PDA

View Full Version : Am I the only one?



Lady Tialait
2007-12-24, 05:04 PM
I dont like ToB, everything I've read in it has made me sick. The ability to hit a tree entill the whole party is at full health (Crusader level 1 stance. 2 HP if you sussussfully make an attack), seems wrong, Everything I've seen seems wrong. I mean Sense when could a Martial class send the caster packing on the casting end. I'm suprised they didn't give you a manure to pick a lock, there is another move for every other thing a clas can do. If lower, it makes it up by it's 1/encounter or till you want to recover it. Effect. I've been called a psyocopath for this but I just will say i dont like it. Upto and Inculding the arguement of 'It's just swing your sword harder' I call bull there. Power Attack is just swinging Harder, More Damage or Less accuritsy. the 1/encounter doesnt make any sense if it's 'Just swing harder' sense if you could 'just swing harder' then you would be able to do it all the time. That is clearly either a magical ability that a wizard can't do. or if its 'just swing harder' then it has been poorly disigned for realism. I play a pretty realistic campaign usally. When I don't the reason is because Wizards. After all Magic breaks the laws of physics. Swinging your hammer/sword/whatever does not breaks the laws of physics.

I ofcorse know your gunna gripe me out for this...but I really needed this off my chest...thanks for reading..

SurlySeraph
2007-12-24, 05:06 PM
I don't care for ToB, but I've never played a game with classes from it so I can't really judge.

Worira
2007-12-24, 05:07 PM
Batman would like a word.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-24, 05:07 PM
{Scrubbed}

Tor the Fallen
2007-12-24, 05:10 PM
{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-24, 05:11 PM
{Scrubbed}

Tor the Fallen
2007-12-24, 05:13 PM
My problem? I'm sick and tired of threads that go nowhere. At least monk threads give inventive houserules.

No one's forcing you to read them. Maybe you should get off the internets or something?

Reinboom
2007-12-24, 05:14 PM
My problem? I'm sick and tired of threads that go nowhere. At least monk threads give inventive houserules.

It's a bit tiresome, aye. I think I have thought of an interesting way to combat these though...

Step 1: Look at Warblade, not Crusader or Swordsage.
Step 2: Call the maneuvers something else.

Voila. You're not stepping on anybody's but the fighter's toes. Which should be stepped on. Hard.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-24, 05:15 PM
{Scrubbed}

chionophile
2007-12-24, 05:16 PM
Hm. So one of (maybe your primary one) your arguments is that swinging a sword doesn't break the laws of physics. Maybe it should. There's no reason casters and fighters shouldn't be on a similar level - if that means making warriors (and I mean the dictionary definition) capable of tearing the fabric of the universe with their sword, well hell, I say that's awesome.

If casters are superhuman, then fighters ought to be too.

Solo
2007-12-24, 05:17 PM
I dont like ToB, everything I've read in it has made me sick. The ability to hit a tree entill the whole party is at full health (Crusader level 1 stance. 2 HP if you sussussfully make an attack), seems wrong, Everything I've seen seems wrong. I mean Sense when could a Martial class send the caster packing on the casting end. I'm suprised they didn't give you a manure to pick a lock, there is another move for every other thing a clas can do. If lower, it makes it up by it's 1/encounter or till you want to recover it. Effect. I've been called a psyocopath for this but I just will say i dont like it. Upto and Inculding the arguement of 'It's just swing your sword harder' I call bull there. Power Attack is just swinging Harder, More Damage or Less accuritsy. the 1/encounter doesnt make any sense if it's 'Just swing harder' sense if you could 'just swing harder' then you would be able to do it all the time. That is clearly either a magical ability that a wizard can't do. or if its 'just swing harder' then it has been poorly disigned for realism. I play a pretty realistic campaign usally. When I don't the reason is because Wizards. After all Magic breaks the laws of physics. Swinging your hammer/sword/whatever does not breaks the laws of physics.

I ofcorse know your gunna gripe me out for this...but I really needed this off my chest...thanks for reading..

So don't use ToB. What's the problem now?

Tor the Fallen
2007-12-24, 05:19 PM
So don't use ToB. What's the problem now?

Other people using ToB in the games she plays in?

Chronicled
2007-12-24, 05:19 PM
\The ability to hit a tree entill the whole party is at full health (Crusader level 1 stance. 2 HP if you sussussfully make an attack), seems wrong,

This thing you are describing, it does not work the way you think it does.


Everything I've seen seems wrong. I mean Sense when could a Martial class send the caster packing on the casting end.

You mean in the later levels? Since game developers realized that martial classes weren't having fun at later levels, being unable to meaningfully contribute.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-24, 05:21 PM
So...I'm not the biggest fan of ToB, but:
-You're picking on Devoted Spirit. That's just too easy, from a certain perspective. Also, you're doing it wrong. Hitting a tree doesn't work, it's pretty explicit. Unless the tree is a foe posing a direct, immediate threat to the party. (Ok, wrong maneuver. That stance is glitched...)
-Only a few schools are magical. Except a few places where they just did stupid garbage. Nothing a warblade does is supposed to be magic (though some of it doesn't work mundanely in my opinion). Crusader and Swordsage are supposed to be gish-ish (divine and arcane respectively).
-They don't actually replace either wizard or cleric magic. Not even for blasting, not even if you try. Unless you allow that idiotic mystic swordsage variant.
-Why did this have to be written in illegible run-on?:smallfurious:

Reel On, Love
2007-12-24, 05:22 PM
I dont like ToB, everything I've read in it has made me sick.
[Scrubbed]


The ability to hit a tree entill the whole party is at full health (Crusader level 1 stance. 2 HP if you sussussfully make an attack), seems wrong,
That Crusader stance is missing the tagline all the other Devoted Spirit maneuvers have, about having to hit an actual enemy. It was left out by accident. Add that in and the stance is 100% A-OK. That's an actual error in the book, but a minor one (because it's so obvious).


Everything I've seen seems wrong. I mean Sense when could a Martial class send the caster packing on the casting end. I'm suprised they didn't give you a manure to pick a lock, there is another move for every other thing a clas can do.
A martial class CAN'T send the caster packing on the casting end, because you are making that up. For chrissakes, the Swordsage has a 2d6 cone of fire at level 3! That's "sending the casters packing"?

When exactly do martial adepts get to fly (hint: never, even the *Supernatural* Balance on the Sky stance, which you can get at level *15*, is Air Walk, not fly) or Teleport beyond 40 feet or use Glitterdust or Haste or Slow or Web or anything else casters do?

