Tome of battle: too good?

[Samb]

I'm flipping through this book and its almost too sweet. Any non spell user would benefit greatly from a few levels in any of the base classes especially since you get to add half of your non ToB classes when selecting new maneuvers. Plus the fact that you can recycle out old moves at level four initiator level (non-IL 6/ IL 1) means you will always have the best moves for your level (free psychic reformation!!!)

My rogue can get +2d6, shadow jump, CON damaging attacks, and weapon focus with just one dip into swordsage.

My psiwarrior can use his concentration check to deal massive damage, or counter any saving throw with just one dip into warblade or swordsage. Oh and instant clarity gets me my focus back as a swift action instead of a full turn.

A fighter gets even more options and damage with tiger claw when he is using leap attack.

White raven makes paladins even better support, while devoted spirit makes him even more hardy.

And all of this can be done with only 1-3 level dips. To be an effective melee it seems like you just have to do this sooner or later. Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels? How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?

[Dhavaer]

How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?

Because it isn't unbalanced. It's basically just a way to let characters made before the ToB came out use it without completely gimping themselves.

Also, note that a rogue will need at least 2 levels in Swordsage (or take martial stance as a feat) to get Assassin's Stance; your first stance is always level 1.

[ColdSepp]

The ToB classes don't match a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard in power. They make melee viable, that's all.

[ShadowFighter15]

I think part of it was that you can make an effective melee character with only a small dip into a martial class. Look at how many debates there've been saying that mid-high-level fighters and such are underpowered compared to casters of the same level. This was meant to address that without making the other classes obsolete (bit of a backfire in the case of the fighter, since most people seem to favour the warblade instead). A bit of homebrew work and you could give the PHB classes access to martial manoeuvres and then they'd really match up to the casters (well, maybe not quite, but close enough).

[Samb]

Because it isn't unbalanced. It's basically just a way to let characters made before the ToB came out use it without completely gimping themselves.

Also, note that a rogue will need at least 2 levels in Swordsage (or take martial stance as a feat) to get Assassin's Stance; your first stance is always level 1.

I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

[Keld Denar]

It is strong, but melee really needed the boost. The total reliance on full attacking that most melee characters experience is oppressive. This gives them many fun and interesting things to do as a standard, swift, or immediate action.

And as to the 1/2 IL thing. One of spellcasters primary weaknesses is their near total inability to multiclass and still be relevant as a spellcaster. I'm guessing the devs saw this and while bringing a mechanic similar to spellcasting into the world of melee combat, saught to avoid this near total pigeonholing. This is especially true given that melee characters are already predisposed to more multiclassing than casters do, given that multiclassing is the only way for most melee characters to gain actual meaningful class features.

ToB fixes things that were broken from the beginning. Barring a few infinite loops (that exist in nearly every book), and a couple oddities that don't work the way they're supposed to (Ironheart Surge), its a very good book that provides a lot of options for melee characters to nibble or feast upon, based on the desire of the player. Warblade20 is just as fun as Fighter4/Warbade1/Barbarian1/OccultSlayer5/Warblade1/ExoticWeaponMaster1/Warblade7, but very different. Hell, Warblade20 is different from Warblade20 depending on which maneuvers you focus on. A Diamond Mind centric Warblade utilizing Greater Insightful Strike is WAY different from a Tiger Claw duelwielder.

EDIT:

I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

No, go reread the section in the class about stances. The first stance for a class is ALWAYS a 1st level stance. This could be handwaved by your DM. It doesn't matter terribly for Swordsage and Crusader dips though, since they both get a 2nd stance a level 2, making a 2 level dip worthwhile. Warblades are kinda funky though.

[Samb]

The ToB classes don't match a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard in power. They make melee viable, that's all.

