domain and just take Track." it's just not the help you asked for and I guess I see that now...

...but I hope you also understand that the reason we say to play a Tiger Claw Warblade is that we've had so much fun playing characters like that, or seen people play them and thought they were neat. And we've had great experiences with them so far. We're honestly trying to be helpful for the most part.



My main gripe with it remains:
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)



I disagree. The way the maneuvers are presented looks a lot like how spells are presented, but I submit that it is not to make the maneuvers more spell-like, and more to present them to the player in a familiar way. The fact is, is that for any action, you need to know certain variables about the effect. Who does it hit, what effects does it have, what defenses trigger... and so on. The way spells are laid out just happens to adhere to this, but trust me when I say that in play, Maneuvers work nothing like spells.

First of all, most spells are subject to SR, none of the maneuvers are. Almost every single spell has saves to reduce or eliminate the effect, less than half of the aggressive maneuvers do. Finally, the biggest difference in actual play is the fact that while spellcasters conserve slots, and try to cast the fewest spells possible to the greatest effect, and they generally only need dictate their standard action to perfection. Sometimes they have to move to control their range, and sometimes they cast quickened spells, but generally, it's all about their standard action. With Tome of Battle characters, there's no worry about losing your day-long potential, so the struggle is not to conserve to greatest effect, but in order to utilize time to get the most actions out there. It becomes an important factor whether you switch stances THIS round, or NEXT round, since you can't use Swift action maneuvers next round if you do. It's an extremely different feel.

To summarize, the layout of maneuvers and stances make them look like spells, but in actual play, they couldn't feel more different.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:20 AM
IMHO, the design is just fine.

Well, actually, there are some really badly designed manuevers. Take IHS, for example. Really badly worded, and overpowered, and it doesn't do things that it should be able to do, and it does allow things that it oughtn't be able to.

The "cast Heal on an ally" strike also really annoys me. It's not su! Of course not. It just gives the effects of a 6th level spell. As an extraordinary ability!

Aquillion
2007-12-05, 02:24 AM
Yes, well . . . WotC didn't mean for monk to be an NPC class, either. Or for Truenamer and Samurai to be NPC classes. They also aren't listed that way in the books. But they certainly aren't on the same power level as the rest of the pack. Fighter and Paladin are also below the curve, although not as badly as the others I mentioned. Giving the 4+int skill points and a few more class skills would go a long way. Not towards balancing with casters, but towards balancing with other fightery classes. I don't often see any more than a two level dip in fighter, monk, or paladin.Honestly, if I was going to fix fighters even a little bit, the very first thing I'd do is give them all good saves. Why not? They're supposed to be tough, and at least with a good will save they won't be an actual liability in combat. It isn't enough, but it's a start. 2.0 fighters had mostly good saves, and it worked fine.

Of course, this is basically killing the Monk and taking his stuff, but he was dead on the inside anyway.

namo
2007-12-05, 02:31 AM
Well, actually, there are some really badly designed manuevers. Take IHS, for example. Really badly worded, and overpowered, and it doesn't do things that it should be able to do, and it does allow things that it oughtn't be able to.

The "cast Heal on an ally" strike also really annoys me. It's not su! Of course not. It just gives the effects of a 6th level spell. As an extraordinary ability!

Let me clear this up : I was talking about the general design behind the martial classes and the maneuver/stance system. The ToB is remarkably well-balanced (no need to point me to the few broken tricks, I know them).

That said, some maneuvers could use a rework. IHS is not the worse offender to me : White Raven Tactics really needs to be bumped up in level. And then, there is the Ruby Knight Vindicator...
The healing strikes are not a problem if you accept the "HP as not only health but also morale" theory, but that belongs in another thread. There are certainly a few other maneuvers that need to be Su though.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-05, 02:33 AM
The healing strikes are not a problem if you accept the "HP as not only health but also morale" theory, but that belongs in another thread. There are certainly a few other maneuvers that need to be Su though.

I don't have a problem with the healing strikes in general. Just the one that casts Heal. As the spell.


And how is that a topic for another thread? Sounds like the same topic:


"Book of 9 swords -rant-"

I find IHS to be a worse offender than the White Raven manuever, simply because of its open-endedness. But that is a matter of scale, and not a large difference, either. They both need fixed.

Kioran
2007-12-05, 05:11 AM
How would you fix those flaws without... publishing a new edition ? I'm curious, what kind of houserules do you use to make Fighters and the like more interesting without introducing new mechanics ?

IMHO, the design is just fine. You have a variety of interesting and valid choices, both at build time and during play ; the abilities granted scale with levels.

Also, why not just use ToB classes for NPCs too ?

And now you have it - how would I fix those flaws? With a new edition. And coincidence has it that right now, theyīre working on one. Iīm saying they shouldnīt take a leaf from ToB for itīs design. It was okay for 3rd, were spells ruled all (or Psionics, which, by the way, introduced the heretofore latent concept of the Siwft action and tactics through action management). If you canīt beat em, join them.

But itīs a bad idea for fourth Edition. Making a maneuver/spell/power/whatever(the distinction will be diluted a lot) progression for each and every class is silly when you could fix the problem by making more options available to normal Combatants. Iīve even recorded some Ideas in a hombrew of mine.....Iīll dig it uo an continue it.
There shouldnīt be a maneuver you need - you should be able to do 50% off the stuff right of the bat (Power Attack is another good example - everyone should be able to. Donīt make it a Feat, make a Feat that improves it. But itīs to basic to restrict access to it imho).

