To ToB or not to ToB

[Neon Knight]

So, I am a big fan of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It makes melee classes as fun to play as casters, in addition to being powerful enough to stay reasonably competitive later on against Batman and CoDzilla.

However, early game, wizards are not yet universe destroying invincible dark knights. They are, in fact, a tad fragile. And although they still have some good spells, they do not have anything earth shattering yet.

So if low level melee classes tend to be just as powerful (to a degree) as low level casters, are ToB classes a bit powerful early on?

I am asking because I was planning on DMing a low level "gritty" type of campaign focused on intrigue, mystery, and horror, and was wondering if I should allow ToB.

[Morty]

I can't tell anything about balance issues, but ToB IMO completely doesn't fit "gritty" campaign described by you. Especially if you just replace standard meleers with ToBers.

[Yechezkiel]

You could always let non-casters switch over (re-level, not cross-class) to ToB classes later on in their careers, when you feel the casters are starting to overshadow them.

[Ivius]

I can't tell anything about balance issues, but ToB IMO completely doesn't fit "gritty" campaign described by you. Especially if you just replace standard meleers with ToBers.

Agreed. Wuxia =! gritty.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Tome of Battle classes actually work fairly well with other classes at low levels! Level 3 is when they pull the most ahead, I think--they pick up Mountain Hammer or another +2d6 damage maneuver, and a Warblade with Punishing Stance can hit for +3d6, with a 2d6 greatsword and, say, +4 to 6 from STR, and then for +2d6 the next round.
That's no more dangerous than a raging (half-)orc barbarian, though, really.

However, they don't fit gritty play very well. The Swordsage is an exception, though--you can use Shadow Blade and unarmed strikes+daggers to moddel a pretty brutal, gritty style of infighting, like a mix of Muay Thai and Kali, plus give'em a shadow-y flavor. Crusaders and Warblades are more heroic-fantasy, though, and the Swordsage can go that way, too.

[Saph]

We've just finished a campaign with a mixture of ToB classes and spellcasters. I was the DM, and the game ran from 3rd to 7th level.

General consensus was that the ToB characters dominated just too thoroughly. The players who weren't using ToB characters all came up to me at one point or another and said something along the lines of "I feel really overshadowed, I'm just casting one spell or making one attack while these guys are doing all this super-stuff."

I think ToB is good for balancing casters with noncasters at the mid-high and high levels (level 11-20) but it's a bit too strong at levels 1-5. At any rate, no DM in my group apart from me is now willing to allow the book, so I won't get much more chance to experiment.

- Saph

[Spiryt]

To ToB or not to ToB

I don't know, but this line is great.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I had a different experience from Saph in a couple of games. The first ran from levels 1 to 10. We had a barbarian who outdid the swordsage at levels 1 and 2 and did more damage even after that although was weaker defensively, and a Crusader that was great and apparently a blast to play. The Beguiler in the group had no complaints, and I played a wizard and did just fine--at least until I ran out of spells, which didn't actually happen every day once we hit level 3.

At level 5, the Crusader was definitely tougher than the barb but did less damage, and often wound up healing the barbarian; the Swordsage was catching up, doing TWF/shadow blade for solid damage, the barbarian hit harder but got taken out/hurt more often, and the Beguiler and my wizard were doing as you might expect. By level 10, the Crusader was doing an OK job of healing us all, but we kept some high-powered Cure scrolls for the Beguiler to UMD in emergencies (and used UMDed wands to heal during downtime).

[ZeroNumerous]

<Snip>
- Saph

Sounds like you had a party of Fighter/Paladin/Monk types with maybe one or two wizards(or the traditional cleric). Generally, yes, a Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage will totally overshadow those guys because they suck compared to their replacements.

Compared to a batman-wizard or CoDZilla within 3-7, however, ToB classes do not show any real improvement since they only have access to low level maneuvers and stances that aren't exactly the greatest of abilities. And normally they'll only fire off one of those abilities per round. Two, maybe, if you have a Swordsage who enjoys Boosts.

My suggestion is to put forward a game(with you as the DM) that completely removes Fighter/Paladin/Monk and replaces them with Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage respectively. You should see a vast improvement in the attitudes of people who normally play Fighter/Paladin/Useless. Err.. Monk.

[Kizara]

ToB is overpowered in general, the content of your first post shows that you already understand this.

My advice is to not use it at all.

[Saph]

Sounds like you had a party of Fighter/Paladin/Monk types with maybe one or two wizards(or the traditional cleric).

Actually, the total character roster, including replacements, came to:

ToB: Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Another Warblade

Non-ToB: Psion, Ranger, Druid, Psionic Warrior, Wizard, Another Psion

The Ranger one could understand, but even the Druid and Psionic Warrior told me they felt outclassed.

(Note: Over the course of the campaign, every single ToB character died. Every one. I think it was mostly due to the fact that since they did so much damage, they drew most of the enemy fire.)

My suggestion is to put forward a game(with you as the DM) that completely removes Fighter/Paladin/Monk and replaces them with Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage respectively. You should see a vast improvement in the attitudes of people who normally play Fighter/Paladin/Useless. Err.. Monk.

Eh, I could, but most of the players' attitudes have turned against the book now and I'd have to make quite a bit of effort to push through any game that allowed it. I think I'll keep that as a reserve option for if we ever get to highish levels and all the melee characters start complaining about being useless.

- Saph

[Exarch]

Hasn't there already been 10 posts about this?

Regardless, ToB is only "overpowered" compared to Fighters and Paladins. Rangers and Barbarians still have their niche (well, whatever niche the Scout left the Ranger anyway). Monks will still be played by people, even if the Setting Sun maneuvers do it better. Melee characters always won in the beginning, now they can just stay competitive throughout the end.