Don't forget psion with metamorphic transfer.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm flipping through this book and its almost too sweet. Any non spell user would benefit greatly from a few levels in any of the base classes especially since you get to add half of your non ToB classes when selecting new maneuvers. Plus the fact that you can recycle out old moves at level four initiator level (non-IL 6/ IL 1) means you will always have the best moves for your level (free psychic reformation!!!)

My rogue can get +2d6, shadow jump, CON damaging attacks, and weapon focus with just one dip into swordsage.

My psiwarrior can use his concentration check to deal massive damage, or counter any saving throw with just one dip into warblade or swordsage. Oh and instant clarity gets me my focus back as a swift action instead of a full turn.

A fighter gets even more options and damage with tiger claw when he is using leap attack.

White raven makes paladins even better support, while devoted spirit makes him even more hardy.

And all of this can be done with only 1-3 level dips. To be an effective melee it seems like you just have to do this sooner or later. Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels? How did the developers sneak this though the playtesters?

Because a Full Caster still slaughters them all, in general?

Alternately, there wasn't all that much playtesting; it wouldn't be the first time. In Monsters of Faerun, for instance, there's a critter called a Nishruu that's got an ability that specifies any caster inside loses one spell slot at random per round. It doesn't, however, specify any method for choosing this spell slot... which would come up the very first time the ability was used. Clear case of no playtesting on that critter.

[MisterSaturnine]

Echoing the thoughts of previous posters, one nice thing I've actually just realized about ToB is that it means you can either take that "replacement" class--Warblade instead of Fighter, Crusader instead of Paladin, Swordsage instead of Monk--but because you can get so much mileage out of just dipping a couple levels, you can still be a Fighter, or a Paladin, or a Monk (and for some people, the name of what class you're taking is very important, because it just doesn't feel the same way otherwise) but actually be on a level comparable to (though still not equal to) full casters. The ToB means you can go into a whole new exciting thing, or keep all your feel and flavor and add whole new levels of effectiveness. Basically, it means that the casters aren't the only ones who can have their cake and eat it, too.

[Dhavaer]

I think you can get it as a rogue 8/swordsage 1 since you are effectively a lvl 5 swordsage for the what you can pick, hence you can pick level 3 stances and have 3 stances. Although getting 2 levels in SS would give you bonus to AC which may be worth it depending on your WIS.

You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:

You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from any discipline open to you.

Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

[Keld Denar]

Echoing the thoughts of previous posters, one nice thing I've actually just realized about ToB is that it means you can either take that "replacement" class--Warblade instead of Fighter, Crusader instead of Paladin, Swordsage instead of Monk--but because you can get so much mileage out of just dipping a couple levels, you can still be a Fighter, or a Paladin, or a Monk (and for some people, the name of what class you're taking is very important, because it just doesn't feel the same way otherwise) but actually be on a level comparable to (though still not equal to) full casters. The ToB means you can go into a whole new exciting thing, or keep all your feel and flavor and add whole new levels of effectiveness. Basically, it means that the casters aren't the only ones who can have their cake and eat it, too.

Yea, a 2 level dip in Monk as a Swordsage nets you Evasion, +3 all saves, and 2 bonus feats while keeping your UAS damage full and only costs you 1 IL. 2 levels of Fighter as a Warblade similarly gives you 2 bonus feats while keeping your BAB full. 2-4 levels of Paladin on a Crusader nets you +cha to all saves (stacks with +cha to will saves) and maybe the Turn Undead class features which a savvy Crusader can use to power Divine Feats like Divine Vigor and Divine Might.

[Jack_Simth]

Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

Note that "begin play" is not the same thing as "take the first level of the class".

If I'm a Fighter-3, and I take a level of Swordsage, I'm not "beginning play", as I've already been playing. Does a Swordsage that's created at 20th level have only 1st level stances available?

[Dacia Brabant]

You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:



Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

Huh, I took that as assuming when you begin play as a first level character, not necessarily your first level in the class. Was there confirmation of this in errata or CustServ statements?

(Gah, ninja'd within seconds!)