Most people lack a more holistic approach to their game design, and itīs no different with WotC. But carrying spells, the thing that basically killed the old framework of the game, into the next edition and making them the foundation of everything? Real bad. Reeeall bad.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-05, 08:38 AM
Not to be a stick in the mud, but isn't the level of manuevers you can take based on Martial Adept level? I thought that was what was on the side of that cleverly hidden table. :smallwink:
As Ulzgoroth said, your initiator level is your class level, plus half the level of others classes (or base attack bonus, I'll have to check).
So, if you get 1 level of warblade, you can have 1st level maneuvers. Then you get 4 levels in fighter.
If you start with 4 levels in fighter, and then go 1 level of warblade, you have access to 2nd level maneuvers when you get that first warblade level (initiator level = fighter/2 (4/2=2) + warblade 1 = 3, that means 2nd level maneuvers)
It means that going fighter 4/ warblade 1 is better than warblade 1/fighter 4, and going warblade 5 is simply plain better if you don't mind less feats, specially if you get maneuvers that replaces feats.


Also, why not just use ToB classes for NPCs too ?
Who said I doesn't? :smallamused:

Serenity
2007-12-05, 09:02 AM
I don't have a problem with the healing strikes in general. Just the one that casts Heal. As the spell.

What, you mean the 9th-level one? The one that you can only get if you're a 17th level Crusader, who fights with the power of his god? (Can't get it with martial study unless you've spent a whole lot of Martial Study feats on Devoted Spirit maneuver prerequisites, and Warblades and Swordsages don't get many feats.) OK, admittedly, that one could probably do with a Supernatural descriptor. There, that took, what, three seconds?



I find IHS to be a worse offender than the White Raven manuever, simply because of its open-endedness. But that is a matter of scale, and not a large difference, either. They both need fixed.

OK, so there's two somewhat poorly written maneuvers out of hundreds. What have you proved?

Fawsto
2007-12-05, 09:15 AM
I still think, that, regardless of pure cheese builds for Fighters, the Average ToB Character can fight better and for longer than the Average Fighter.

The only way to Kick ass with Fighters are a few, FEW, nasty cheesy builds out there. So, again, they are doing only one thing in a single way, just that.

ToB classes fight with options in their side. They can change what they want to do during the fight just by changing their stances and aplying manouvers. That's makes tehm better meleers or warriors in general. If a Fighter is a one-trick pony, he sooner or later will be smacked down by something that is imune to his strategy. A Warblade won't. They may know his stances, they may know his manouvers, but they will never be able to predict exactly wich one he will use next. Also, as stated, they have social skills! Wow, this is awesome indeed! They CAN DO something outside Battle, they know how to interact peacefully! They can detect a infiltrating enemy while standing guard during the night!

Btw, yes I think Remove Desease is a class skill. It maybe sound like crap, but it pays out when the Cleric is down due to some strange afliction and there is none who can cure him. Who uses Deseases anyway... Want to ignore it? Paladins get 9 class features. Period. Better than the fighter who gets 1: Feats.

AstralFire
2007-12-05, 10:02 AM
And now you have it - how would I fix those flaws? With a new edition. And coincidence has it that right now, theyīre working on one. Iīm saying they shouldnīt take a leaf from ToB for itīs design. It was okay for 3rd, were spells ruled all (or Psionics, which, by the way, introduced the heretofore latent concept of the Siwft action and tactics through action management). If you canīt beat em, join them.

And how does this make them bad at all for third edition...?

The Mormegil
2007-12-05, 10:34 AM
I love ToB. I really like it. For the flavor and for the game mechanics. They work: I made a swordsage that actually could keep up to his full-batman buddy on damage dealing and on usefulness (mind it, it was a full-combat campaign).

Yes, some things are cheese, but it's not like it's all a waste! And, most important, it does work for NpCs...

Example: I had my group in a non-magical campaign (that means, in a campaign with very few casters) face several NpC melee types last session. It was meant as a great showdown with at least one PC deaths (no resurrection, also, but I gave them an artifact that doubled the physical stats of one of them and could be "discharged" to grant a resurrection to somebody nearby him. I placed a Dolph (long story short, a kinda boy with a knife that couldn't die except by taking huge amounts of damages or for very peculiar circumstances - i.e.: by dropping him on a small sun [actually happened] etc.; when he does die, he comes up in a pair of hours); a Gestalt ECL 20 mounted charger with an adult blue dragon (who actually was Warblade 13, also. I found out that in order to give them an actual challange I had to give him a way to live for many rounds not counting damages), and two ToB users: the first was a Bloodclaw Master//Ghost-Faced Killer that fought hard with three of them... so hard he had to take over 1000 damages to be killed... I love you Immortal Stance! And one that was a Swordsage 16/Monk 2. I houseruled him to get 2xWis to AC and to retain armour and shield. Call it a feat. This one actually fought hard, by teleporting and Inferno Blasting all of them. Adaptive Style, plus Fool's Strike and One With Shadow to live.

So, I ended up with a good challange (they had 5 deaths, one intended (the dragon's breath killed a PC whose got low hps), two for PC stupidity - let's go kill that guy with the dragon, he shouldn't be tough, I can handle him w/o asking the cleric to cure my 200+ damages... yes, sure... - and 2 for PC struggling - a CE PC killed two others with AoOs...). I mainly resort to ToB to keep them alive and to dish out damages, and to houseruling to keep them effective against all my PCs.

Hyfigh
2007-12-05, 10:39 AM
What, you mean the 9th-level one? The one that you can only get if you're a 17th level Crusader, who fights with the power of his god? (Can't get it with martial study unless you've spent a whole lot of Martial Study feats on Devoted Spirit maneuver prerequisites, and Warblades and Swordsages don't get many feats.) OK, admittedly, that one could probably do with a Supernatural descriptor. There, that took, what, three seconds?