Of course there's no maneuver to pick a lock. The maneuvers that don't do something directly related to hitting people are few and far between: there's the movement ones (Sudden Leap and the mystical Shadow Hand teleports)


If lower, it makes it up by it's 1/encounter or till you want to recover it. Effect. I've been called a psyocopath for this but I just will say i dont like it.
"2d6 cone of fire whenever you want" still, you guessed it, sucks, even at third level.


Upto and Inculding the arguement of 'It's just swing your sword harder' I call bull there. Power Attack is just swinging Harder, More Damage or Less accuritsy.
Power Attack is sacrificing accuracy for power. What would a higher strength be? It's also swinging harder. Weapon Specialization? Swinging better. I guess we need to get rid of Greater Weapon Specialization, since Weapon Specialization already exists to cover "swinging better".


the 1/encounter doesnt make any sense if it's 'Just swing harder' sense if you could 'just swing harder' then you would be able to do it all the time. That is clearly either a magical ability that a wizard can't do. or if its 'just swing harder' then it has been poorly disigned for realism.
Having to recover the maneuver to use it again makes just as much sense as being able to trip your opponent every round. More, even.

Hey, let's look at fencing. You know what you do when you want to hit harder and further away? You lunge, sometimes you break into a running fleche. And you know what you have to do after that, to do it again? You have to recover.
The recovery mechanic isn't just resource management, it also represents having to reposition and ready yourself. This is *more* realistic than normal D&D combat, where characters are making six attacks in six seconds... or trying to disarm someone six times in six seconds.


I play a pretty realistic campaign usally. When I don't the reason is because Wizards. After all Magic breaks the laws of physics. Swinging your hammer/sword/whatever does not breaks the laws of physics.
So don't use Desert Wind and Shadow Hand (which are explicitly Supernatural). Iron Heart is just "I'm so tough". Stone Dragon is just "I hit him really hard in the right place". White Raven is just "tactics FTW". Tiger Claw is "RAAR I'ze vicious". Setting Sun is just throwing people (and throwing someone six times as far as you normally could is exactly as realistic as attacking six times as fast as you normally could).

Swinging your sword does break the laws of physics when you can use Power Attack to cut through solid rock like it's gingerbread.


I ofcorse know your gunna gripe me out for this...but I really needed this off my chest...thanks for reading..
[Scrubbed]

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-24, 05:29 PM
Having to recover the maneuver to use it again makes just as much sense as being able to trip your opponent every round. More, even.

Hey, let's look at fencing. You know what you do when you want to hit harder and further away? You lunge, sometimes you break into a running fleche. And you know what you have to do after that, to do it again? You have to recover.
The recovery mechanic isn't just resource management, it also represents having to reposition and ready yourself. This is *more* realistic than normal D&D combat, where characters are making six attacks in six seconds... or trying to disarm someone six times in six seconds.
But why can you do any other maneuver without recovering? It's only the specific one you used that's taken away. You aren't 'out of position' for any other purpose. Even another move that's essentially a lower (or higher) power version of the exact same thing.

So don't use Desert Wind and Shadow Hand (which are explicitly Supernatural). Iron Heart is just "I'm so tough". Stone Dragon is just "I hit him really hard in the right place". White Raven is just "tactics FTW". Tiger Claw is "RAAR I'ze vicious". Setting Sun is just throwing people (and throwing someone six times as far as you normally could is exactly as realistic as attacking six times as fast as you normally could).
Um, White Raven is 'time dilation for everyone!' It's supposed to be tactics, but tactics don't normally make people take multiple full-round actions per round.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-24, 05:33 PM
{Scrubbed}

Ichneumon
2007-12-24, 05:38 PM
I can see why people would like it. But personally the fluff of the classes doesn't really appeal to me. I think the fake oriental flavor kind of kills it. God, I loved Oriental Adventures.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-24, 05:40 PM
But why can you do any other maneuver without recovering? It's only the specific one you used that's taken away. You aren't 'out of position' for any other purpose. Even another move that's essentially a lower (or higher) power version of the exact same thing.
I dunno--why can you be trying your best to jump high, and have the result vary from zero to five feet randomly?
Because the D&D combat system is a heavy abstraction, and ToB works within that. If it got detailed enough to account for when you can do what, it'd be The Riddle of Steel. Of course ToB isn't a perfect representation of combat, but it's certainly no less realistic than the PHB. When was the last time you saw a fight that consisted of nothing but someone trying to trip the other person over and over and over, and tripping six people who are rushing past him while he does it (Combat Reflexes + Imp Trip)?

With that said, after I lunge, I can still riposte. I can lunge-redouble, maybe, depending on if I was planning on it and what my opponent is doing. I can definitely pull a stop-thrust as I recover, and I can do a disengage while doing any other kind of attack.


Um, White Raven is 'time dilation for everyone!' It's supposed to be tactics, but tactics don't normally make people take multiple full-round actions per round.
Really good group tactics can in fact make a group increase in efficiency at a level approaching One Character Out Of Four Does Twice As Much.
That said, WRT is too powerful. We know. This post isn't "some specific maneuvers are too good/wonky", it's "zomg, ToB = wtf!"




I can see why people would like it. But personally the fluff of the classes doesn't really appeal to me. I think the fake oriental flavor kind of kills it. God, I loved Oriental Adventures.
Uh, an Iron Heart/Diamond Mind warblade is great for representing a totally Western armored swordsman, and a Devoted Spirit/White Raven Crusader makes for a solid Knight In Shining Armor. You can use Tiger Claw with the Shadow Blade feat to make a hardcore knife-fighter as easily as a high-flyin' ninja.

Draz74
2007-12-24, 05:54 PM
But why can you do any other maneuver without recovering? It's only the specific one you used that's taken away. You aren't 'out of position' for any other purpose. Even another move that's essentially a lower (or higher) power version of the exact same thing.

Um, White Raven is 'time dilation for everyone!' It's supposed to be tactics, but tactics don't normally make people take multiple full-round actions per round.

These arguments seem to lack the understanding that combat in D&D is an abstraction.

You can take a solid hit with a Greataxe and hardly notice the damage to your body (if you're a high level fighter being hit by a Level 1 Warrior). That's not exactly realistic. More fantastic than some of the supernatural ToB moves, even. So why doesn't it bother us all the time? Because Hit Points are abstract, and you can explain their effects away through a variety of "fluffs."

Shouldn't warriors of equal skill and similar styles be trading blows at each other one for one? Yet, if they're high level, they're trading them four for four. So your Level 17 Fighter really couldn't counterattack his rival fighter in between those four swipes, but when he finally got a chance, he could swing back four times. Huh?

Oh, right. Taking turns in combat is an abstraction. You just imagine things happening simultaneously, or in all kinds of unpredictable orders amid the chaos of open dirty fighting.

