Tome of Battle : The arguments

[Quietus]

In a thread I recently started here, asking how I could obtain full strength damage on my off-hand attacks, there was a user who got thoroughly ... 'excited', first asking WHY I don't allow the ToB (I don't have a copy, nor do any of my players), and then demanding that I MUST get the book due to the official public stance on it being that it's an exceptional book.

I get it. It's seen as a good book. I like the mechanics, I prefer the way it works to the watered-down version that found its way into 4th. But why is it that people have this burning need to insist that anyone who doesn't use it, regardless of reason, is Doing It Wrong? Some people might not like the mechanics, some might not have the ability to purchase a copy (and are unwilling to pirate it), but why is it that some people feel the need to get so aggressive in their assertion that ToB is a necessary book for every D&D game?

[Kylarra]

The general reason is because it gives fighter-types something to do other than move and full attack and possibly one other trick that they're decent at.

[Gralamin]

Because fighter types, on their own, are simple, uncomplicated, and boring. Tome of Battle adds in at least a bit of tactical choice.

[Thurbane]

I think it's safe to say that ToB polarizes people more than any other 3.X book. People either love it or loathe it.

I actually had a copy, that I traded in (along with Magic of Incarnum) for copies of Cityscape and Dungeonscape. The books weren't bad, they just weren't suited to my (group's) style of play, and were extra subsets of rules that would have confounded our (then) fledgling 3.5 group.

Advocates of ToB espouse that it helps bring melee characters up in power compared to casters, and that it also gives more options than a simple "roll, hit, damage" routine.

Detractors dislike it mainly for one or more of the following reasons: the flavor of the book (whether you call it wuxia, anime or whatever) doesn't sit well with many; and some people feel that casters should eclipse melee types, particularly at higher levels, and that melee types shouldn't get semi-magical powers from swinging a sword.

[Deastorm]

I wouldn't say it's necessary, but the vast vocal majority here are optimizers (at best), and once you've played with the ToB classes, it's hard to imagine the safety helmets of core melee classes again.

I only got ToB about 2 months ago, and I'm now a diehard fan of them. I was in your boat prior though, and didn't see why everyone was so hard up for it.

So... zomg, go get it today!!111!!!oneoneone.

[Grynning]

The main reason people recommend ToB so highly is because a lot of people who don't use it don't understand how well it fixes melee in 3.5. Granted, the book is far from perfect, but look at how many threads on this board are about "How do I fix TWF" or "How do I make a decent Dex/Int/Wis based fighter" or "How do I make a Monk that's effective" etc, etc, etc.

ToB answers all those questions by giving you alternative mechanics for making really effective melee characters. The maneuvers are cool martial arts moves that work kind of like an encounter based spellcasting mechanic, and the classes that use them are all well-built classes. You can also give the maneuvers to existing classes. Now the fighters can pick the maneuvers they like, so their character can do the cool moves that they always wanted to do but the mechanics didn't support, and everyone has as much fun as the casters.
(wow that last sentence was bad but it's late and I can't figure out how to make it less grammatically ugly)

I admit I used to dislike ToB strongly (hell I think the first thread I made on this forum was about how much I didn't like it), but I bought a copy and I finally came around. Unfortunately, 4th edition came out and I've never gotten to use it since we all play that now. But if you're still doing 3.5, yeah, get one, and look it over. Remember that the flavor doesn't have to be all "wuxia" unless you want it to be, and if you think the maneuvers are "too powerful" or whatever, just remember they're meant to be comparable to spells (and they don't even come close to spells in versatility, so really they're all quite reasonable...except Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics, which are just poorly worded).

[PId6]

and some people feel that casters should eclipse melee types, particularly at higher levels

Keep in mind, they still do. By a lot.

[Sinfire Titan]

Subtle, you are not.

To be honest, the book has mechanical simplicity going for it. It isn't as contrived as full casting (the most complicated thing is keeping track of your maneuvers, especially in PBP, but that mainly applies to the Crusader).