You can't get the healing strike unless you're a 17th level Initiator with the prerequisite manuevers which will generally mean full access to Devoted Spirit (Master of the Nine can obtain them as well as Crusader.). Martial Study has a great little stipulation that only allows it be taken 3 times.

Also, IHS isn't broken. It's all a matter of making sure you understand the way it works. There are quite a few effects it can remove, but many more it won't.

Serenity
2007-12-05, 03:06 PM
Huh, missed that stipend. Good to know.

As far as it goes, the problem with IHS is that a number of the effects which it thematically ought to overcome, it can't. The idea clearly seems to be sheer willpower overcoming another's mystical hold on you, but if you get charmed or held you won't be able to use the maneuver to break out of them.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-12-05, 03:18 PM
Huh, missed that stipend. Good to know.

As far as it goes, the problem with IHS is that a number of the effects which it thematically ought to overcome, it can't. The idea clearly seems to be sheer willpower overcoming another's mystical hold on you, but if you get charmed or held you won't be able to use the maneuver to break out of them.

Resisting Dominate and Hold and the like is what Moment of Perfect Mind is for. Iron Heart Surge isn't meant to be a panacea to anything non-damage an enemy can do.

It is wonky that it can end the effects of Antimagic Field, Solid Fog, and the like, though. Oh, and Dire Winter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/direWinter.htm).

Hyfigh
2007-12-05, 03:43 PM
As far as it goes, the problem with IHS is that a number of the effects which it thematically ought to overcome, it can't. The idea clearly seems to be sheer willpower overcoming another's mystical hold on you, but if you get charmed or held you won't be able to use the maneuver to break out of them.

Agreed.

Kioran, just so we're both on the same page;

Should this fighter be built to fill the same role as your Warblade, are we making them PvP, or both?

Kioran
2007-12-05, 06:19 PM
Agreed.

Kioran, just so we're both on the same page;

Should this fighter be built to fill the same role as your Warblade, are we making them PvP, or both?

I think the Fighter should be effective at something - and since battlefield control or combat vs. masses can be done a lot better by other people, I think you should do the only thing you can do - a red cloud charger + AoO abuser, or a "flopping fish" trip build (best not to imagine what fights look like with this. Simply depressing).
Thing is, the Warblade is hard to further optimize for PvP unless you prestige out of it, so I invested the inevitable "spillover" in survivability.

Jerthanis
2007-12-05, 07:32 PM
But itīs a bad idea for fourth Edition. Making a maneuver/spell/power/whatever(the distinction will be diluted a lot) progression for each and every class is silly when you could fix the problem by making more options available to normal Combatants.

I'm confused, isn't this what Maneuvers do? They give more options to normal combatants? Are you suggesting that melee combatants should get more options similar to tripping, grappling, disarming and the like? What kinds of options are you thinking?



Iīve even recorded some Ideas in a hombrew of mine.....Iīll dig it uo an continue it.
There shouldnīt be a maneuver you need - you should be able to do 50% off the stuff right of the bat (Power Attack is another good example - everyone should be able to. Donīt make it a Feat, make a Feat that improves it. But itīs to basic to restrict access to it imho).

What is it you mean by this? Are you saying that higher level maneuvers shouldn't have as many prerequisites? That you should qualify for 50% of the maneuvers at first level? I'm confused, because you seem to be talking about a homebrewed solution, but I don't understand what your solution is.



Most people lack a more holistic approach to their game design, and itīs no different with WotC. But carrying spells, the thing that basically killed the old framework of the game, into the next edition and making them the foundation of everything? Real bad. Reeeall bad.

What exactly do you mean by "Holistic approach to game design" here?

I don't understand how the format behind spells is the thing that killed the old framework, because I could get out my old 2nd edition PHB and compare the Range/Duration/Area of Effect/Saving Throw of the old spells pretty easily to the new and find they're probably fairly similar, in format. I think that aside from sharing a similar format, maneuvers are almost nothing like spells. Are you referring to the fact that they have similar progressions? Moving through 9 levels of abilities, which they gain access to at a rate equal to 2A - 1 where A is the level of the power? Because once again I think that was presented the way it was more to be familiar and easy to learn because of its familiarity rather than an attempt to mimic spellcasting.

To be honest, after learning the system, I'm continually frustrated by the 9 levels of maneuvers list, and have started breaking them up into Diablo2-esque skill trees that are easier to plan what maneuver to take when you level up to compliment the list format which makes it easy to learn in the first place.

Kioran
2007-12-06, 06:24 AM
I'm confused, isn't this what Maneuvers do? They give more options to normal combatants? Are you suggesting that melee combatants should get more options similar to tripping, grappling, disarming and the like? What kinds of options are you thinking?

What is it you mean by this? Are you saying that higher level maneuvers shouldn't have as many prerequisites? That you should qualify for 50% of the maneuvers at first level? I'm confused, because you seem to be talking about a homebrewed solution, but I don't understand what your solution is.

First off: Not using maneuvers. If I thought that was the solution, I wouldnīt advise against using ToB as a Template and instead advocating changes to it. I am not.
What one needsis a combat system in which a Fighter can use all of his actions in different ways for some purpose. Why is the PsyWar better than most Martial classes? Itīs not the casting in and off itself - those powers do not deal massive damage. Itīs the fact the Psywar can utilize his Move and Swift actions for palpable gains, being effective even without a full Attack. ToB chars are similiar. You can use every action for something, and there are even turns in which taking the Full Attack might not be the best idea.