[Samb]

You could get it at that level, but you would have to take the Martial Stance feat. From the Sworddsage 'stances' section:



Regardless of your initiator level, you can only get a 1st level stance from your first Swordsage level.

ah that clears it up so a high WIS will be needed then to get the full benefits of the SS dip.

I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already.

Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

[MisterSaturnine]

ah that clears it up so a high WIS will be needed then to get the full benefits of the SS dip.

I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already.

Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

By this definition, casting is boring, too. All you're doing is casting spells every turn, after all.

[Dhavaer]

I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels?

I thought the point of playing a full caster/manifester was to play a spellcaster.

[Keld Denar]

Also it doesn't do away with the monotony of melee. Sure its not full attacks every round but you are still standing next to the monster and hitting it with fanicer stuff.

Sure it does. Take some ranks in Tumble. Starting adjacent to your foe, hit him with a Standard Action Strike and tumble away. On your foes turn, he either has to chase you, denying him his full attack, or does something from a distance. Next round, assuming your foe doesn't close, use a maneuver like Pouncing Charge to close and full attack, or spit hot fire with something Desert Wind, or whatever. If your foe closes, hit him with another Strike and keep movin. Gives you a lot more freedom to be a real Scirmisher type. Heck, you pull it off even better than a Scout! Granted, doing a strike is generally gonna do less damage than most melee character's full attacks, but you also pick up status effects from some of them, and you reduce a lot of the risk of going toe to toe with something big and hungry.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

"I guess I can see where everyone is coming from, but isn't the whole point of going full casting/manifesting is because you know you will be mighty at high levels while melee get there chance to shine at lower-mid levels? And from what I have heard it seems that this book is basically a necessity for melee since they suck already."

This kind of reasoning is what made 3.5 the oddball that it was, and why 4.0 was all about giving roles and attempting to set a balance between the classes so that everyone is effective throughout the whole campaign. If Sir Hitsalot, the sword and boarder, owns early on... -that's no reason to make Mr. Sparkle, the caster, own the later ones. ToB was both a beta test of the melee with neat abilities thing that they were shooting for in 4.0 in addition to being a slight attempt at making the gap between combat and casting less severe. Calling ToB too powerful is not unlike comparing a sniper rifle to a machine gun. Both have their place where they shine, and both are effective at what they do.

[KIDS]

Imagine if you could add 1/2 of all you non manifesting/divine/arcane levels?

I was thinking of this lately and it would be the best mechanic ever. Unfortunately, it never made it into core books (though a similar one works fine in 4E). Caster level not scaling even a bit when you multiclass is the main killer of any caster/something combinations.

[ShadowFighter15]

Caster level not scaling even a bit when you multiclass is the main killer of any caster/something combinations.

That'd probably make such combinations overpowered and put us back where we were before the ToB.

[KIDS]

Off handedly, I can think of a billion gish (fighter/mage) combinations that absolutely suck, and a rare few that minmax PrCs and end up fine but still not nearly overpowered and not even close to full casters at their chosen role (Spellsword 1/Abjurant 4/Dragonslayer 1 etc.).

So what I mean is: isn't an enviroment where you can play a Fighter 8/Wizard 6 and actually be effective/useful without cheesing out things something healthy, something that we should aspire to?

[Zincorium]

Off handedly, I can think of a billion gish (fighter/mage) combinations that absolutely suck, and a rare few that minmax PrCs and end up fine but still not nearly overpowered and not even close to full casters at their chosen role (Spellsword 1/Abjurant 4/Dragonslayer 1 etc.).

So what I mean is: isn't an enviroment where you can play a Fighter 8/Wizard 6 and actually be effective/useful without cheesing out things something healthy, something that we should aspire to?

Well, it would make sense to me to allow ToB style benefits: no new spells on levels of non-spellcaster classes, but when you do gain new spells/day, you can get higher level ones. I mean, wizard gives half BAB, around half the HP, and so forth.