Does it fix melee's problems? Not entirely. You're still hitting things, but you can at least contribute more than a single attack after being forced to take a move action through difficult terrain. It solves some of the major problems (like mobility, damage output, and system mastery requirements), but only manages to touch on a few points (they're as item-dependent as everyone else, but they can at least bust out of prison without dying).

This system does something quite well: replicate a few Real Life martial arts styles, incorporating a bit of Fencing and Jujitsu into at least two of the styles. It replicates things quite well, without needlessly slowing down game play (it slows it down no more than it takes someone to look up the rules behind Trip Attempts). It also doesn't require a completely new mechanic to do so (the system has been compared to Vanican casting, but the differences between the two make for a nice change).

It's fairly balanced. The most broken parts are Iron Heart Surge (which needs a steady hand to prevent it from being absurdly powerful) and White Raven Tactics (which breaks the Action Economy far too soon), but even those are fairly tame. There is the problem with the lack of errata, but the book is playable without needing major house rules.

Class-wise, the Warblade and Crusader hold top slots. The Swordsage's lack of BAB makes it seem weak to others, but it does contend with the other two classes power-wise. That said, all three classes are about on par with the Psychic Warrior. There's a couple of exploits that are downright ludicrous in nature, but those can be stopped with little effort on the DM's part.

It's nearly impossible to make a Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage that sucks. I say nearly because I have seen it happen (a Chain Tripper Warblade to be exact, played by a partially-blind kid who had no grasp of the rules, but he's a completely different story). Whereas it is entirely possible to make a Fighter or Barbarian who sucks more than a swimming pool drainage pipe with little difficultly, you may actually have to go out of your way to make a crappy Crusader. The handbooks for Tome of Battle tend to have very short sections regarding the classes and feats you should take, as the maneuvers take up more of the thread. There isn't much to optimize though, just pick the maneuvers that sound cool and are allowed to your class/level (bit of an important part here; the level restriction isn't mentioned until you get to the maneuvers section) and you are set.

All three of the classes are very playable from 1-20, especially the Warblade. But they also multiclass very well, one of the book's biggest selling points is that all three of the classes can multiclass very freely without needing to worry about their major assets.

The classes tend to be a bit strong at the lower levels, much like a Warlock can seem powerful. But when you hit about 6th level, they start slowing down. They don't fall off the map, unlike some other classes (unlike everything from CW).


The detractors are fairly easy to spot. They usually make claims about Anime, Overpowered characters (which is divided into two groups: those who read the rules and those who don't), and those who dislike the flavor behind it. The latter of them can be reasoned with. {scrubbed}

The book was the ground work for 4E's system, but a couple of fans of the book actually were put-off by 4E's massive changes to the book's style. But if one thing can be said about it, it's that the book is a fine middle ground for 4E and 3E.


The classes themselves are rather fun to play, and a lot different from the "I hit it" Fighter. An optimized Fighter or Barbarian can trash an equally-optimized Warblade or Crusader, but that's because of the support favoring the Barbarian and Fighter over the Crusader and Warblade.

Edit:

Advocates of ToB espouse that it helps bring melee characters up in power compared to casters, and that it also gives more options than a simple "roll, hit, damage" routine.

Common mistake. No, the book does not bring melee closer to the casters. The book printed three new classes that happen to be higher tier than a majority of the other melee classes in existence. Full Casters will still PWN a Warblade epically, just like every other class in the game.

[Quietus]

I'd just like to point out, that my objection isn't with the book itself. I LIKE the book, although I've only glanced over a PDF copy before. My issue is with people who are overly aggressive about pushing it on me when the trouble is that I CAN'T get a copy. Never mind that my players still sometimes barely get how the mechanics of the game work, much less throwing what amounts to a totally new mechanic at them.