My Homebrew concerning this was deleted (I discovered that happens after one month. Oh well.), but the ideas are basically:

- Thereīs no Full attack
- Damage Bonus equal to 1/2 BAB, several feats that increase damage Output
- If you have already made an attack, you can make another one at -5 (even at first level!) as a move Action.
- You can also gain boni to damage or the Attack bonus by using your move action. Thereīs a Skill specifically for that on the martial classes skill lists, called "Focus".
- You can forgo move or standard actions for a bonus to AC
- You can use your move or swift actions for boni to your initiative count or for special actions unlocked by feats.
- Tripping does not provoke an AoO if you use a tripping weapon, same for disarm. Bullrush does not provoe an AoO if you have a shield. Everyone can power attack, the tradeoff is worse (0,5 damage for one handed, 1,0 for two handed). The Feats improve the tradeoff or check bonus, but you can now practically use them all

And so on. With these improved combat options, even an NPC class warrior can do something useful with all his actions, and can think of two or three different, but overall useful ways of spending them.

[spoiler]What exactly do you mean by "Holistic approach to game design" here?

I don't understand how the format behind spells is the thing that killed the old framework, because I could get out my old 2nd edition PHB and compare the Range/Duration/Area of Effect/Saving Throw of the old spells pretty easily to the new and find they're probably fairly similar, in format. I think that aside from sharing a similar format, maneuvers are almost nothing like spells. Are you referring to the fact that they have similar progressions? Moving through 9 levels of abilities, which they gain access to at a rate equal to 2A - 1 where A is the level of the power? Because once again I think that was presented the way it was more to be familiar and easy to learn because of its familiarity rather than an attempt to mimic spellcasting.

To be honest, after learning the system, I'm continually frustrated by the 9 levels of maneuvers list, and have started breaking them up into Diablo2-esque skill trees that are easier to plan what maneuver to take when you level up to compliment the list format which makes it easy to learn in the first place.[/QUOTE]

The holistic approach means that most people douse one fire or transplant one mechanic without thinking of the backlash. Persistent spell was made so a high level Wizard can expend valuable spell slots for low-lwevel buffs, but stop worrying about their duration. Itīs fair if used that way, and certainly not overpowered - but in combination can be used to faciliate CoDzilla.
Nightsticks? Not too bad(okay, bad, but not overwhelmingly so) when used for their intended purpose. As DMM-Duracell? broken.
Most people build one class, alter one bad mechanic on a case-by-case basis, but ignore the influence on other parts of the game. At best, it does not solve the problems of other classes and wastes worktime, since 12 small solutions consume more time than two large ones, at itīs worst, creates atomic cheese from loopholes.
ToB is such a jury rig, and a remarkably good one. It has some loopholes (1d2 Crusader for example, Ruby Knight Vindicator + Nightsticks), but on a whole functions. But itīs grafted on, and does not perfectly mesh with the core mechanics.

I want 4th Edition to be a reworking of the core mechanics to fit the game, not a patchwork quilt of 3rd-Ed. fixes in the semblance of it.

Serenity
2007-12-06, 08:15 AM
And what problem do maneuvers create, exactly? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, and what you say is needed--allow a melee character to have a variety of effective options. Their similarity to spells ends with their format in the book. They don't force a melee character to do anything supernatural. Just what is their problem?

Closet_Skeleton
2007-12-06, 08:45 AM
- It uses Spell-like Effects for it (I know, their (Ex) or (Su), but theyīre presented and resolved like spells, and are listed in the book under "blade magic". They resemble spells both mechanically and flavor-wise)

The Warlock's Eldritch blast is a spell, but resembles the mechanics for attacks. Tome of Battle is just the reverse side of that. The format doesn't make something magic and there are forms of magic that don't use it.

Kioran
2007-12-06, 08:55 AM
And what problem do maneuvers create, exactly? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, and what you say is needed--allow a melee character to have a variety of effective options. Their similarity to spells ends with their format in the book. They don't force a melee character to do anything supernatural. Just what is their problem?

But theyīre limited, situational fixes - having a specific attack for evry conceivable action either severely limits the amount of options or is a boatload of work. And if you gain mechanical advantages for dropping form a height or jumping with the "death from above" maneuver, it is, to many people, at least strongly implied you do not gain advantages if you do not have the maneuver.

In short - you can create a maneuver/spell for every situation, but do not solve the problem. You just make a specific workaroung available to one class. And thatīs whatīs bad about it, not in the context of 3rd. Ed, but as a template for fourth. Solving problems instead of working around them is the key.


In the end, what makes ToB maneuvers like spells (because spells were that way first and should be like that) is that many of them which do not simply increase damage are to specific, and that you need to prepare them.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-06, 09:42 AM
And what problem do maneuvers create, exactly? They do exactly what they're supposed to do, and what you say is needed--allow a melee character to have a variety of effective options. Their similarity to spells ends with their format in the book. They don't force a melee character to do anything supernatural. Just what is their problem?
I agree. If you read most of the non-supernatural maneuvers, you can see that they grant the characters special moves in a way that can't be abused.
For example, take pounce. Get one level dip into barbarian with the lion toten option to gain pounce, so you can full attack in the end of a charge. Then check the Tiger Claw maneuver Pouncing Charge. It's exactly the same thing, only that it requires an higher level character, and is usable once every combat, unless you can "refresh" it. It becomes helpful without becoming cheesy.
Again, from Tiger Claw, Dancing Mongoose and Raging Mongoose. They give you extra attacks as if you were using haste or speed weapons. Combine any of the Mongoose maneuvers with the Pounce one, and you get a TWF-er that doesn't suck. But you can do it once. Then you need to make time till you can do it again.
ToB's abilities are not there to make super powered builds, but to give a help to others normal builds. They are expendable on purpose, so a player can't keep repeating the same superpowered technique over and over again.
In a way, they are designed to allow a meeler to "go nova", without being *too* overpowered.