You could make the point that all classes partially advance fighter, even.

It would help with traditionally terrible builds, Gishes and Theurges, but add absolutely nothing to the batman wizard or CoDzilla issue.

[Abstruse]

Because I was curious about just how the balance worked in an actual campaign, I ran the Age of Worms AP (or at least the first three or four segments of it; we're most of the way through the 4th part now) using the ToB rules. By the middle of the second segment, at which point the characters were 3rd-level-approaching-4th, the makeup of the six-player part was a defensive crusader, two swordsages (one straight, one scout multiclass, both with Shadow Blade and high DEX), a cleric, a warmage, and a bard. (I've learned to stop asking "why a bard?" It leads to headaches. Anyways...)

With the exception of the warmage's blaster abilities, which turned a handful of fights, the martial characters were far and away the most unbalancing thing about the party. I absolutely could not, as a DM, run the book opponents or even upgraded numbers of the book opponents -- the PCs would steamroller right over them. To actually challenge them, I had to throw ever-more-intricate ToB builds or ridiculously-overpowered-for-their-level monsters to came remotely close to their damage output and threat level.

And that's not even getting to the "oh, I use shadow jaunt to teleport past what should've been a significant obstacle" annoyance. Like 'porting to top of a stone pillar to avoid an underwater confrontation with a giant octopus. Or 'porting past a arcane-locked door by peering under the jamb/between the cracks.

Finally, I got lucky, and the two swordsages got overconfident and charged off one after the other after wounded opponents at the top of a 50' vertical connecting chamber. A doppelganger got ridiculously lucky with dice rolls, put one into the negatives, and crit-killed the other one as he tried to rescue the first. As there had been substantial discussion about the power level of the Tome characters substantially outstripping the others and the ongoing PC/monster-power arms race that I was being forced to adapt to, I suggested that both the PCs and I abolish Tome of Battle from the campaign henceforth. Everyone agreed, the crusader PC went off on a quest, and all three ToB players came up with entirely new characters -- a spiked-chain fighter, a scout/ranger archer, and an elven wizard/divine oracle.

Experimenting with challenges given the new, non-ToB party structure showed that it was far easier to offer a challenge without going to extremes. Mind you, the new fighter and the archer are still putting out substantial attack rolls and damage (goliath fighter 8 w/ 22+ STR, +1 spiked chain, WF, WS, and melee weapon mastery: piercing means +19 attack and 2d6+14 damage, plus Power Attack and Cleave if need be). However, this slightly lowered damage is countered by the fact that they can do it, short of HPs being exhausted, ALL DAY LONG -- which casters can't. The problem with the ToB classes is that they could put forth heightened damage -- equalling or exceeding casters -- and abilities all day long.

For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage, pretty much every three rounds? Ridiculously overpowered, and no drawbacks to using it at all. TWF-attacking Shadow Blade on a 24 DEX level 7 character, thus inflicting upwards of 25-30 damage every round? Absolutely broken stats-wise.

So yes, I absolutely think ToB within the structure of a campaign is unbalancing. Everyone talks about how effective a one- or two-level dip can be, balancing casters vs. melee... but all I can think is that no one claiming that had to prep a long-running campaign with multiple martial adepts in it.

[AslanCross]

Running ToB in a campaign almost requires the DM to turn a lot of the vanilla-type fighters and melee NPCs/Monsters into Martial Adepts as well. It's not so much that ToB is unbalanced, but more because most adventures were not written with martial adepts in mind. (Some, however, like Eyes of the Lich Queen, are odd in that just a single martial adept is thrown into the adventure almost at random, while throwing low-level monks at the PCs as well.)

The main consideration when allowing ToB is that wizards and other casters do run out of spells. Eventually. ToB characters can recover their maneuvers completely between encounters, and can maneuver them quite easily during encounters. (Especially if you have Swordsages with Adaptive Style.)