Flanking? an abstraction. You just imagine that warriors are facing a certain direction, and turning about very quickly constantly throughout the battle, and just can't handle turning that fast when two enemies are actually on opposite sides of him.

Movement incremented in 5-foot squares? Abstraction. Greatsword not actually having greater reach (or slower swinging speed) than a dagger? Abstraction (and the two things sorta cancel each other out in terms of the rules).

Is abstraction a good thing, or something we should get rid of? Depends. The hit to realism can be worth it (in most peoples' opinion) if the simplification is great enough. Most people like rules without Facing detailed. One important question is, "Does the abstraction lead to more realistic choices?" Even the iterative attack system -- my least favorite of the listed abstractions -- might pass this test, because it certainly makes sense that you will be more scared of a dragon's counterattack if you hold relatively still right next to him, compared to if you keep moving.

The Tome of Battle "Maneuvers Readied, Unreadied, and Recovery" abstraction? Great for realism of choices. Because real combat -- that chaotic process -- is about being opportunistic, thinking on your feet, having quick reactions, and varying your tactics so your opponent can't adapt as well. All of that is very poorly simulated by a Trip Fighter who uses Improved Trip every attack, or anything similar. It's much better shown by a warrior who uses Sudden Leap when he sees a nice opportunity to jump to a better battlefield position without losing his attack rhythm, then uses Emerald Razor when he sees an opponent open up their defenses in a way that lets him hurt them right through their armor, then uses ... well, you get the idea.

Likewise, White Raven isn't so bad if you think abstractly about combat rounds and their timing.

cupkeyk
2007-12-24, 10:02 PM
OA was vastly more fake that TOB: BONS. TOB: BONS doesn't even try, when OA was very outside looking in. Take it from me, being Asian (look at location).

Solo
2007-12-24, 10:06 PM
I can see why people would like it. But personally the fluff of the classes doesn't really appeal to me. I think the fake oriental flavor kind of kills it. God, I loved Oriental Adventures.

Poorly thought out pseudo-asian stereotypes ftw!

cupkeyk
2007-12-24, 10:12 PM
Poorly thought out pseudo-asian stereotypes ftw!

Not only stereotypes, but all sorts of stuff. Like dual weilding katana and wakizashi, not everyone is Musashi, he was the only one who did that. Or the absence of any flavor from my country. T_T

Mojo_Rat
2007-12-24, 10:17 PM
I found it was easier to deal with the book when i first Seperated the 3 classes in the book from the Manevers/strikes. I realized that what I disliked about the book Wasnt really the Concepts introduced (the Strikes/maneuvers) so much as I disliked the 3 classes.

The problem came down to they seemed to break previously existing game design rules and admitedly a dislike of the flavour.

After that it was easiest to just look at the individual strikes and stances on their own in the same way you would spells. Although admtedly without the 3 classes its much harder to apply any of them but the only house rule weve discussed so far was.

allowing the martial study feat more than 3 times and treating your initator level as your base attack bonus. But none of it has been applied past discussion as the book hasnt really caught the interest of any of the players in our group really.

Edit
I forgot to addess the OP's specic statement on the tree and the person geting infinite healing. That isnt a design flaw of any of the maneuvers if somone is doing it it is a 'smack your Dm in the head with a book flaw' Its just like the arguments i have seen some people make about combat expertise and attacking the ground. It has nothing to do with the mechanics and all about the players or dm.

Lady Tialait
2007-12-25, 12:35 AM
This teaches me to post when i'm stressed out and half asleep without my freinds copy of ToB within reach.

First off, my main beef is with a few flaws in the book, the goal of producing that book as far as i can see, was to bring up the power level of the melee fighter, Witch i won't argue needed the boost. But, in doing so I think the effect is totally overshadowing existing materials. I didn't like that.


Second, My secondary Beef is the flavor of the book, personal choice, I don't like it. I have tryed removing the classes in the book and allowing the manuvers as feats. and even then I get players playing the personality of a swordsage, warblade, or somesuch. It annoys.

Thirdly, and the saddest point yet, the worst amount of powergaming I had ever encountered as either DM or player was a monk build that was very nice, Till I started researching online I never encountered CoDzillas or Batman. AND I hadn't looked online till ToB came into my game. As such, you can see my view of the book. It makes something that can compete with a midway build wizard, or a okay cleric. And REALLY easy to build too.

That explains me in a nutshell...and yes...a monk....seriously...

SadisticFishing
2007-12-25, 12:37 AM
Why do people not READ the ToB before they start complaining?

You can only use the healing strikes and stance against things that are of a different alignment, AND that are a CLEAR threat to you and/or your allies.

You can not Crusader Strike a tree (to gain health).

Gralamin
2007-12-25, 12:58 AM
Why do people not READ the ToB before they start complaining?

You can only use the healing strikes and stance against things that are of a different alignment, AND that are a CLEAR threat to you and/or your allies.

You can not Crusader Strike a tree (to gain health).

Martial Spirit, not Crusader Strike. Martial spirit is missing the qualifier it should obviously have.

Chronicled
2007-12-25, 01:27 AM
the goal of producing that book as far as i can see, was to bring up the power level of the melee fighter, Witch i won't argue needed the boost. But, in doing so I think the effect is totally overshadowing existing materials. I didn't like that.

Can you think of another way to boost the power level of melee classes, other than completely rewriting them with an errata (which would have caused massive complaints from the consumer base)? Feats can only do so much, likewise for alternate class features.

Tome of Battle isn't even about making meleers more powerful, it's about making them more flexible. A properly built barbarian still does more damage than a well-built Tome of Battle class. The Tome of Battle classes excel when fights aren't just two juggernauts standing next to each other and trading full attacks (which is incredibly boring after a level or 2), encouraging interesting combat.

SadisticFishing
2007-12-25, 01:27 AM
Then let the obvious become the true! It's one of the things I like most about D&D, if something doesn't make sense, you can fix it. As a matter of fact, they tell you that themselves.

Draz74
2007-12-25, 02:29 AM
First off, my main beef is with a few flaws in the book, the goal of producing that book as far as i can see, was to bring up the power level of the melee fighter, Witch i won't argue needed the boost. But, in doing so I think the effect is totally overshadowing existing materials. I didn't like that.

As Chronicled said, what's the alternative? Is there a better way to boost melee to a respectable level? (And to respond to SadisticFishing: Making melee work decently is a much bigger project than most DMs can handle through on-the-fly rulings, if that's what you were advocating.)

Besides, you can still use much material from other books. Tome of Battle has feats and multiclass-initiator-level rules and other stuff that seems like it was written specifically so that other material didn't become any more obsolete than you wanted it to be. You can still make a Ranger who just dips a level or feat once in a while to gain access to a few Tiger Claw maneuvers, for example. He'll still use whatever Ranger material you want from other sources, spellcasting and all.