Hyfigh
2007-12-06, 11:56 AM
Alright, I actually have two builds. One is inspired by Armads fighter in the Perfect Fighter thread, the other is just a simple generation.

Fighter One (Armads Inspiration)
1-Dodge F1-Weapon Focus (guisarme) H-Mobility
F2-Power Attack
3-Improved Bull Rush
F4-Combat Reflexes
6-Leap Attack F6-Shock Trooper
F8-Bling-Fight
9-Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Clarity)
F10-Elusive Target
12-Mage Slayer F12-Martial Study (Crusader Strike)
F14-Martial Stance (Thicket of Blades)
15-Pierce Magical Concealment
F16-Martial Study (Divine Surge)
18-Short Haft F18-Combat Expertise
20-Karmic Strike

This guy is is a well rounded fighter. He can control the battlefield well with thicket of blades and tripping. He can deal significant damage through leaping power attacks. He is also an exceptional counter-striker. Last but not least, with the few martial manuevers he has he is able to manage will saves better, mini-heal his allies, and in a pinch deal an extra 8d6 using divine strike.

Fighter Two (to show ToB isn't needed :smalltongue: )
1-Dodge F1-Weapon Focus (guisarme) H-Mobility
F2-Power Attack
3-Improved Bull Rush
F4-Combat Reflexes
6-Leap Attack F6-Shock Trooper
F8-Bling-Fight
9-Weapon Specialization (guisarme)
F10-Elusive Target
12-Mage Slayer F12-Melee Weapon Mastery
F14-Greater Weapon Focus
15-Pierce Magical Concealment
F16-Greater Weapon Specialization
18-Karmic StrikeF18-Combat Expertise
20-Weapon Supremacy

This guy works the same without the minor boosts of the manuevers. He is also marginally less productive in battlefield control without thicket of blades, but makes up for it with the Weapon Focus tree.

Neither fighter is exceptionally useful outside of combat. On the other hand, do people really expect the meatshield to be effective out of combat? Fighter One does have it's advantage in the healing strike manuever, but that's more utility than anything. Obviously, effectiveness in combat and out of combat can be drastically improved through PrC's (just like the warblade).

Also; someone check my work. I am writing this up at work without access to my books so things may not be 100% accurate.

Edit: Almost forgot stats. 15str, 13dex, 14con, 12int, 10wis, 8cha (hey, it works...).

For the levels breakdown:
1-I do have to give this one to the warblade. While the fighter isn't subpar, punishing stance can make a world of difference early on.

6-This one goes to fighter. PvP they would be performing about the same, maybe a slight edge to the warblade because he's negating the fighters power attacks. Against NPC's, as they most often don't have elusive target or other PA negatation, the fighter tears s*** up.

10-This level is probably a tie. It's kind of an awkward level for both because they both now have power attack tactics and elusive target to negate damage. Neither will be good controllers yet (edge to fighter there for trips, but the higher HP and manuevers can make up for that).

15-I give this one to the fighter again. Being able to get through magic that would prevent the warblade from hitting regularly is a big bonus.

20-Another tie. The warblades manuevers will allow him to situationally out-damage the fighter, but the fighter can counter attack and control the field better and will in normal situations be the better damage dealer.

Arbitrarity
2007-12-06, 04:57 PM
My Homebrew concerning this was deleted (I discovered that happens after one month. Oh well.), but the ideas are basically:

- Thereīs no Full attack
- Damage Bonus equal to 1/2 BAB, several feats that increase damage Output
- If you have already made an attack, you can make another one at -5 (even at first level!) as a move Action.
- You can also gain boni to damage or the Attack bonus by using your move action. Thereīs a Skill specifically for that on the martial classes skill lists, called "Focus".
- You can forgo move or standard actions for a bonus to AC
- You can use your move or swift actions for boni to your initiative count or for special actions unlocked by feats.
- Tripping does not provoke an AoO if you use a tripping weapon, same for disarm. Bullrush does not provoe an AoO if you have a shield. Everyone can power attack, the tradeoff is worse (0,5 damage for one handed, 1,0 for two handed). The Feats improve the tradeoff or check bonus, but you can now practically use them all

And so on. With these improved combat options, even an NPC class warrior can do something useful with all his actions, and can think of two or three different, but overall useful ways of spending them.




Actually, I bet I can dig the thing up. Give me a bit.

Also, if you use a weapon, tripping, as I recall, doesn't provoke AOO.
Tripping with a Weapon
Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity.



Found it. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61557

Near the bottom, in "display options", there's an option to increase or reduce how long ago shown threads were posted in. It defaults to 1 month (To prevent massive necropostage), but search default bypasses it.

Kioran
2007-12-07, 06:35 PM
Alright, I actually have two builds. One is inspired by Armads fighter in the Perfect Fighter thread, the other is just a simple generation.