Why is it that some feel the need to be so aggressive as to turn me off of the book in reaction to their verbal assaults, when I've already said "I like the book, I just can't get it"?

[Ganurath]

I think it's safe to say that ToB polarizes people more than any other 3.X book. People either love it or loathe it.

Tome of Battle: The Book of Napoleon Dynamite.

That being said, the reason it's so popular is because it moves noncasters a step closer to being on the level of full casters. It's still an epic Jump check, but the DC has dropped a considerable ammount.

[Grynning]

You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

[Thurbane]

Common mistake. No, the book does not bring melee closer to the casters. The book printed three new classes that happen to be higher tier than a majority of the other melee classes in existence. Full Casters will still PWN a Warblade epically, just like every other class in the game.

Note that I said bring up in power, not equal in power.

ToB introduces power creep just like any other splat book. There's no denying you can make a more powerful melee type using the ToB than without, although the same can be said for many splatbooks...since the power creep in the ToB is aimed directly at melee types, many people are OK with it, since the power imbalance inherent to the core is heavily geared towards casters.

I'll just state again in my "defense" that I don't think ToB is a bad book, it's just not suited to the style of game I enjoy. Same with Psionics and Incarnum, which we also don't use in our games.

[Quietus]

You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

But I HAVE had people tell me I was wrong. I was asked why I try to avoid using ToB options, to which I replied "Because I don't own a copy". I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I MUST go and get it. You're right in that no one has used the term "You are wrong for not owning a copy", but it does get heavily implied.

[Eldariel]

There are three major reasons I can think of for which people recommend ToB a lot. I, personally, don't agree with "forcing" anyone to get it, but heartfully recommend it to anyone anyways.

1. Character Depiction: I, personally, love non-casters. There's something about a character in a world of gods, wizards and dragons who just goes up to a wizard/dragon/god, shakes off whatever bull**** trickery they throw at him and just slices them in half that yells badass. I play non-magical melee a lot. Yet, when playing a Core-game, I'm either going to play a two-handing tripper with a reach weapon, or a Rogue two-weapon fighter 'cause nothing else just measures up. When adding splat books, I now have the option of being a Dungeoncrasher, a Charger or a Stand Still controller, but that's about it as far as different doable archetypes go.

The principal reason I (and many others here) love ToB is how it enables characters. D&D is all about playing just the kind of character you want, and ToB pretty much takes the Two-Hander/Two-Weapon Fighter/Sword & Board/Unarmed quarter and slams them all with a helping of Awesome to bring them to about the same line.

You can be a two-hander, two-weapon fighter or sword & board fighter without mechanical drawbacks! Not only that, but you can take any classic archetype or character and make it happen. Many people have clear concepts of what kinds of abilities they want out of their character and ToB just increases the amount of such concepts you can make happen without magic a hundred-fold.

I can play the swashbuckler, I can play the sneak, I can play the animal-like primal predator, I can play the blade dancer, I can play the weapon master, I can play the battle leader, I can play the inspiring example, I can play the size-does-not-matter guy, I can make anything I want happen. When playing a fantasy roleplaying game, and a high fantasy at that, I want the freedom to make just the character I want. I want the character to have precisely the fluff I'm going for and the mechanics to match just that. Without ToB, that's just rarely doable for melee types.


2. Versatility: Core offers melee-types 8 combat options: (full) attack, charge, trip, disarm, sunder, grapple, overrun, bull rush. Out of those, Bull Rush does nothing outside an extremely narrow bunch of encounters (you need a cliff or a pool of magma or something similar; hardly worth a feat), Overrun is practically never practical for PCs, grapple greatly favors monsters with size & HD advantage (and the side with more individuals...which tends to be the enemy if grappling is even possible), sunder (which means you break your future items), disarm (which only works against humanoids) and trip (which is awesome).