Second, My secondary Beef is the flavor of the book, personal choice, I don't like it. I have tryed removing the classes in the book and allowing the manuvers as feats. and even then I get players playing the personality of a swordsage, warblade, or somesuch. It annoys.

I'm under the impression that this is not a common experience. And therefore that it's more of a problem with your players than with the book.

Try it with players who haven't even had a chance to read the fluff. Just give them a copy of the mechanics and see what they come up with. (Admittedly this would be a time-consuming project, to erase the fluff from all the maneuvers and stuff ... it might be faster to find new players who are skilled at mentally divorcing fluff from crunch instead.)

Or try making someone in your group play a ToB character who deliberately rebels against the fluff. Like a Warblade who hates fighting, only does it reluctantly out of necessity, has a really low Charisma, and is a Gnome. Or hey, even just a Swordsage who uses mostly Setting Sun, backed up by a bit of Tiger Claw and Diamond Mind, but no Desert Wind or Shadow Hand, is different enough from the stereotype that you might be pleasantly surprised.


Thirdly, and the saddest point yet, the worst amount of powergaming I had ever encountered as either DM or player was a monk build that was very nice, Till I started researching online I never encountered CoDzillas or Batman. AND I hadn't looked online till ToB came into my game. As such, you can see my view of the book. It makes something that can compete with a midway build wizard, or a okay cleric. And REALLY easy to build too.

Blaming ToB for the ridiculous powergaming that results in Invincible Scry-and-Die Batman or CoDzilla is totally illogical. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Those other things caused Tome of Battle's power boost to be needed, not the other way around. And the real culprit here is the Internet, not any book. The Internet is what shattered your state of blissful ignorance about the imbalances of the game. Sorry.

Those of us who have seen the game improve (some in balance, but mostly in fun-ness) due to ToB's appearance are annoyed by the condemnation of such brilliant design ideas for such illogical reasons. :smallconfused:

DiscipleofBob
2007-12-25, 02:50 AM
Personally, I like ToB. I have a friend who disagrees and says it's broken.

His main argument involved the Shadow Hand school. A first level stance gives you pretty much constant concealment, something that arcane casters have to wait a few levels for. And the ninth level Shadow Hand manuever supposedly cannot be replicated by any arcane spell.

These are his words not mine.

Swordguy
2007-12-25, 03:05 AM
{Scrubbed}

No, solely for the reason that you posted in huge letters to kill somebody else's thread. In fact, for every post you don't make, I'll post two. [Sheriff: How would that even work? :smallamused: ]

Bad, bad form. :smallmad:

Thrythlind
2007-12-25, 03:08 AM
Actually, I did a numbers one between fighters and the martial adepts, and the fighters still are a lot more reliable and, overall, end up causing more damage to the enemy. The classes were a lot more balanced than they seemed at first glance.

That said, they're optional, I would generally use them in a world given towards a high degree of wu xia effects and such, and one with fewer spellcasters around.

Swordguy
2007-12-25, 03:08 AM
Now, for my second post, I disagree that ToB is what had to happen to boost melee classes to the level of casters. Casters should have been dropped in power to the level of melee classes (maybe meeting in the middle, like the 80/20 middle). While it's easier to power up melee to the level of casters, it sets the power at a higher level that the next edition will then have to surpass to attract customers (look! It's bigger and better and more powerful! Buy this!). It's a tough-to-break cycle, and WOTC has nobody to blame for starting it but themselves.

tyckspoon
2007-12-25, 03:09 AM
Personally, I like ToB. I have a friend who disagrees and says it's broken.

His main argument involved the Shadow Hand school. A first level stance gives you pretty much constant concealment, something that arcane casters have to wait a few levels for. And the ninth level Shadow Hand manuever supposedly cannot be replicated by any arcane spell.

These are his words not mine.

Your friend is overvaluing that concealment stance. It has two fairly major restrictions: You have to move at least ten feet, and it doesn't let you hide. It would combine well with Skirmish (also has to move) and/or Sneak Attack (concealment), but you won't be making a full attack, and you'll be sacrificing your Swordsage advancement to take levels in a class that grants either Skirmish or Sneak. Without those, it's just an ability that helps keep the Swordsage alive and reduces his dependence on a magic item to get him that miss chance. Which is exactly what the book is supposed to do for melee characters. It's unusually potent for a first-level melee character ability, yes, but the first level melee abilities in most classes suck.

Ok, there is no spell I'm aware of that acts exactly like the Five Shadow strike. This is a problem why, exactly? Overpowered isn't a matter of doing something that arcane magic doesn't; if it were, healing spells would be overpowered. It would be overpowered if it were *more powerful* than 9th level arcane magic, which.. it isn't.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-25, 03:24 AM
Now, for my second post, I disagree that ToB is what had to happen to boost melee classes to the level of casters. Casters should have been dropped in power to the level of melee classes (maybe meeting in the middle, like the 80/20 middle). While it's easier to power up melee to the level of casters, it sets the power at a higher level that the next edition will then have to surpass to attract customers (look! It's bigger and better and more powerful! Buy this!). It's a tough-to-break cycle, and WOTC has nobody to blame for starting it but themselves.

WotC can't drop caster power. Errata can't just remove wide chunks of material.

ToB DOES NOT boost melee classes to the level of casters. ToB classes are better overall (mobility, defense, versatility, fun), but they're not Wizards. ToB didn't just randomly give melee types a power-up--it addressed a lot of specific issues, like mobility (Strikes are standard actions, some boosts let you position yourself, so getting damage in is easier) and defense (some maneuvers mitigate melee types' gaping weaknesses like a Fighter's Will save--Moment of Perfect Mind replaces your Will save with a concentration check as an immediate action, for example. Of course, you have to recover it to use it again), that made the new classes better rounded and less one-trick than the old ones. It did not make them game-dominating in the way casters can be.

Swordguy
2007-12-25, 03:54 AM
WotC can't drop caster power.


Wrong.

Yes, they can. They just aren't willing to do what it would take to balance them.

Xuincherguixe
2007-12-25, 04:24 AM
Well, I have been thinking of one Monk fix. Which involves giving them extra BAB, and Paladin spells. The flavor powers may or may not get tossed, since it doesn't matter too much.

The real problem is a Fighter Fix :P The only thing that comes to mind is reworking the weapon system, and coming up with some fighting styles. Fighter's would get more of these than other classes, thus would be fairly adaptable. (Lot's of opponents with weak armor? Double Knives. Titaninal? Stop! Hammer time!)

But this is unrelated to the thread!

