ToB

[Fisticuffs]

I don't allow ToB classes in my campaigns: I'm not too familiar with the material, they're really good right out of the box at low-levels, they effectively were made to replace other classes.

As of late I've been second guessing this decision and told someone new to my DnD group that I'd allow him to play a Shifter Swordsage.

The party as of right now looks like this:
Human Scout 3
Illumian(Vaulkrau) Sorcerer 1/Shugenja(Water focus) 2
Half-Orc Barbarian 2/Druid 1
Human Fighter 3(Switched from Bard)

I'm for the most part unable to contact him so I don't know what he's doing with the character and he wont be jumping in till 4th. I don't want him to overshadow the party, anything I should look out for as far as stances, maneuvers, or feats go? He knows that I'm shaking on ToB so he said he's prepared for me to restrict a few things.

Edit: Clarify my problems with them.

[The-Mage-King]

You should expect the Fighter to ask to switch to Warblade- it's a commonly held fact that Fighter is... Borken. In the bad way.

Other than that, no. There's nothing in there worse than a Druid.

[Fax Celestis]

they effectively replace other classes.

...classes that are pretty broadly accepted to be poor at their intended role and even worse at everything else.

[Lycanthromancer]

I don't allow ToB classes in my campaigns: I'm not too familiar with them, they're really good right out of the box at low-levels, they effectively replace other classes.

As of late I've been second guessing this decision and told someone new to my DnD group that I'd allow him to play a Shifter Swordsage.

The party as of right now looks like this:
Human Scout 3
Illumian(Vaulkrau) Sorcerer 1/Shugenja(Water focus) 2
Half-Orc Barbarian 2/Druid 1
Human Fighter 3(Switched from Bard)

I'm for the most part unable to contact him so I don't know what he's doing with the character and he wont be jumping in till 4th. I don't want him to overshadow the party, anything I should look out for as far as stances, maneuvers, or feats go? He knows that I'm shaking on ToB so he said he's prepared for me to restrict a few things.

You mean really broken stuff?

There are only a few things that should be curbstomped, if abused, that I'm aware of:

1. The d2 crusader (which deals infinite damage with a d2 weapon)
2. Abuse of White Raven Tactics (granting you infinite turns if you're considered your own ally)
3. Iron Heart Surge (should be used sparingly, so no destroying time because you don't like the way it's affecting your crow's feet)
4. And aptitude weapon kukris + Lightning Mace + lots of attacks to gain infinite attacks per round.

That's pretty much it. He'll be strong coming out of the gate, but it's not something that's much of an issue past, say, level 6.

[JKTrickster]

Actually just to support The Mage King's crossed out text, you should probably tell the player with the Fighter to change their class. After all the Fighter is one of the classes that are commonly replaced by ToB. Warblade is a nice alternative if you want.

All in all, ToB is only something to watch out for relative to the rest of your party. Like you said, it starts out of the box pretty strong and if your other party members aren't used to that level of power tell the ToB player(s) to scale it down a bit.

[HunterOfJello]

His swordsage will probably function similar to a rogue, except he will likely be much more efficient and versatile.



Some things to be aware of, read up on or double check on his character sheet:

-Swordsages really benefit from using the Maneuver Cards that can be found on the WoTC website.

-Swordsages have a terrible maneuver recovery mechanic without taking the feat Adaptive Style. If he doesn't have Adaptive Style, then he should get it.

-Martial Adepts can only ready one version of each maneuver at a time. Where a Wizard could have 3 spell slots and prepare 3 Fireballs, a Swordsage with 3 maneuvers readied must choose 3 different maneuvers.

-Read up on the Maneuver Level to Initiator Level chart. It's easy to miss while reading ToB and very important. Initiator Level = Levels in a Martial class + 1/2 all levels in other classes. Maneuver levels are similar to spell levels, so the highest level maneuver a level 5 Swordsage can use is a level 3 maneuver.

-Swordsages are very cool. ToB is very cool. Your other players will likely either become jealous of the Swordsage or want to switch to a ToB class. At that point, you could let them change their character's old levels as retraining, or you could let them start taking levels of the ToB classes. One of the best part about the base classes in the Tome of Battle is that the Initiator Level mechanic allows characters to benefit from taking levels in other classes.