So out of the combat options, one is just plain bad (sunder), two are not really doable for PCs (overrun & grapple) and two are extremely narrow (disarm, bull rush). That leaves PC warriors with three realistic combat options: full attack, charge or trip. Not only that, but while mages are boasting a range of defensive spells should they need them, fighters are stuck with the "fight defensively" and "total defense"-options that both simply influence your static defenses; 20 from enemy kicks your ass no matter what you do.

ToB adds versatility to all this. You have a variety of defensive maneuvers (called "counters"). You have a variety of "preparations" (called "boosts") which allow you to make your primary attack more efficient. You have a few modes of which you can choose your present combat style (called "stances"). And then you have a huge variety of different standard action & full round action attacks called "strikes". Then there's a variety of uncategorized maneuvers that just do a bunch of "warrior"-like things like shakes off some controlling spell effect or allow you to move around more swiftly in combat or some such.

Instead of having the option from 2-3 different attacks, you now choose from dozens of different attacks to pick, and from a handful you can use at any time (or from dozens to use if you're a Swordsage). Then you combine these attacks with different boosts to get different results all the while getting counters to throw a variety of wrenches at the opponent's gameplan. Best of all, this allows you to do things besides damage like stun/daze opponents, hit their Con, restrict their movement, etc. And if you don't care for variety, you can of course just stick to that one strike that seems to work or just full attack anyways. Nobody forces you to use these new fancy toys!


3. Power: Let's face it, melee without Tome of Battle can be rather powerful. However, for it to be powerful, you need to know exactly how to milk the system for every point of damage it's worth. With ToB, this frankly is no longer needed. You can take whatever maneuvers feel cool, whatever feats suit your character and go to town. You'll be reasonably efficient either way.

Not only that, but due to their versatility, an optimized ToB character can hang around with optimized casters much longer than standard melee types can. People who know the core spell list relatively well and only ban the truly most broken ones (Polymorphs, Planar Bindings, Gate...) will be much closer in capabilities to an optimized ToB-type than an optimized core warrior type, simply because the versatility of the ToB-type allows him to prepare for the same types of encounters core melee needs to build his entire character against with just a couple of maneuvers and thus can be competent in a far larger number of encounters. Not only that, but they get much better skill lists and more points than core melee.

No mistake, Wizards/Druids/Clerics/Psions/Beguilers/Artificers/Archivist/Dread Necromancers/Favored Souls/etc. still hang around with ToB melee just fine, but ToB melee needs much less effort to be an asset rather than a drag on the party than core melee that it's not even funny. He also can fill his role as a tank easily and hang around over the levels just fine, and gets much closer to the Wizard's versatility if the player pushes the character to that direction.


I'd also like to add as but a minor point that ToB classes are much better designed than the core melee types; a Swordsage taking all 20 levels in Swordsage gets a variety of cool abilities across the levels along with the great capstone at level 20, and same goes for the Warblade and to lesser extent, the Crusader too.

They work great with multiclassing, but they also fit fine into single-classing, just like 3.5 classes should work. Indeed, out of all these "leveled" systems (systems with ability levels, like level X spells or powers or maneuvers) in the game, maneuvers function by far the best with multiclassing.


Short version:
1. The book makes for a much larger number of possible character concepts you can realize within the game engine.
2. The book greatly includes the options available to melee types.
3. The book somewhat fixes the underpoweredness of melee types.
Bonus. The book has some of the best 3.5 design over its entire lifespan, both class- and system-wise.


EDIT: Wow, such a mammoth post and so much ninja. Ah well, no use trying to edit some sanity into all this now. I started by just answering the OP's questions to best of my ability.

And I'd definitely emphasize point #1; if it didn't make for such a huge improvement in what kinds of melee types you can make happen, I wouldn't think ToB as anything more than "Ok".

[Sinfire Titan]

You asked why people push it so aggressively; we answered by explaining that's it's just that good.

