A request on Naming Etiquette...

[Mulletmanalive]

Ignore this. It won't let me delete it.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I feel this is largely unnecessary. It's the work of but a moment to see if the design is using Tome of Battle or not (and thus if you want to use it or not), and the other systems (3.5, Pathfinder, and the like) are already posted distinctly.

This suggested solution doesn't remedy the problem because...well...Tome of Battle was intended to be balanced with Core. The arguments won't stop, because many people (myself among them, although I'm more open-minded about it than many) believe Core to be inherently imbalanced in favor of spellcasters, and ToB just a means of closing the gap.

Additionally, reviews are easy to change. If I see something trying to use Martial Maneuvers, I'll judge it along the lines of ToB classes. If I see something else, I'll judge it along two lines: that of a ToB melee class, and that of non-ToB classes. If I, as a PrC designer, am aiming for a more powerful Archer class and am told it's a little stronger than the Warlock, but couldn't compete with the damage output of a Warblade, that advice is perfect for me if my campaign has no Martial Adepts and I don't want non-magical classes to have that level of power...and also perfect if my game has Martial Adepts, and I need to up the power of my class to fall in line with them.

So I see no reason to change a system that, for any small bit of confusion it may cause, generally works in the long run. You're welcome to, of course, but I don't see as many of these "rude and circular arguments" as you seem to claim there are. Most of the people here are usually pretty willing to back down if someone tells them to stop.

[Mulletmanalive]

This request was moslty based around the Tome label and the fact that [And I like the ToB, just not the Warblade] the power levels therein are very different to those included in the original game and aside from Fax Celis, i've not seen anyone clearly designate this as different.

Reading some interesting fluff only to discover that the power level is completely off the chart and not something you can discuss is annoying and time wasting.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

This request was moslty based around the Tome label and the fact that [And I like the ToB, just not the Warblade] the power levels therein are very different to those included in the original game and aside from Fax Celis, i've not seen anyone clearly designate this as different.

Reading some interesting fluff only to discover that the power level is completely off the chart and not something you can discuss is annoying and time wasting.

Ah. Still, I've usually found that Tome of Battle classes are insanely easy to spot, that homebrew using the Tome series by Frank What-ever-his-name-is usually say so early on, and that, even if I can't discuss the power level, I can still enjoy, appreciate, and make meaningful comments on the class in question once I have an estimate of the intended power level. So you have a semi-decent point, but I don't think it's of enough importance for you to be able to sway the community on.

Sorry.

[Doc Roc]

I think this is a really bad plan, on most counts. It leaves no space for people like me who post with the expectation that you might use any of sundry sets of books that you want. I mean, what if someone wants to post material for the Iron Kingdoms setting?

Do they then have to tag it [3.X IK] ?
This is, in a word, silly, and seems like an attempt to stratify an already divided community. Most people come out and talk about their target balance points, their purposes, and their intents. Worse, "Tome" is confusing, because there are multiple tome books (Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle) and the F&K homebrew is also known as the tomes.

Finally, I must contest your assessment of the relative power-levels of ToB versus Core, and note that a huge portion of the 3.51 banlist, and indeed most banlists, consists of material either in core or broken because of core.

I will, however, go ahead and start tagging the penny-dreadful material with the 3.5.X, where X is the patch-set it belongs to. Because god forbid you accidentally read our work.

[Godskook]

When 3.5 is used in a title, it indicates that the materials are intended to be in line with the "Core materials" of the game, the PHB, DMG and those books that Wizards actually attempted to balance with them such as the Complete series.

Things that include Tome of Battle materials are designated as ToB in the title, rather than "3.5." This leaves people in a clear boundary as to the power levels involved.

The rest makes sense(except I don't know of any offending threads to provoke this), yet this part has me confused. As far as I understand, ToB was balanced with the 'intention to be in line with the "Core materials" of the game'. Hence, I'm not understanding where the need is to differentiate ToB homebrew from 3.5 homebrew.

I will, however, continue tagging the penny-dreadful material with the 3.5.X, where X is the patch-set it belongs to. Because god forbid you accidentally read our work.

Fixed it for you, Doc. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen a ToS homebrew that wasn't tagged, bannered, and in 5 other ways blatantly marked.

[Doc Roc]

Fixed it for you, Doc. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen a ToS homebrew that wasn't tagged, bannered, and in 5 other ways blatantly marked.

:: whistles idly :: Gee, I seem to have been caught. And me with my hand in the cookie jar of rhetoric.

[Mulletmanalive]

Fine, fine.

I thank you for putting me in my place so solidly.

I'll make a point of never having an oppinion again.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Fine, fine.

I thank you for putting me in my place so solidly.

I'll make a point of never having an oppinion again.

...gah?

Mulletman, here's the deal: you posit an opinion, and you'll get opinions back. Nobody told you that your idea was stupid, or insulted your thoughts: we merely attempted to point out that, in our minds, it was largely unnecessary and in some cases actually confusing. What's more, I don't really see any impolite posts in this thread, although I suppose the beginning of Doc Roc's first one could be interpreted that way.

I can't help but think you're overreacting, and I'm sorry for my part in whatever caused it. However, we, like you, are also entitled to our opinions, and are therefore entitled to point out where we feel yours fall short of what you intended. You shouldn't, however, let our thoughts stop you from having ideas.

[Doc Roc]

Mulletman, here's the deal: you posit an opinion, and you'll get opinions back. Nobody told you that your idea was stupid, or insulted your thoughts: we merely attempted to point out that, in our minds, it was largely unnecessary and in some cases actually confusing. What's more, I don't really see any impolite posts in this thread, although I suppose the beginning of Doc Roc's first one could be interpreted that way.

I...... How do you reach such an interpretation?