[Thurbane]

...classes that are pretty broadly accepted to be poor at their intended role and even worse at everything else.

Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

[Snake-Aes]

Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

Then I fail to see how adding the Disciples would be an issue.

[Matthew]

[Y]ou should probably tell the player with the Fighter to change their class.

The intent is noble, but I would really advise giving the player the option of switching from fighter to war blade, rather than telling him to (I imagine that is also what the above poster intended, but the tone could be mistaken).

[Fax Celestis]

Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?

[balistafreak]

...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?

Because even when people say "oh yeah, that's fine", inside they still chafe, and you can tell from the disgruntled looks they get when you decidedly overpower them on the table. They're too nice to comment about being left behind but they're too competitive to not notice being overtaken.

[Snake-Aes]

Because even when people say "oh yeah, that's fine", inside they still chafe, and you can tell from the disgruntled looks they get when you decidedly overpower them on the table. They're too nice to comment about being left behind but they're too competitive to not notice being overtaken.

At that point it boils down to Personnel management. No books or character concepts will really change anything.

[balistafreak]

At that point it boils down to Personnel management. No books or character concepts will really change anything.

Agreed. It's when people pin ToB as a specific problem that I facepalm.

Rule of thumb: Any time you are deliberately and knowingly increasing your power level, make it clear to your party that you're not trying to one-up them. Whether through ToB, psionics, Incarnum, additional splatbooks, or even just non-core, don't grab it just for the sake of being more powerful and having "more pluses", which is quite bad in any group. Make it clear that while you are becoming more powerful, you're not merely after bigger numbers, but more opportunities and ways to have fun.

Even if it takes you personally recrafting every single one of your group's characters to show them how much more fun they could be having (raises hand) if you can do it in a proper manner, you can enlighten your group and end up having many times more fun than you ever would normally.

My group started with a Fighter/Sorcerer, a Necromancy-focused Wizard, and a skillmonkey Rogue with zero combat effectiveness. They all stumbled around and looked like idiots both on and off the battlefield. When I was done with them, we had a Duskblade, a Warlock with The Dead Walk (which while obviously "weaker" than a Wizard, was much easier to handle and much closer to the character envisioned), and a Factotum. And they could actually do things.

But the original topic suffers!

Yeah, the Tome of Battle's main "problem" is that the optimization "floor" is much, much higher. Even at its most poorly played level, utilizing any of the Strike/Stance mechanics that are the bread-and-butter of the Tob make the three Initiators head-and-shoulders better than the Fighter, because you end up with extra pluses no matter how poorly you pick your Strikes. The Fighter would just be making vanilla attacks - even the worst Strikes in the ToB are almost strictly improvements on basic attacks, and remain so if a Fighter takes the "classic" (and terrible) Weapon Focus/Specialization tree.

In a strict numbers sense, the Fighter is actually better at dealing massive damage through the Ubercharger builds. However, ToB classes can deal good amounts of damage with little more work than picking manuevers that look cool.

Nothing really needs restricting or banning other than what's already been pointed out, and that's mostly due to vague wording or clear rules-jumping. player shouldn't ever be as stupid to attempt an infinite-loop within the space of a single action anyways.

(Note that things like "infinite healing" are not broken because they often take time and actions. You could argue that a Monk could deal infinite damage using the same logic. The "infinite" we're talking about is the type that breaks the action economy in half.)

To repeat:

• White Raven Tactics for infinite turns is a pretty blatant attempt to break the game. Note that it's intended use (the get-another-turn which is specifically outlined as legal) is actually merely powerful, not broken.
• No, you cannot Iron Heart Surge away the sun because it's making you hot. As long as you make it only able to target clearly targetted effects (something that someone has just slapped onto the Warblade) it's quite fine as is.
• Infinite attacks through Lightning Maces can be seen a mile away.
• A Crusader is not allowed to punch someone with a shuriken for infinite damage.

[okpokalypse]

All I know is this...

If the argument for ToB beng too much of a replacement for existing classes, I assume you'd have also outlawed the Knight (PHB II) and Psychic Warrior (XPH) which are both FAR superior to any PHB Melee type.

Seriously, There isn't a build you can make from ToB + all SRD stuff that compares to a well built Psychic Warrior, or Melee Ardent for that matter. Not. A. One.