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you're wrong for not owning a copy, but again, if you look through the forum and see how often people twist and turn the rules and homebrew and make crazy builds trying to fix melee WITHOUT it, and then come here to get advice, you can see how forum regulars would just start saying "hey, forget all that nonsense, use ToB and you'll have a better character and more fun."

Exactly. I don't know how many threads about a Fighter fix have had posts along the lines of "Just play a Warblade", but that indicates someone believes the Warblade does what the OP wanted. When the book is good enough that people suggest it that often, it's either crack or a good book. Probably both, considered this is WotC, the company responsible for Cardboard Crack.

But I HAVE had people tell me I was wrong. I was asked why I try to avoid using ToB options, to which I replied "Because I don't own a copy". I was promptly told, in no uncertain terms, that I MUST go and get it. You're right in that no one has used the term "You are wrong for not owning a copy", but it does get heavily implied.

That was me, exaggerating like I usually do. I've said it before in another thread: take some of my advice with a grain of salt. I'm usually exaggerating about something. Don't ignore it entirely, just be aware that I do tend to exaggerate things.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'll just state again in my "defense" that I don't think ToB is a bad book, it's just not suited to the style of game I enjoy. Same with Psionics and Incarnum, which we also don't use in our games.

A travesty, really. Incarnum was the book that convinced me to never convert to 4E, despite my advocation of the system just months prior to the release. Psionics also did a number of justices for my campaigns.

Mind if I inquire what it was about those books that made you decide not to use them? Exactly, I mean. A lot of people abandon two of those three for power reasons, while the third tends to get tossed to the wayside because how complex it is to learn.

[Woodsman]

As has been said, an optimized full caster can rip any of the ToB classes to shreds.

However, in terms of damage output, ToB classes are roughly on par (above par for unoptimized) with "blaster casters." At 17th level, a warblade can deal an average of 116 damage every two rounds with a greatsword (Assuming 28 Str and using Adaptive Style), whereas a wizard of similar level can deal an average of 139 damage with a disintegrate (My math may be off). Here's the thing, though; while the wizard (Assuming 28 Int) can do this a max of five times a day, the warblade can cycle endlessly.

But, as stated before, any optimized full caster will outclass the ToB classes. And if played right, no discipline can be seen as "wukia," "weeaboo," "anime/manga," etc.

[Thurbane]

Mind if I inquire what it was about those books that made you decide not to use them? Exactly, I mean. A lot of people abandon two of those three for power reasons, while the third tends to get tossed to the wayside because how complex it is to learn.

Mainly the complexity of adding new subsystems. Almost half of my group are real part time players, and have barely gotten their heads around the core rules. They would never be able to commit the time to learning additional stuff...as it is, our group barely gets in 3-4 hours of gaming a week.

[Masaioh]

Both of the players in my group who DM regularly have banned ToB (or most of it) from their games for entirely different reasons.

One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers. His reasoning is, and I quote, 'DnD isn't a game for weeaboos'. He makes an exception for the Crusader and uses it as a replacement for the SRD Paladin.

The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

[SparkMandriller]

And if played right, no discipline can be seen as "wukia," "weeaboo," "anime/manga," etc.

I bought ToB because everyone promised me it'd let me play an anime character but I looked through it and there aren't any rules for playing a depressed boy with a giant robot, or a gondolier on Mars who meets ghosts and cat gods and all sorts of random stuff, or a little girl with cat ears and um like sort of miniature planes that fit on her legs so she can fly? It's uh kinda hard to describe.

I feel so let down. :(

[rezplz]

ToB isn't really my slice of cake, but I do know what you mean about people saying "YOU HAVE TO GET THIS BOOK", and stuff like "JUST PLAY A WARBLADE". As many people have already said, the book does some pretty cool stuff. People see that, and think, "Hey. This is pretty cool." The problem comes when they can't realize that it may not be a good fit with other people and other groups. They get so wrapped up in how much they like it that it just doesn't occur to them that hey, other people might not like it as much as they do.