Armads
2007-12-25, 04:36 AM
Yes, they can. They just aren't willing to do what it would take to balance them.

They aren't willing to do so because they really can't put a spin on "Hey, casters are now weaker!" to all caster-lovers, and still make a lot of money. Also, they need to issue a wide enough errata to make casters balanced, which is the same thing as rolling out a new edition, or replacing the PHB.

Reel On, Love
2007-12-25, 04:37 AM
Wrong.

Yes, they can. They just aren't willing to do what it would take to balance them.
Sure they are--a new edition.

What, you mean remove large chunks of existing material and heavily alter others? No. Errata can't and SHOULDN'T do that. This isn't WoW, where we get patch after patch to change class balance, and do you really think players would appreciate being told "sorry, half your PHB is invalid"? Besiodes which, if you were to make a balanced 3.75... well, you might as well make 4E.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-25, 05:03 AM
Well, looks like this thread's just about wound down. I'm going to go post a monk vs. wizard thread for everyone to play in now.

Chronicled
2007-12-25, 07:07 AM
Meh, just watch it flare back up once everyone in the US wakes up and the effect of Christmas morning wears off.

Starsinger
2007-12-25, 07:10 AM
This isn't WoW,

Really? Cuz I keep reading the opposite in the 4E threads. :smalltongue:

Yami
2007-12-25, 07:48 AM
Okay, first off to the OP. It is a shame you are far too far away to play in any of my games (I mostly play PnP.) I do understand where you are coming from. When I first picked D&D back up I wouldn't allow a warlock, and was truely horrified of the idea one with VoP.

I should also note that the last character I built started out as a swordsage and moved on because I felt that I could gain better benfits from elsewhere. Such as pounce from a 1 level dip in barbarian, and scout so's I could make a full attacking spring attacker. I'm also trying help a friend decide if VoP is right for his driud.

Even without trolling through the boards for ideas I've tried to optimize, so when I came here (first for the play by posts, which haven't had the best of luck with) I picked up the whole balance issue fairly quickly, though I was still horrified with some of the things I've found. One thing you should realize is the power levels in a campaign is a choice.

ToB can work really well for a low powered campaign, and if you ignore a few manouvers the flavor can work really well too. It's alot like playing a wizard and not taking polymorph and craft contingency. You choose what fits and ignore the overpowered or poorly explained manouvers.

Another factor is your DM. They are there for a reason. If you want a game system that runs itself, try NWN 2. The DM is supposed to be the voice of reason, and the arbitrator. They are there to provide balance and see to it that you cannot beat a tree until the party is healed. Also, should your DM ever decide that 3 level 7 characters should be able to survive multipule CR 10 encounters a day, you will probably rush to pick up the ToB for your new character.

Alot of D&D depends on your group and your DM. ToB is well loved by those people who want to play a fighter, but have played a druid.

I don't mind if you still hate it, I still dislike psionics despite thier oft blanced system and ease of use (I still remeber the old ways you see.) I'm just trying to explain why not everyone hates ToB.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-25, 08:06 AM
In my opinion you really shouldn'yt moan about it because its possible flaws are its central concept and if youdon't like that don't buy it.

Monk don't need fixing (anymore that a wizard with 8 int), they don't serve any role.

Kioran
2007-12-25, 08:16 AM
Sure they are--a new edition.

Exactly. And it doesn´t look like 4th ed. brings in the necessary reduction in power. No, just "Keekahhs Wolocks", a legitimation of "play-it-evil-label-it-neutral a.k.a. Evil-curious" and powers for everyone.
Anyone remember the announcement video presentation? They said something about killing 4 Trolls instead of one. So it rather looks like "Powerful heroes in a weak world".

Well, Mike Mearls. What did I expect?

Roderick_BR
2007-12-25, 11:52 AM
If you just doesn't use the supernatural stuff, then the rest is good.
It includes mostly Desert Wind, Devoted Spirit, and Diamond Mind (unless you are a monk-like character). And White Raven for sheer brokeness.
The rest is fair game.
Or you think that being able to hit harder (Stone Dragon/Power Attack), swing your weapon in an arch to hit more than one enemy at once (Iron Heart/Whirlwind Attack), or walk more than 5ft and make one attack with each of your weapons (Tiger Claw/Two Weapon Pounce) is wrong?
I find that more often than not, people that complains about ToB are the ones that always complain when someone finds a way for warrior types to not suck (too much) when compared to casters.

Draz74
2007-12-25, 12:14 PM
Now, for my second post, I disagree that ToB is what had to happen to boost melee classes to the level of casters. Casters should have been dropped in power to the level of melee classes (maybe meeting in the middle, like the 80/20 middle). While it's easier to power up melee to the level of casters, it sets the power at a higher level that the next edition will then have to surpass to attract customers (look! It's bigger and better and more powerful! Buy this!). It's a tough-to-break cycle, and WOTC has nobody to blame for starting it but themselves.

Well, to be fair, they did try releasing Tome of Magic before they came out with Tome of Battle. IMHO, ToM was an attempt to re-make casters at an appropriately lowered power level, the same way ToB was an attempt to re-make warriors at an appropriately increased power level.

And it just didn't catch on. Almost nobody played games with the available classes being Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer.

Of course, they made a couple mistakes. The existence of the Anima Mage and other PrCs still condoned the existence of full Vancian casters in a ToM-using campaign. And the Truenamer and arguably the Shadowcaster weren't powerful enough. Still, I like to see it as, "at least they tried to fix the problem without raising the power level."

But ... books that nerf something are just a lot less marketable than books that make something more powerful. It's a tough problem.

togapika
2007-12-25, 01:47 PM
Some things monks and priests in real life can do break the laws of physics (Immunity to cold anyone?). Think of it not as just swinging a sword, but a meditative art through combat.

Ulzgoroth
2007-12-25, 03:27 PM
Some things monks and priests in real life can do break the laws of physics (Immunity to cold anyone?). Think of it not as just swinging a sword, but a meditative art through combat.
They probably almost certainly don't do what you think. But even if they did, by definition they wouldn't be breaking the laws of physics...

Fawsto
2007-12-25, 04:31 PM
My only grudge with ToB is the fact that it is trying to take the place of other classes like the fighter, paladin and monk. IMO ToB should have come to rebalance the classes it oughts to replace. That's just wrong.

Also, 90% (being the monk and teh fighter the 10%) of D&D problems are with the Casters. I am not goind trought this again, but meleers should get a small boost while some of the metamagic feats and spells should be rethinked or excluded.

ToB, as I stated in another thread, creates 3 new classes that are fighting better and can be useful till lvl 16 (other meleers can keep up only to lvl 12 or at a maximum, lvl 14) but after that, casters will overwhelm everything again...