Fighter One (Armads Inspiration)
1-Dodge F1-Weapon Focus (guisarme) H-Mobility
F2-Power Attack
3-Improved Bull Rush
F4-Combat Reflexes
6-Leap Attack F6-Shock Trooper
F8-Bling-Fight
9-Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Clarity)
F10-Elusive Target
12-Mage Slayer F12-Martial Study (Crusader Strike)
F14-Martial Stance (Thicket of Blades)
15-Pierce Magical Concealment
F16-Martial Study (Divine Surge)
18-Short Haft F18-Combat Expertise
20-Karmic Strike

This guy is is a well rounded fighter. He can control the battlefield well with thicket of blades and tripping. He can deal significant damage through leaping power attacks. He is also an exceptional counter-striker. Last but not least, with the few martial manuevers he has he is able to manage will saves better, mini-heal his allies, and in a pinch deal an extra 8d6 using divine strike.

Fighter Two (to show ToB isn't needed :smalltongue: )
1-Dodge F1-Weapon Focus (guisarme) H-Mobility
F2-Power Attack
3-Improved Bull Rush
F4-Combat Reflexes
6-Leap Attack F6-Shock Trooper
F8-Bling-Fight
9-Weapon Specialization (guisarme)
F10-Elusive Target
12-Mage Slayer F12-Melee Weapon Mastery
F14-Greater Weapon Focus
15-Pierce Magical Concealment
F16-Greater Weapon Specialization
18-Karmic StrikeF18-Combat Expertise
20-Weapon Supremacy

This guy works the same without the minor boosts of the manuevers. He is also marginally less productive in battlefield control without thicket of blades, but makes up for it with the Weapon Focus tree.

Neither fighter is exceptionally useful outside of combat. On the other hand, do people really expect the meatshield to be effective out of combat? Fighter One does have it's advantage in the healing strike manuever, but that's more utility than anything. Obviously, effectiveness in combat and out of combat can be drastically improved through PrC's (just like the warblade).

Also; someone check my work. I am writing this up at work without access to my books so things may not be 100% accurate.

Edit: Almost forgot stats. 15str, 13dex, 14con, 12int, 10wis, 8cha (hey, it works...).

For the levels breakdown:
1-I do have to give this one to the warblade. While the fighter isn't subpar, punishing stance can make a world of difference early on.

6-This one goes to fighter. PvP they would be performing about the same, maybe a slight edge to the warblade because he's negating the fighters power attacks. Against NPC's, as they most often don't have elusive target or other PA negatation, the fighter tears s*** up.

10-This level is probably a tie. It's kind of an awkward level for both because they both now have power attack tactics and elusive target to negate damage. Neither will be good controllers yet (edge to fighter there for trips, but the higher HP and manuevers can make up for that).

15-I give this one to the fighter again. Being able to get through magic that would prevent the warblade from hitting regularly is a big bonus.

20-Another tie. The warblades manuevers will allow him to situationally out-damage the fighter, but the fighter can counter attack and control the field better and will in normal situations be the better damage dealer.

Bear in mind that under less than optimal conditions, the Fighter loses more rapidly than the warblade - and my build is not even properly optimized. So I think it is fair to say that a ToB-Char is as, or almost as powerful than his conventional pendant on their home ground, while being a lot less situational, and more powerful in many situations.

Really, my stance on all this isnīt complicated or unreasonable. I can understand some people ranting against ToB, allthough it has itīs place in most highly optimized 3.5 campaign. But itīs not for all lower powered campaigns, and also no real fix.
I only regret this degenerated into a flame war before positions were cleared.....

Reel On, Love
2007-12-07, 07:24 PM
Bear in mind that under less than optimal conditions, the Fighter loses more rapidly than the warblade - and my build is not even properly optimized. So I think it is fair to say that a ToB-Char is as, or almost as powerful than his conventional pendant on their home ground, while being a lot less situational, and more powerful in many situations.
He isn't "almost as powerful" on their home ground. The red-mist fighter, as you call him, splatters enemies *far* more potently (thanks to the addition of AoOs and Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike to his charge). He *is* less situational, and does have better defenses,


Really, my stance on all this isnīt complicated or unreasonable. I can understand some people ranting against ToB, allthough it has itīs place in most highly optimized 3.5 campaign. But itīs not for all lower powered campaigns, and also no real fix.
I only regret this degenerated into a flame war before positions were cleared.....
It is fairly complicated or unreasonable. You haven't explained why it's not for lower-powered campaigns (it's easy to make a totally lame Warblade, as I demonstrated), or for non-low-powered but non-heavily-optimized campaigns (unoptimized ToB characters are nothing special) or why it's not a real fix--well, you've explained that, but you seem to want the base classes errataed, and that can't happen. The closest thing to that is, well, 4E.

Kioran
2007-12-07, 08:11 PM
He isn't "almost as powerful" on their home ground. The red-mist fighter, as you call him, splatters enemies *far* more potently (thanks to the addition of AoOs and Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike to his charge). He *is* less situational, and does have better defenses

That Red mist charger can be negated by a single Feat Chain. A Counterattacker can at least be fought to a draw witha combination of high-damage single strikes and Spring Attack. About the only Fighter-splatters-stuff build that works reliably against a cleverly played opponent, especially if that opponent is a martial adept, is Knockback+Dungeon crasher cheese. That oneīs just evil, and I see no concevable way of countering it.
Meanwhile, a Diamond Nightmare blade or strike of perfect clarity cannot be be avoided with anything less than an awesome AC or simply not being around. Then thereīs that strike that dazes your opponent on a failed will save. Your damage might not be in the reaches of absolute overkill that the red clouder can reach, so youīll need two or three rounds to kill your opponent.
But the nasty thing about ToB opponents is that there is no counter to their attacks short of killing/totally incapacitating them, quite possibly with cheese, before they even come in contact. And with the right Stone Dragon/Iron Heart/Diamond Mind maneuvers, theyīre a lot harder to kill, since they have DR and actually make their saves or shrug some debiliating effects off with IHS.
You do not auto-win, but Iīd hesitate to throw the towel at almost any level. At many you have at least a perceptible chance of beating the Fighter in PvP, not to mention PvM.