[tyckspoon]

One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers.

What.. what the hell is the point of this? Swordsages live on maneuvers. Warblades sort of have other features, but without maneuvers there's really nothing in the class. Why would you 'allow' the class if you're going to ban everything that makes the class what it is?

[Sinfire Titan]

The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

As someone who has scoured those books quite well, I find this slightly ironic. I don't suppose he also bans Warlocks and DFAs, does he?

[Kylarra]

Mainly the complexity of adding new subsystems. Almost half of my group are real part time players, and have barely gotten their heads around the core rules. They would never be able to commit the time to learning additional stuff...as it is, our group barely gets in 3-4 hours of gaming a week.

New systems are at least an understandable reason, albeit an unfortunate one. I feel your pain in trying to get a playgroup to learn anything new.

[Thurbane]

ToB isn't really my slice of cake, but I do know what you mean about people saying "YOU HAVE TO GET THIS BOOK", and stuff like "JUST PLAY A WARBLADE". As many people have already said, the book does some pretty cool stuff. People see that, and think, "Hey. This is pretty cool." The problem comes when they can't realize that it may not be a good fit with other people and other groups. They get so wrapped up in how much they like it that it just doesn't occur to them that hey, other people might not like it as much as they do.

Very true. Internet forums, even good ones like this, can sometimes breed a sort of "if you're not playing it the same as me, you're not playing it right" mentality. Often, it comes across more harshly than intended.

Take my group - human dragon shaman (me), halfling druid, goblin (ex-elf) beguiler, dwarf fighter and deep dwarf monk. When I tell people online that the two characters who really shine in combat are the fighter and the monk, they just outright disbelieve me. Oh, and the druid is "doing it wrong".

[Myshlaevsky]

Both of the players in my group who DM regularly have banned ToB (or most of it) from their games for entirely different reasons.

One will allow the ToB classes, but without maneuvers. His reasoning is, and I quote, 'DnD isn't a game for weeaboos'. He makes an exception for the Crusader and uses it as a replacement for the SRD Paladin.

The other doesn't allow it because he thinks the content is too broken, and will insist that players use the Quintessential series instead.

What an idiot. I find myself badly wanting to ask, "Why do you play with this guy?"

[HamHam]

Tome of Battle will make your game more fun. This is simple truth.

If you really can't get a copy (which is kind of hard believe seeing as how you need to be on the internet to be reading this post and I just checked and it's 15 bucks on Amazon so unless you live in Australia and if you live in Australia, well that's your problem right there, Australia doesn't get nice things) then you are doomed. Doooooooooooooooomed.

[Kylarra]

Very true. Internet forums, even good ones like this, can sometimes breed a sort of "if you're not playing it the same as me, you're not playing it right" mentality. Often, it comes across more harshly than intended.

Take my group - human dragon shaman (me), halfling druid, goblin (ex-elf) beguiler, dwarf fighter and deep dwarf monk. When I tell people online that the two characters who really shine in combat are the fighter and the monk, the just outright disbelieve me. Oh, and the druid is "doing it wrong".

In their (our?) defense, Op forums tend to assume "in a vacuum of highest optimization", which is not always the case.

[Thurbane]

In their (our?) defense, Op forums tend to assume "in a vacuum of highest optimization", which is not always the case.

Definitely true also.

[elliott20]

from my perspective, ToB does one very important thing for me: it alleviates a lot of need for me to optimize my non-casters. Not that I play in a lot of highly optimized game, but even in those cases, you'll still see people outshining each other. The problem with core non-casters is that by optimizing them, you can very easily overshoot and make your guy into a one trick pony who is devastating in one condition but useless in others. Calibrating that can be tricky.

ToB, with it's increased over all power curve, means I can go back to just throwing together a quick character and REASONABLY expect said character to be a decent performer without being afraid that he's basically a one use rocket.