In any case, I have run a long term campaign (lasted almost 2 years, Lv 5-11), wherein Tome of Battle was introduced around Lv 7. Three of the 5 PCs took martial adept levels: The Paladin (took Crusader), the Ranger, and the Rogue (both of whom took Swordsage). While their builds were by no means optimized, the size of the party necessitated higher encounter levels. Often encounters would end with two PCs completely uninjured, and the cleric would often heal them back up to near full HP with Touch of Healing.

However, it's strange that in my experience, neither the PC martial adepts nor the villains that I threw at them were game-breakingly good. The PCs, at Lv 6, without any martial adept levels yet, were able to take down a Lv 11 Warblade (granted, she was on her own, and the PCs got lucky). A Lv 9 hobgoblin Crusader with a bugbear monk/fighter grappler build and four hobgoblin scouts with him was quickly neutralized as well (the rogue went up to him under the effect of a seeming spell, bluffed him into letting his guard down, and used shadow garrote to sneak him and drop him down to half HP, while the rest of the party beat him down really quickly despite his high AC and his Steely Resolve). Interestingly enough, it was the bugbear grappler who made life difficult for the PCs in that encounter. She pinned the paladin, making it impossible for him to use any maneuvers.

Incidentally, a lot of times it's the Wizard who neutralized encounters single-handedly in my case. A single black tentacles stops encounters dead cold, since all the artillery (archers, casters, etc) gets stopped instantly. Only big bruisers can ever take the fight to the PCs, but once glitterdust is dropped on them, they're effectively out of the fight. Everybody has had their moments of glory so far, and the most difficult battle the PCs have faced (Adult Black Dragon) was won with not a single martial maneuver scoring a decisive hit. The only one used was shadow garrote, which barely did anything to the dragon; the fatal blow was a readied action to attack by the paladin.

[Sophismata]

Abtruse, there are a number of problems with your analysis, so I'm going to tackle the easiest:

By the middle of the second segment, at which point the characters were 3rd-level-approaching-4th,

For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage,

every three rounds?

How, exactly, were these characters built? You may have been allowing for higher level manoeuvres than the characters had access to.

Edit: For comparison, we seem to have a Crusader, Swordsage, Rogue, Wizard, Sorceror and Bard (I don't know why), and haven't had any problems (except for the bard).

[arguskos]

Personally, I dislike the Tome of Battle. Not on some stupid moral grounds, since it's beautifully designed, a wonderful addition to the melting pot that is 3.5, and a fun concept over all. No, I dislike it because it... doesn't play nicely with everyone else.

Much like Abstruse, it has ruined no less than three campaigns (I ran two, and played in one) by simply steamrolling everything and making everyone else feel useless, even our casters who, while not Batmen, were still quite powerful and capable. I've found that the ruleset HAS to be designed around, and since I'm not willing to bend over that far to accommodate a single aspect of a much larger game, I disregard it. Frankly, the flavor is a bit off for me too, but that's a much more personal disconnect, and so isn't relevant here.

I can fix Vancian casting so it's less overpowering with some simple alterations. I can't twist ToB to work with everyone else w/o redesigning most of the system. Basically, the disconnect that AslanCross mentioned above has forever turned me off of it. *shrug* It's a taste thing. Some folks loved the taste of it. I, in my experience, didn't.

EDIT: Oh, and power level wise? It's fine, if you design with it in mind. If you don't, tough luck, you'll get the same taste as me and Abstruse did.

[Anyr]

How, exactly, were these characters built? You may have been allowing for higher level manoeuvres than the characters had access to.

To expand on this, martial adepts use the same levelled progression as spellcasters when determining what maneouvres they can use. Divine Surge is a 4th level ability, so it should only be available to 7th level adepts. Giving them a power like that at level 4 would be like giving a Wizard access to Evard's Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility at that level.