It is fairly complicated or unreasonable. You haven't explained why it's not for lower-powered campaigns (it's easy to make a totally lame Warblade, as I demonstrated), or for non-low-powered but non-heavily-optimized campaigns (unoptimized ToB characters are nothing special) or why it's not a real fix--well, you've explained that, but you seem to want the base classes errataed, and that can't happen. The closest thing to that is, well, 4E.

Yes, exactly - that Fix is 4e, thatīs why it would be awful if they based their new combat system on the ToB. Thatīs why I said itīs no real Fix.
And on the power scale I define thusly

8 - Campaign Smashers (Pun-Pun, 1d2 Crusader)
7 - Heavy Cheese (Batman, optimized Druid)
6 - slightly cheesy (non - optimized Druid, moderately played Wizard
5 - optimized (Most classes if played sensibly)
4 - Average (moderately optimized Ranger)
3 - below average (moderately optimized Paladin)
2 - weak (Core Fighter 20, moderately optimized Monk, Adept NPC class)
1 - Gimped (Cwar Samurai played as intended, NPC Classes)

Most ToB range from 3 to 6, whereas many non Full-caster core classes range from 2 - 4 (Fighters, Monks, Paladins) or 3 - 5 (Rogues, Barbarians, Bards (in Core . with Splatbooks they can be cheesed out the wazoo). Of course that lvl depends on the degree of optimization of the character and the available sourcebooks....

But if you play a campaign with mostly core Characters and few splatbooks, where the PCs are built without much forethought or planning, or only casual optimization, and the casters play healbot/blaster, you need to make a conscious effort to make sub-optimal choices or not play the character to itīs full strenght, otherwise you can dominate a great many encounters. At that juncture, you might as well play the normal classes.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-07, 09:11 PM
That Red mist charger can be negated by a single Feat Chain. A Counterattacker can at least be fought to a draw witha combination of high-damage single strikes and Spring Attack. About the only Fighter-splatters-stuff build that works reliably against a cleverly played opponent, especially if that opponent is a martial adept, is Knockback+Dungeon crasher cheese. That oneīs just evil, and I see no concevable way of countering it.
The Shock Trooper can be negated by a single feat chain...

...which is great if you're building for PvP against someone who has Shock Trooper.
Monsters aren't so lucky. They have, for the most part, fixed feats. And if a DM starts giving all of his NPCs a particular feat chain and changing his monsters to have it, too, just to keep one PC from smashing them all, that PC is well beyond simply "overpowered".
And, oh, yeah--you declare Dodge on your turn. If the Fighter won initiative, then you get Shock Trooped, Elusive Target (works vs. your Dodge target) or no. How many monsters can consistently beat the moderately-DEX-invested (for Combat Reflexes), Improved Initiative having Fighter with a Warning weapon when it comes to Initiative?

"Combination of high-damage single strikes and Spring Attack"... yeah, again: great if you can do it. Too bad odds are you can't. And odds are your damage isn't higher than the Fighter's.
And it's too bad that because the Fighter is a Fighter, he has both counterattacks AND Shock Trooper charging. So now enemies need Elusive Target and Spring Attack (four feats), plus high single-strike damage. Otherwise, he Shock Troops them, and then counterattacks with Shock Trooper's damage adding to his.

And on top of that, the Fighter has Elusive Target himself (meaning, good luck with high-damage single strikes), Dungeon Crasher and Knockback... oh, and that PHB II substitution level that gives him double damage on one attack, and then on all of his AoOs. So if he can't Shock Troop you he just hits you for double damage, and then each of his counterattacks is at double damage too.

And if all else fails, he uses Knockback and Dungeon Crasher.

You're suggesting that a highly specific counter-tactic, which it makes no sense for the vast majority of enemies to have, is going to negate the Fighter because all the enemies will have it. And another highly specific counter-tactic, high-damage Spring Attacking, is ALSO going to be had by all the enemies.
This is the equivalent of saying that Antimagic Field existing means that spellcasters aren't overpowered.
(Oh, by the way? High-damage spring attacking doesn't work. Worst-case scenario for the fighter is that he gets two hits, his normal charge and his counterstrike, for each one of yours.... and on top of THAT, he eats up all your actions for the round, just by soaking up *one* attack per round.)

No, that kind of fighter build destroys everything in melee.


Meanwhile, a Diamond Nightmare blade or strike of perfect clarity cannot be be avoided with anything less than an awesome AC or simply not being around. Then thereīs that strike that dazes your opponent on a failed will save. Your damage might not be in the reaches of absolute overkill that the red clouder can reach, so youīll need two or three rounds to kill your opponent.
That's great, except that the fighter has all three tricks before you get Diamond Nightmare Blade, and has his first from level 6 on (and before that, he's just as good as you are, too). And his tricks do more damage than your maneuvers on top of that.

So there is no three-feat chain that counters Diamond Nightmare Blade--but as I showed you, not even having Elusive Target, Spring Attack, or both shuts down that Fighter... and how many enemies are going to have Elusive Target and Spring Attack? If the answer is "most of them, because the DM makes it that way", believe me when I say the DM is not at a shortage of options for shutting down Tome of Battle characters. DMs can do pretty much whatever.