The fact is that ToB is a much needed balancing mechanism for 3.5 Melee PCs as a whole. It provides sensible base classes that can have useful abilities beside run and swing or point and shoot while the rest of the party is launching AoEs, Save or Dies and - worst of all - doing Poly/Enlarge type combos that make a L20 Fighter look like a pansy.

The L14 Psy Warr can Metamorph w/ Tranfer into a 34+ Str & Con Large Creature along with Linked Power to go Gargantuan on the 2nd Turn. His 2H OverSized Weapon is now doing 8d6+30 Damage pre-additional damage and power-attack. And that's not nearly as bad as it can get... Heck, as long as he's not surprised, he'll always go first at the high end with Anticipatory Strike. I mean, there's NO reason to play a Fighter, Paladin or Ranger when you can play a Psy Warr. None. At least ToB doesn't outright have melee classes not worth playing compared to some others :)

[Eldariel]

• White Raven Tactics for infinite turns is a pretty blatant attempt to break the game. Note that it's intended use (the get-another-turn which is specifically outlined as legal) is actually merely powerful, not broken.

WRT is the one case where you really just want to add to the maneuver that "you are not considered your own ally for the purposes of WRT". Clearly that's how the maneuver is designed. Though really, the best thing to do probably is to state that "in one encounter, a single creature may only be targeted by WRT once". This prevents certain extreme corner cases with Ruby Knight Vindicators, while changing basically nothing for normal use of the ability.

• No, you cannot Iron Heart Surge away the sun because it's making you hot. As long as you make it only able to target clearly targetted effects (something that someone has just slapped onto the Warblade) it's quite fine as is.

It's a great ability to rule On-Intent basis; by RAW it functions against everything with a duration, but takes a Standard Action to initiate. This really works just fine, to be honest, as long as you let it negate Light Dazzledness as opposed to the sun, and still have it end the AMF rather than just negate it (trust me, there's very little that matches in power to having your own personal AMF you aren't affected by).

• Infinite attacks through Lightning Maces can be seen a mile away.

It requires a questionable reading of the Aptitude-ability. Just use it as intended; to apply feats normally applying to one weapon that could apply to another weapon (such as XWeapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and so on) to this weapon instead.

• A Crusader is not allowed to punch someone with a shuriken for infinite damage.

This, again, is simply a lenient RAW reading; strict RAW reading states that you have to roll maximum damage, instead of having your lower result replaced by the higher result.

In other words, these two abuses don't even really require houseruling to fix; it's enough to just read them in a certain way.

[balistafreak]

That gap is probably because Psychic Warriors and Ardents are blatantly casters at heart. And I think we're all aware of what blatant casters are capable of. The Wizard becoming a 12-headed Hydra is a classic example.

Even though we all know that generally casters > melee, some a lot of people don't want to be casters for flavor reasons.

Let's be fair: reflavoring can only go so far, and polymorphing is definitely on the other side of the line of reasonability. If I want to hit someone with a sword/punch someone in the face like Bruce Lee, I am not using a spell/power intended to turn me into a hydra to do so.

Seriously, that kind of statement ("there is NO reason to play a melee when you can play a caster") is what gives us optimizers a bad name. We're aware that casters > melee. You seem to be saying that melee isn't even worth playing at with that post, which is going to rub the majority of people, both casual players and optimizers, the wrong way.

NOTE: Please don't let this spiral out of control like the other ToB thread.

[Thurbane]

Then I fail to see how adding the Disciples would be an issue.

...and if that is indeed the case, why would adding three new classes to the lineup be an issue?

Answer? It wouldn't.

...but neither do I consider it essential to employ ToB (or psionics, or incarnum, or Eberron, or other specific material I chose not to use) in a game to make it fun and/or balanced.

My stance, and always has been, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using ToB in your games. And the flipside, that there is nothing wrong with not using it either.

[huttj509]

There are some good reasons to play fighters, rogues, paladins, even monks, and I think they are too often glossed over in many threads.

If you knowingly choose to, being aware of what the class can do, and what it cannot do, regardless of what it claims to do.

Options at various power levels is a good thing. Someone playing a fighter next to a warblade CAN have fun, if he knew going into it what to expect from his character.