Frosty
2007-12-26, 04:18 PM
ToB is not more powerful than standard Fighter or Barbarian. they are merely more fun and more flexible.

ToB is nearly impossible to cheese out to the levels that you can cheese out regular melee-classes (assuming enough splatbooks). You can easily create fighter-types that can one-round kill Pelor (or insert other ridiculous high HP being). Cou can't do that with a ToB class.

If you don't like ToB, then don't u se it. Simple as that.

Lady Tialait
2007-12-26, 04:30 PM
I dont use ToB..just to make that clear, but I get tired of every time I think of something to do someone says 'That should just be done with ToB' it's not always, but it's happened enough that It annoys.

Also, I don't find book keeping fun. that is why I usally when playing a spellcaster (Just Druids for Spellcasters) I take Prc that don't advance my spellcasting (Master of Many Forms is a personal Fave), it just cuts bookeeping for me.

ToB gives a bunch of book keeping for combat, a bunch of At Will out of combat, that doesn't equal fun to me. Then again, that may be just what most peaple wanted in their fighters, spells. if that's what you want then enjoy.

I didn't like alot of the newer stuff. ToM was underpowered, the only part of that I took was Binder, I liked it. infact I've played 3 of them. ToB just rubs me wrong. I think i'm the only person who thinks this way is the only reason I started this thread, to see if anyone sees the book like I do. As a rather blantant addition of spells to a fighting class when it was uneeded, With complete Warrior and other completes, the fighter has plenty of options. I personally think Retraining should be a class feature for fighters also, as such I've house ruled it so. They can Retrain their feats. without paying huge fees.

that would have been to me atleast a perferable change.

I don't know witch is more powerful standard or ToB, but I do know witch can get farther without resting (ToB team made it 30 level equivalent encounters, standard made it 12 without resting before they were out of supplies completely).

I do not mind if other peaple like ToB I dont, same as some peaple dont like psionics, I personally miss the 2ed Psionics...but oh well.

kamikasei
2007-12-26, 05:58 PM
Also, I don't find book keeping fun. that is why I usally when playing a spellcaster (Just Druids for Spellcasters) I take Prc that don't advance my spellcasting (Master of Many Forms is a personal Fave), it just cuts bookeeping for me.

ToB gives a bunch of book keeping for combat, a bunch of At Will out of combat, that doesn't equal fun to me. Then again, that may be just what most peaple wanted in their fighters, spells. if that's what you want then enjoy.

I wouldn't say ToB requires that much bookkeeping.

You have to keep track of what maneuvers you have readied and expended. But there's not that many of them, and in most fights you can just cross them out on a scratchpad and start with a fresh list in the next combat (that is, fights are short enough that you might not need to recover them).


I didn't like alot of the newer stuff. ToM was underpowered, the only part of that I took was Binder, I liked it. infact I've played 3 of them. ToB just rubs me wrong. I think i'm the only person who thinks this way is the only reason I started this thread, to see if anyone sees the book like I do. As a rather blantant addition of spells to a fighting class when it was uneeded, With complete Warrior and other completes, the fighter has plenty of options. I personally think Retraining should be a class feature for fighters also, as such I've house ruled it so. They can Retrain their feats. without paying huge fees.

I don't know why you'd think you were the only one who doesn't like ToB. Many people on these boards have said they don't.

I'll grant that it looks like ToB gets your goat for about eight different reasons at once, based on your postings, so perhaps it's fair to say that no one else hates it in quite the same way as you.

I also think you're abusing the word "spell" somewhat there. Some maneuvers are supernatural abilites, like a paladin's smite or a monk's ki strike. That doesn't make them spells; and if you decry the ability to do weird stuff marked (Su), you should have a problem with paladins and monks too.


I don't know witch is more powerful standard or ToB, but I do know witch can get farther without resting (ToB team made it 30 level equivalent encounters, standard made it 12 without resting before they were out of supplies completely).

Honestly I find this a little disingenuous. You've said before that you think ToB is brokenly powerful, so you've certainly voiced an opinion on whether it or core is more powerful.

As to staying power: yeah, so? An all-ToB party could in principle go all day if it could keep its HP up (has anyone crunched the numbers on whether a Crusader, alone, could keep himself and his whole party healed? It seems a stretch). So could an all-Warlock party. So what?

KIDS
2007-12-26, 06:09 PM
{Scrubbed}

Felius
2007-12-26, 06:27 PM
As to staying power: yeah, so? An all-ToB party could in principle go all day if it could keep its HP up (has anyone crunched the numbers on whether a Crusader, alone, could keep himself and his whole party healed? It seems a stretch). So could an all-Warlock party. So what?
About the crusader, if the stance is not errated, they probably can just keeping hitting the tree until they're healed up, but that's completely against RAI, even if not against the RAW. Otherwise, that healing won't be very effective. Imagine:
Crusader: AHA, I hit the troll and my team get heal 2 Hit Points
DM: Ok, now the troll hits you and cause 24 points of damage.
Crusader: Oops :smalleek:

FlyMolo
2007-12-26, 06:31 PM
Let me throw in my terribly confusing two pence.

To start: I have not read ToB or ToM. I don't have them. As such, I can't say much about them. However, I've noticed that lots of people mention ToB, and the shadowcaster and truenamer are completely ignored. I suspect this has something to do with the power differences mentioned earlier.

Personally, my beef with the fighter is their low BAB versus spellcasters. Yes, you heard me right. Basically, a really powerful wizard level 20 is just as likely to hit someone as a moderately proficient fighter, level 10. I think fighters should have greater than 1 to 1 BAB progression. ToB may be fun and flexible, and that's all very well and good, but if the root problem is fighter suckage, give them 150% progression of everything they already get. Less if that's too powerful. Every second level of fighter counts as two levels. This way, BAB makes a little more sense. Because no matter how good at wizardry you are, you are not likely to be able to hurt a fully armored guy who knows what he's doing. Likewise, a well-trained and highly experienced warrior(dictionary def, not the other one) is going to be able to hit somebody else much less experienced than him nearly all the time.

Same goes for monk, really. If they're underpowered, up their unarmed damage progression by one step. Make it faster. Give them bonus feats or something. A good DM might do this sort of thing on the fly.

Roland St. Jude
2007-12-27, 02:31 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please continue this without the personal attacks and vigilante modding. Thank you.

Cuddly
2007-12-27, 02:53 AM
Let me throw in my terribly confusing two pence.

To start: I have not read ToB or ToM. I don't have them. As such, I can't say much about them. However, I've noticed that lots of people mention ToB, and the shadowcaster and truenamer are completely ignored. I suspect this has something to do with the power differences mentioned earlier.