[AslanCross]

To expand on this, martial adepts use the same levelled progression as spellcasters when determining what maneouvres they can use. Divine Surge is a 4th level ability, so it should only be available to 7th level adepts. Giving them a power like that at level 4 would be like giving a Wizard access to Evard's Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility at that level.

This. A lot of times my players forget that Maneuver Levels are not the same as character or class levels much like spell levels are not the same as caster levels. It's up there with "You cannot augment psionic powers to cost more than your manifester level" in terms of commonly misunderstood mechanics.

[Eldariel]

For example, the crusader strike Divine Surge? +8d8 damage, pretty much every three rounds? Ridiculously overpowered, and no drawbacks to using it at all. TWF-attacking Shadow Blade on a 24 DEX level 7 character, thus inflicting upwards of 25-30 damage every round? Absolutely broken stats-wise.

Every single Str-based meleer does that amount of damage on those levels, or even more. Heck, your average level 6 Human Fighter can charge for +24 Power Attack (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack) with weapon dealing 5-7 points of base damage and the Str of 20 offering 8 more points total, making for a total of 39 damage per hit with two attacks on a turn. Shadow Blade means you get to burn two feats to do the same every two-handed Fighter does with Power Attack & co.

And that's before even going into the fact that he can also stop all movement around him and combine Trip with the above chain giving opponent -4 to AC and forcing them to invoke yet another attack of opportunity for 39 more damage when they get up. And that's just a pure Fighter; toss in two Barbarian-levels and the reliability and damage increases by a ton. And that's before adding mounts or anything to the deal.

Divine Surge, on the other hand, means that you have to give up your iterative attack, haste attack and all that, which would easily add up to more than the average of 36 damage. The biggest benefit of Divine Surge is being able to move after the attack; standard melee still outdamages a character using Divine Surge (do note that Divine Surge is available on level 7 the earliest).

By the sound of it, your melee players are just simply playing optimized characters while your caster players are not. Which would explain everything as casters have a lot of weak spells in their list, thus needing the knowledge of which thematically appropriate spells aren't weak to be of decent power level. Having a campaign where half of the players optimize and half doesn't causes problems.

Also, ToB is indeed at its strongest around levels 1-5, which probably impacts your experience (casters really take over on level 5, unless the said caster is a Druid, in which case he's broken from level 1). But yea, the casters' limited supply of spells is counteracted by the fact that they can usually end an encounter with 1 spell.

So yes, I absolutely think ToB within the structure of a campaign is unbalancing. Everyone talks about how effective a one- or two-level dip can be, balancing casters vs. melee... but all I can think is that no one claiming that had to prep a long-running campaign with multiple martial adepts in it.

I've run two campaigns with martial adepts and casters as the two principal groups (with a Rogue in one and Factotum in the other as the resident trapfinder) and the casters still solved encounters while martial adepts mopped up. But the martial adept players have expressed enjoying the role a whole much more than when playing PHB-based melee simply because they can do so much more than previously.

Now, I'm not saying you're playing wrong or anything, but it does seem like your problem stems from the fact that a half of your players build mechanically sound characters while the other half does not, rather than ToB itself.

[Dragonsdoom]

Every single Str-based meleer does that amount of damage on those levels, or even more. Heck, your average level 6 Human Fighter can charge for +24 Power Attack (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack) with weapon dealing 5-7 points of base damage and the Str of 20 offering 8 more points total, making for a total of 39 damage per hit with two attacks on a turn. Shadow Blade means you get to burn two feats to do the same every two-handed Fighter does with Power Attack & co.

Eldariel, I don't want to get in a debate with you today, (too sleepy) but I would like to point out that 'your average fighter' is extremely unlikely to be using that combo, because it is considered one of the most powerful combos available to melee at that level. 'Your average fighter' is much more likely to have smaller things like combat reflexes, improved initiative, just power attack, or improved disarm. The 'average fighter' you speak of is more the highly above-average fighter, having chosen one of the much more powerful builds.