Many casters have various power levels based on spell selection. If someone wants to play a weaker caster, he can knowingly choose weaker spells, or specialized spells, or choose to avoid metamagic.

The problem is that basically, until ToB, melee does not have many options for "stronger" builds. There are some particular feat chains that can work well, but in doing so you restrict the flexibility available.

If there are more combat effective, and less combat effective, options in different roles, the opportunities for someone to play the character he wants increase.

If there is disagreement in the group on what sort of characters they want running together, or what the DM expects, etc, this is not a problem with there being too many options, but a problem with group communication and establishment of targets for character creation.

The problem with banning ToB outright is that core itself contains many many options at different power levels for casters, but only weaker options for the melee types, in general. If you want a lower power game, that's fine. If you and your players wish to only be core melee types, perhaps a more gritty martial feel, that's fine. If you restrict various supplements like the ToB, without touching core in terms of what's available, all you do is place the "guy with a sword" next to the mage of many wonderful options and flexibility, next to the bear of many decent options and flexibility, next to the guy with a sword and the blessings of his diety which enable him to be as effective with the sword as the first guy, and then more options on top of that.

If you want to play the "guy with a sword" in that scenario, go for it, you're the player. If you want to choose to play a barbarian with 8 strength and 6 con, because that's the character you have in mind, I have no problem with that. Combat effectiveness is not the be all and end all. I would advise against forcing someone else to play that role, however, without their knowing agreement.


Summary:

On a scale from 1 to 10, melee generally has a power/flexibility range of, say, 1-5. Magic has a range of 2-11. ToB gives melee some options in the 4-9 range.

Those numbers have no relation to any scale, and are just an example.

Edit: If your melee is playing at a 3 level, and your casters are playing at a 3 level (or 4), and, most importantly, everyone is having fun, I see no need to use the ToB. It's when the casters are up at 8, and the melee can only get near 5 by strictly limiting their flexibility even more, that the refusal to use the ToB would irk me.

[Gametime]

Broadly accepted in fairly optimized games. In most beer-n-pretzels, mid-level, cooperative games, class disparity is pretty much a non-issue... at least in my experience. YMMV.

My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely.

[Lycanthromancer]

My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely.

"But fighting doesn't use skills! Feats are for combat, skills are for everything else!"

...Yeah, I don't believe it either, but you'd be amazed at how many times I've heard that.

[Runestar]

How does white raven tactics grant infinite turns? As a warblade, you need a swift action to refresh your maneuvers, preventing you from initating WRT for that turn. Even with adaptive style, you would not be able to do anything beyond initiating WRT and refreshing them.

The only way I know how to accomplish this is with 2 choker warblades.

[Runeclaw]

There's nothing in there worse than a Druid.

A Barbarian 2 / Druid 1 is NOT a Druid.

[Morph Bark]

A Barbarian 2 / Druid 1 is NOT a Druid.

Correction: it is not as much as a Druid as he should be.


...says the one who totally loves playing Barbarians.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I like ToB. It makes melee fun. Maybe your group will like it, and maybe it won't, but good on you for at least trying it out.

How does white raven tactics grant infinite turns? As a warblade, you need a swift action to refresh your maneuvers, preventing you from initating WRT for that turn. Even with adaptive style, you would not be able to do anything beyond initiating WRT and refreshing them.

The only way I know how to accomplish this is with 2 choker warblades.

Ruby Knight Vindicator converts turn attempts into swift actions.

[PinkysBrain]

ToB classes have a lot of flexibility, something the non ToB martial classes can only get from magic items ... so I'd recommend dropping some nice magic items for the scout and the fighter.

The short range teleport anklet braces from MiC for instance and at higher level perhaps claw bracers from complete adventurer for the scount. That sort of thing.

[Wings of Peace]

All I know is this...

If the argument for ToB beng too much of a replacement for existing classes, I assume you'd have also outlawed the Knight (PHB II) and Psychic Warrior (XPH) which are both FAR superior to any PHB Melee type.

Psychic Warrior yes, Knight... he can compete but a well made Fighter could probably perform a more complex role like Trip-Lockdown, Ubercharging, Bull-Rushing, etc, with greater ease.