Personally, my beef with the fighter is their low BAB versus spellcasters. Yes, you heard me right. Basically, a really powerful wizard level 20 is just as likely to hit someone as a moderately proficient fighter, level 10. I think fighters should have greater than 1 to 1 BAB progression. ToB may be fun and flexible, and that's all very well and good, but if the root problem is fighter suckage, give them 150% progression of everything they already get. Less if that's too powerful. Every second level of fighter counts as two levels. This way, BAB makes a little more sense. Because no matter how good at wizardry you are, you are not likely to be able to hurt a fully armored guy who knows what he's doing. Likewise, a well-trained and highly experienced warrior(dictionary def, not the other one) is going to be able to hit somebody else much less experienced than him nearly all the time.

Same goes for monk, really. If they're underpowered, up their unarmed damage progression by one step. Make it faster. Give them bonus feats or something. A good DM might do this sort of thing on the fly.

And how, exactly, is 1.5 BAB/level going to help with seeing the invisible, ethereal mage, on his phantom steed, moving at 240' with a perfect fly speed? How is that going to help him from not getting enfeebled/clumsied/enervated? It's not.

BAB is pretty unimportant, as far as keeping up with wizards. Fighters can already hit stuff incredibly well, doing damage in the triple digits. Fighter types can be tripping/disarming/splattering/etc. But that still won't help vs. an opponent 300' away, spamming save-or-dies. Nor will it help when put in solid fog, a forcecage, and so on. It can't teleport.

Magic items mitigate these problems, but then, that's gold not being spent on ability boosts and sharper swordchucks.

ALOR
2007-12-27, 08:31 AM
I ofcorse know your gunna gripe me out for this...but I really needed this off my chest...thanks for reading..

I do not care for the ToB either. :smallmad:
The Crusader is my least hated class out of the book but I really can't stand the Sword Sage and the Warblade.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-12-27, 09:11 AM
Personally, I really enjoy ToB. It gives melee classes options outside from "Power Attack, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack with a Greatsword/Spiked Chain every turn until everything falls over" or "Suck".

Come on, playing a straight Fighter in D&D is about as mind-numbingly boring as anything you can do. In fact, you don't actually need ot actually DO anything, you just stand in front, get hit, get healed by the cleric, and keep them off the wizard while the wizard WTFPWNZORZ everything. However, if you want to contribute, there really isn't a whole lot of options.

Playing a Martial Initiator class is fun. Your melee character can do all kinds of things which are interesting and benificial to the party. Shadow hand lets you be able to get into optimal position. Diamond Mind lets a martial adept be much harder to take out with a 'save or screwed' type spell. Much more fun than 'core' classes, in my opinion.

I happen to enjoy their flavor. Sure, I know it's not anything close to being remotely accurate for any oriental nation. So what? It's a GAME. Just as they don't hard-code the laws of thermodyanamics into the wizard spells, neither should you expect any degree of accuracy in any fluff or flavor a primarily western company would build into it.

On another note, I'm working on a fix for CoDzillas and Batmans by writing up a set of warlock-like 'incantation' classes, designed to be able to work alongside the ToB classes. It's going to be less powerful, sure, but it's not the nerf-bat something like a Namecaller (or whatever) was, it is still powerful at high levels, but nothing like Contingency Celerity to Win Button.

Prophaniti
2007-12-27, 09:38 AM
I don't mind ToB, I've used it a bit and it's quite interesting. As so many people say, it gives more options to melee classes so they actually have something to mull over when their turn comes up (of course, that's only really true in a combat-heavy campaign where all battles take place on a level plain. In that situation, yes fighters are boring to play).

My only problem with it is balance, not with other classes but with itself. I'm talking about the Warblade. There's really no reason from a power-gaming perspective to play either of the other classes, unless you just HAVE to have Shadow Hand for your character.

Warblade is best for one simple reason: recovering spent maneuvers. The swordsage (IMO, the only class that makes sense for what they're trying to do in ToB) must take a full round action to 'meditate' and recover ONE spent maneuver. The Crusader recovers all automatically, yes, but they have a far more limited selection and are only granted them randomly so at least there's a mitigating factor. The mighty Warblade, however, is above such petty concerns. He merely takes a swift action followed by a regular attack, or a standard action of just standing there and looking cool. Ding! All maneuvers recovered, just like that, without even having to drop out of the fight for one round.

Also they have the d12 HD, previously the purvue of the barbarian only among base classes, which now belongs to a class that is not penalized for wearing heavy armor (although they do have to spend a feat *gasp*), has awesome pseudo-magical abilities, and can change what weapon they took their weapon feats for in less than a day. And change them again the next day. And the next, and the next, ect.

So there's my rant, like ToB, hate Warblade. They need a serious beating with the Nerf Stick. Of course, the same is still true about the spells that make wizards and clerics so great, but that is a subject for so many other threads.

MeklorIlavator
2007-12-27, 10:06 AM
Warblade is best for one simple reason: recovering spent maneuvers. The swordsage (IMO, the only class that makes sense for what they're trying to do in ToB) must take a full round action to 'meditate' and recover ONE spent maneuver. The Crusader recovers all automatically, yes, but they have a far more limited selection and are only granted them randomly so at least there's a mitigating factor. The mighty Warblade, however, is above such petty concerns. He merely takes a swift action followed by a regular attack, or a standard action of just standing there and looking cool. Ding! All maneuvers recovered, just like that, without even having to drop out of the fight for one round.


Also they have the d12 HD, previously the purvue of the barbarian only among base classes, which now belongs to a class that is not penalized for wearing heavy armor (although they do have to spend a feat *gasp*), has awesome pseudo-magical abilities, and can change what weapon they took their weapon feats for in less than a day. And change them again the next day. And the next, and the next, ect.


I'm going to quote someone on the boards, but I don't really remember who its from:

A rnadom choice from a list full of awesome is still awesome.
That right there pretty much sums up the crusader. Sure, they get fewer maneuvers, but usually any one build only has a few maneuvers that they have to have, and crusaders do get to chose which maneuvers they will randomly select from. Add to that their Healing abilities and delayed Damage pool, and they can live up the name "the do not die, ever" class.

And the Warblades ability to switch their weapon feats around is pretty much necessary to make those feats actually worth the feat slot. Remember, most characters only have 7-8, and the warblade's bonus feat list is very restrictive. This plus the fact that few games go more than ten levels away from the start point, and fewer start at level 10 or higher, and the actual number of feats available to a character is significantly reduced. Thus, not being proficient with heavy armor is a significant drawback for a front liner unless they are willing to use one of their limited supply of feats, or spend large amounts for mithral heavy armor. The limited supply of feats also justifies the ability to switch around their weapon specific feats, as they need the flexibility if they wish to use said feats. Plus, is it really that much more powerful to go from being really goo with a great ax to being really good with a great sword? Finally, the d12 hit die reflect the fact that these guys need to be up close and personal with the enemy, and yet won't be heavily armored.