But the nasty thing about ToB opponents is that there is no counter to their attacks short of killing/totally incapacitating them, quite possibly with cheese, before they even come in contact. And with the right Stone Dragon/Iron Heart/Diamond Mind maneuvers, theyīre a lot harder to kill, since they have DR and actually make their saves or shrug some debiliating effects off with IHS.
You do not auto-win, but Iīd hesitate to throw the towel at almost any level. At many you have at least a perceptible chance of beating the Fighter in PvP, not to mention PvM.
And like I showed you, you can't shut down that Fighter's offense, either (and you admitted it straight up about Dungeon Crasher/Knockback or Pushback). There's plenty of counters to ToB opponents, including battlefield control and magic. Hey, how about miss chance! If the fighter missed his charge, he's still going to land some counterattacks for tons of damage; if you missed your Sapphire Nightmare Blade, it's gone.

Sure, ToB characters are harder to disable without meleeing them (the Fighter I showed you destroys melee opponents). That's a good thing. NO ONE should be easier to disable outside of melee than the existing Fighter. My whole point was that the Fighter significantly outpaces the Warblade in terms of melee (and Battlefield Control... at the same time) prowess, and therefore Warblades existing doesn't mean there's no reason to play a fighter ("there's no reason to play a Fighter" is a funny argument in a game with so many other melee characters better than the Fighter).
But the Crusader and Swordsage don't have Iron Heart Surge, the Warblade and Crusader don't have a high touch AC, the Crusader doesn't have Diamond Mind saving-throw maneuvers, and if the Warblade readies IHS, Moment of Perfect Mind, Mind over Body, and whatever the Ref-save maneuver is... he's going to have, what, two other maneuvers? He'll be refreshing every other round, during which he's making a mundane melee attack, and he *can't* refresh on a round during which he used a Diamond Mind counter (immediate action eats his swift). And, oh, yeah--if he uses the maneuver, the next save of that type he has to make screws him up.


Yes, exactly - that Fix is 4e, thatīs why it would be awful if they based their new combat system on the ToB. Thatīs why I said itīs no real Fix.
But... you haven't explained why it would be awful. ToB's great. Their offense caps at lower than the Fighter's, and their defense and mobility (the crippling weaknesses that make the Fighter such a weak class normally) is better. If everybody's going to be more like ToB combatants (with (Ex) or (Su) abilities depending on the nature of the class), even your "ToB classes supplant normal classes!" argument falls flat.


And on the power scale I define thusly

8 - Campaign Smashers (Pun-Pun, 1d2 Crusader)
7 - Heavy Cheese (Batman, optimized Druid)
6 - slightly cheesy (non - optimized Druid, moderately played Wizard
5 - optimized (Most classes if played sensibly)
4 - Average (moderately optimized Ranger)
3 - below average (moderately optimized Paladin)
2 - weak (Core Fighter 20, moderately optimized Monk, Adept NPC class)
1 - Gimped (Cwar Samurai played as intended, NPC Classes)

Batman's a 6, not a 7--the batman guide specifically says to avoid cheese like Shivering Touch and Polymorph and crap like that.


Most ToB range from 3 to 6, whereas many non Full-caster core classes range from 2 - 4 (Fighters, Monks, Paladins) or 3 - 5 (Rogues, Barbarians, Bards (in Core . with Splatbooks they can be cheesed out the wazoo). Of course that lvl depends on the degree of optimization of the character and the available sourcebooks....
It's very possible to make a "weak" ToB character. I already did it. It's also possible to build a 6 Fighter (that Fighter I showed you was more than "slightly" cheesy) with enough cheese.

So... your problem is that the ToB range is 2-6 rather than 2-5? Why the hell is that such a huge deal, especially when it's so heavily influenced by the degree of optimization, availible sourcebooks, etc?


But if you play a campaign with mostly core Characters and few splatbooks, where the PCs are built without much forethought or planning, or only casual optimization, and the casters play healbot/blaster, you need to make a conscious effort to make sub-optimal choices or not play the character to itīs full strenght, otherwise you can dominate a great many encounters. At that juncture, you might as well play the normal classes.
If you build your ToB character without forethought and planning, he'll suck. I showed you that already. The problem is that you'll suck slightly less than some of the other classes? Big deal, that's already true. Some core classes are going to suck more than others when you don't put forethought and planning

So basically, your objection seems to be that, maybe, IF the game is mostly core AND nobody is planning their characters out or optimizing AND the casters play in a certain way that FAR from everyone actually plays...
...the ToB classes might be better than average.
Wow.
Y'know, to me it sure sounds like you're just desperately grasping for reasons to dislike the book--or rather, to justify an irrational dislike.

And one last point: your one remaining objection seems to be related to ToB classes vs. normal classes.
If everyone is going to be vaguely ToB-like in 4E, doesn't that objection disappear, making it a GOOD fix? That's what it looks like. All the melee characters WILL have access to all sorts of different combat maneuvers (swordmen will be able to get extra attacks from first level, spearmen will be able to do better against armored opponents, and so on).


So: Tome of Battle is well balanced, fun to use, and can be used to make a wide variety of character types, both mundane and non, both gritty and wuxia. The only functional way to errata the core melee classes is a new edition, which is what's happening... a new edition for which Tome of Battle (since it's well-balanced, fun to use, and can be used to make a wide variety of character types) is a pretty damn good basis.

...

Why don't you take a moment and sum up your objections to the book (or whatever it was you were objecting to), for my sake. Preferably with evidence to back it up, but just the actual arguments will do. Either you're not getting at what I think you're getting at, or your arguments pretty much counter themselves.

Arbitrarity
2007-12-08, 12:21 AM
Note: Manuvers of single attacks cannot be used in conjunction with spring attack. Spring attack gives an attack, not a standard action, unlike flyby attack.