[Kylarra]

My group's games are quite casual, and the only problem I have with most martial classes is the terrible, terrible skill lists. 2+int skills for someone who spends his life in physical activity? No way to detect approaching enemies? Blech!

Beyond that, though (and really, what would D&D be without houseruled changes to skills?), I agree with you entirely.

To be fair, the skill thing is an issue for most of 3.X, which the improved chassis of ToB classes did something marginal to improve for fighty types, but most of us just say "the heck with it, have another 4 skills per level" or something anyway.

[Eldariel]

To be fair, the skill thing is an issue for most of 3.X, which the improved chassis of ToB classes did something marginal to improve for fighty types, but most of us just say "the heck with it, have another 4 skills per level" or something anyway.

6 at the very least, and expanded skill list while at it. I've been thinking of 8 lately though.

[Kylarra]

6 at the very least, and expanded skill list while at it. I've been thinking of 8 lately though.

Fair enough, 4 was just a random number.

[DragoonWraith]

I have long contended that the only classes that should have 2+Int skills are the Wizard and Psion (Erudite, too, if he uses Int-based Manifesting; don't actually know), and maybe the Wu Jen, but probably not. Warlocks shouldn't, fighter-types definitely shouldn't, etc. I'd actually consider 0+Int skills on the Wizard, if you really want to enforce the "scholarly type who doesn't get out much", but that's kind of lame.

Anyway, uhm. What on earth is the Sorcerer/Shugenja doing? The Shugenja's a really weak caster (especially for Water) and you only make it worse by wasting a level on Sorcerer. If he's going for Mystic Theurge, you should houserule the Mystic Theurge to be less bad - require 2nd level and 1st level casting, instead of 2nd and 2nd, and give some actual class features - the way the Pathfinder Mystic Theurge works is close to what you want, but the "cast a spell from your other class" feature should not increase the spell's level by 1, and the "cast a spell from each class at once" feature should be more than 1/day (1/encounter would work nicely). If that player is not going for Mystic Theurge, you should probably find out what their plan is, and work out something for them - because a multiclass Sorcerer/Shugenja is really weak, for a caster.

For the Barbarian/Druid, did he take the Spirit Lion Totem ACF from Complete Champion? If not, you might recommend that he does; it gives him Pounce instead of Fast Movement. Barb1/Druid2 would be better than the opposite, but whatever. Generally, Druids are very strong and even a couple of levels lost to Barbarian isn't going to stop that, but you should try to figure out, again, what that player is seeking to do with his class. Offering him some way of getting the ability to cast spells while raging would be a good idea.

The Fighter is something of a problem. Fighters are very difficult classes to build well, while Tome of Battle classes are not, which means unless the Fighter is trying very hard, he could easily be side-lined here. This is primarily the fault of the Fighter class, more than anything else. The Warblade from Tome of Battle is essentially a Fighter-that-works - you might recommend that. Failing that, the Dungeoncrasher ACF from Dungeonscape works pretty well, if you have that. After that, though, the Fighter just has a really hard time keeping up with anything; even the Scout's better off. There are a number of homebrewed Fighter-fixes out there, but none of them, IMO, work as well as just playing a Warblade. Fighter/Warblades work pretty well, by the way, but you don't want too much Fighter in there, really, but the Feats can come in handy.

The Scout, just make sure the Scout has some way of moving and full-attacking at the same time. Skirmish's damage is low, but it's fine as long as you can actually use it. Whether this means recommending a dip into Cloistered Cleric for Travel Devotion, a dip into Barbarian for Pounce, or just a custom Feat or magic item that lets him do it, it's important. Using Swift Hunter from Complete Scoundrel and multiclassing with Ranger is also a pretty popular choice on Scout that works pretty well. A Ranged Scout should do fine, because Tome of Battle does not offer any choices for range, so there won't really be a competition between the Swordsage and the Scout; a melee Scout, though, is basically filling the same role as the Swordsage, and the Swordsage can fill it better, probably, because the Swordsage doesn't have the same problems with movement that the Scout does.


Ultimately, the biggest problem here is the full-attack. Your non-ToB melee needs them; the Swordsage does not. That makes the Swordsage far more mobile. Houseruling how full-attacks work might also be a good idea.