Keld Denar
2007-12-27, 12:29 PM
As far as book keeping, I like to write my manuvers on index cards. Include a little text on what the manuver does and what level it is. For a warblade/swordsage, pick the cards you want from the level divided piles in front of you and hold them in your hand. When you expend them, put them back in their pile. When you recover, fish the manuvers back out until you fill your hand. For crusaders, it is easier, you have a draw pile, a discard pile, and a hand. Draw your manuvers granted, everything else is with held. When you use them, discard to expended. When you recover, draw more, or reshuffle then draw.

The only time you have to do more book keeping is when you level, at which point you swap out manuvers and write up 1-2 more note cards. A $0.99 pack of note cards will last you and a friend an entire campaign.

I like it because it is neat, orderly, and it gives me a little Magic:The Gathering nostalgia because I haven't played that game in ages.

Draz74
2007-12-27, 12:57 PM
I haven't actually played ToB enough to get personal experience in the relative balance of the Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage for myself, but this goes strongly against all the impressions I've gotten ...


My only problem with it is balance, not with other classes but with itself. I'm talking about the Warblade. There's really no reason from a power-gaming perspective to play either of the other classes, unless you just HAVE to have Shadow Hand for your character.

Or Setting Sun (which I find pretty much the "coolest" discipline, if not the most effective), or Devoted Spirit (which is often considered at least a "must dip" due to Thicket of Blades).


Warblade is best for one simple reason: recovering spent maneuvers. The swordsage (IMO, the only class that makes sense for what they're trying to do in ToB) must take a full round action to 'meditate' and recover ONE spent maneuver.

Or spend a feat (*gasp*) and recover all maneuvers with that full-round action. Plus the Swordsage starts off with much greater selection of maneuvers at the start of the battle. The Warblade actually is pretty limited in how many maneuvers it can ready at once.


The Crusader recovers all automatically, yes, but they have a far more limited selection and are only granted them randomly so at least there's a mitigating factor.

Meklor covered this one ... Popular opinion seems to be that the Crusader actually comes out with an edge over the other two ToB classes, power-wise.


The mighty Warblade, however, is above such petty concerns. He merely takes a swift action followed by a regular attack, or a standard action of just standing there and looking cool. Ding! All maneuvers recovered, just like that, without even having to drop out of the fight for one round.

No, he doesn't have to drop out for a round, but he does have to be just plain mediocre for a round.


Also they have the d12 HD, previously the purvue of the barbarian only among base classes,

Um, Knight?


which now belongs to a class that is not penalized for wearing heavy armor (although they do have to spend a feat *gasp*),

Um, Knight? Without even spending a feat?


has awesome pseudo-magical abilities,

Buh? Like what? Iron Heart Surge and Lightning Throw are about the only Warblade maneuvers that can possibly be seen as magical in any way. And nobody denies that IHS is one maneuver that needs some errata.


and can change what weapon they took their weapon feats for in less than a day. And change them again the next day. And the next, and the next, ect.

All of which, instead of being utterly powerful, just helps make up for the fact that the Weapon Focus tree of feats is normally so awful that it hurts just to read it on a character sheet.

Finally, there's one more thing you're missing: Stances. They are potentially the best thing a ToB character gets, since they have powerful effects and don't need to be "readied" or "recovered" or anything. Warblades get them slower than the other two classes. Owch.

Good thing they make up for it with Stance Mastery ... but only if your campaign gets all the way to Level 20, and your Warblade resisted any tempting dips along the way.

Wordmiser
2007-12-27, 01:08 PM
Buh? Like what? Iron Heart Surge is about the only Warblade maneuver that can possibly be seen as magical in any way. And nobody denies that IHS is one maneuver that needs some errata.Just to be fair, Lightning Throw is awful. If it's going to be a maneuver it should at least belong to the Swordsage.

But the classes in the book seem incredibly well balanced--the Swordsage works well in any skillmonkey build, the Crusader has the best recovery method and the best endurance and the Warblade is pretty good (by its tolerable skill ranks, high hit dice and IHS) even if it lacks either of the other's flashy moves (I actually would rank the Warblade as the worst of the three if I were to judge them).

Draz74
2007-12-27, 01:11 PM
Oh, excellent point, WordMiser. Lightning Throw is indeed the worst maneuver in the entire book, flavor-wise. :smallyuk: I edited my argument to account for your feedback.

spotmarkedx
2007-12-27, 02:11 PM
Not that it matters much since we are dealing with abstracts, but the way I've explained maneuvers not refreshing immediately in the game that I play is thus:

When I use a maneuver, it is only because the situation at hand is such that the maneuver is usable. The enemy doesn't expect me to know about the opening in their armour that allows me to use Emerald Razor to make that single hit.

But after I've used it? You can bet that they are covering that break in their armour so that I don't hit it again. To be able to try something similar again, I'm going to have to give them a few more things to worry about. Maybe I use Covering Strike so that they worry about regaining their balance. Or Sapphire Nightmare Blade to catch them off guard. Then I spend a moment of time to set up my opponent for what I want to do next. Maybe I feint Sapphire Nightmare Blade again, or "stumble" as I press the attack. (OOC - use a swift action to recover my maneuvers as a warblade). The enemy isn't as focused on that gap in their armour anymore, so I hit it again :D

Anyway, the reason I can't spam manuevers is because the enemy is now guarding against it, having seen me use that manuever only five or ten seconds ago. I need to be tricky to be able to use that same trick of the blade.

Bearonet
2007-12-27, 08:33 PM
Hi! Just thought I'd jump in, in defense of the Tome of Battle. Ever since I got the book I've loved it--basically, it lets me make the martial characters I *want* to make, rather than being forced to take reach-increasers + Imp. Trip or Shock Trooper to be effective and Steadfast Determination not to die. I like the Warblade for "mundane warrior", since it *doesn't* get pseudo-magical abilities. None of its abilities are Supernatural, and you don't even have to worry about describing HP recovery as rallying your allies and giving them breathing room.

Speaking of the Warblade, it's definitely not as good as you think, Prophaniti! It has its advantages, but abusing the Stormguard Warrior tactical feat is the class at its most powerful--that d12 is needed because of the medium armor (nobody spends a feat on armor proficiency--and that same feat could bring a d12 up to a d10 with Improved Toughness). The Crusader has a d10, but he heals himself and has his delayed damage pool, so he winds up being a whole lot tougher and more enduring than the Warblade.