[Emperor Tippy]

ToB is overpowered in general, the content of your first post shows that you already understand this.

My advice is to not use it at all.

ToB is overpowered when compared to the PHB melee classes. When compared to the caster classes and newer melee classes it is balanced.

As for that Saph, how were the druid, psions, and wizard and physic warrior built?

A blaster Psion should (in my experience) equal your moderately well built ToB class over 4 encounters per day. More encounters and the psion gets correspondingly weaker, less and it gets more powerful.

A utility psion should be doing completely different stuff from a ToB class so that doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

Was the druid going for druidzilla or just being a spell caster? At the lower levels (the range you were playing in) a just casting druid will be outclassed by the ToB classes. A druidzilla one will be on par with them.

I understand the Psi Warrior though, that class really needs full BAB to stay competitive.

[ZeroNumerous]

My advice is to not use it at all.

My advice is to ignore part of the above advice. Namely, the "at all" part. Certain parts of ToB(mostly the flavorful tactical feats) can be used in a gritty game if you apply them correctly. Allowing a full martial adept class in a game like that wouldn't be prudent.

However, if you intend for the game to grow beyond 10th level, I highly suggest allowing your players to use ToB classes. Or atleast allow them to 'trade out' levels of the more and more useless (read: Non-Barbarian/Rogue) classes for levels in something more useable.

EDIT: I'd disagree on Ranger having a point anymore. Between Scout(Bow) and Swordsage(Hunter's Stance + TWF), poor Ranger is left without a job.

[Kizara]

I have found this thread very interesting.

I find it amusing that people feel a book isn't overpowered or unfair, yet its so good that you recommend that to be fair you allow anyone with non-ToB classes to trade them in.

Alot of the newer melee classes are overpowered, compare PHB2 knight with, say, the knight protector PRC or with fighter. Compare beguiler to bard.
Compare duskblade to ranger.

Does ToB continue this trend? Sure, that doesn't make it good though.

Does the book have interesting flavour in it? I don't know, maybe it does, but that's besides the point.

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

[Arbitrarity]

I have found this thread very interesting.

I find it amusing that people feel a book isn't overpowered or unfair, yet its so good that you recommend that to be fair you allow anyone with non-ToB classes to trade them in.

Alot of the newer melee classes are overpowered, compare PHB2 knight with, say, the knight protector PRC or with fighter. Compare beguiler to bard.
Compare duskblade to ranger.

Does ToB continue this trend? Sure, that doesn't make it good though.

Does the book have interesting flavour in it? I don't know, maybe it does, but that's besides the point.

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

Not compared to casting classes. And that logic has been pointed out as a really *****y way to balance a game. Overpowered compared to other melee classes maybe, but they're weaker than what's considered to be level appropriate.

Oh noes, warblade>fighter.

Wizard>warblade>fighter. Being tier two isn't overpowered.

[Captain van der Decken]

So, Kizara.. melee classes should be underpowered at high levels?


I think Warblade can be gritty. Iron Heart is mostly interesting ways of stabbing people, and Tiger Claw is more or less a barbarian.

[ZeroNumerous]

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

I'm not even gonna bother continuing this discussion based on what you've said above.

To OP: If you really want something more focused to the roleplay aspect, why not just push people toward skillmonkey classes? It'd definitely help, and an adequately built skillmonkey party still poses a threat to any BBEG.

[Neon Knight]

Er, well...

I wasn't really going for something that was more roleplay aspect, I was just desiring a campaign where the first response to something's apperance did not include stab it and take its stuff.

I suppose that by using the word gritty, I invoked connotations that I might not be going for.

The main feel I want to get acorss is that although the PCs are fairly powerful, they can't just slaughter all the cultists/heretics/monsters/henchmen/minions in direct combat. If they tried, they'd certainly take many foes with them, but they would still die and by dieing fail their mission. Instead, I'd like them to try a bit of strategy. So far, I seem to be unable to acheive that fine balance of an encounter that, while challenging, does not end in a TPK. Throw in a pinch of generic horror and a bit of Lovecraftian stuff on the side, with a dash of simple puzzles and mysteries so the campaign isn't completely braindead, along with a small amount of political intriuge, and you have what I'm going for in a nutshell.

Secondly, Kizara, I just cannot describe how much I detest that "No ToB" suggestion. The whole reason I made this bloody post was because I realize ToB might not be the best fit for this campaign, but I like it so much I was considering putting it in anyway. I have never considered ToB overpowered. I consider core melee classes underpowered.

ToB is to normal melee classes what the Fighter is to the Warrior.

[ZeroNumerous]

Swordsage or Warblade would do well in that type of scenario. Particularly a shadow-hand/setting-sun Swordsage or a white-raven/iron-heart Warblade.

Further: The description you were looking for was 'deadly tactical game'.

[lukelightning]

I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers. Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others, inflict cold damage, get concealment, and who knows what else. An unlimited number of times. "But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

[ZeroNumerous]

Yes, a Swordsage would be able to get +2d6 Sneak Attack at 6th level when he's in a specific stance. By then, the Rogue has 3d6 that he can use perpetually.

Yes, they can use their abilities constantly. But a Swordsage has to take a full-round to refresh. A Warblade refreshes as a swift action, but he doesn't have alot of abilities to use in the first place. A Crusader doesn't refresh, but he also doesn't have a choice in his abilities unless the player is smart.

Further: Charm Person. Any illusion spell. Anything from Enchantment for that matter. None of the ToB classes can reproduce these effects.

[Neon Knight]

The one who can heal himself is a crusader. He is a martial adept version of the cleric or paladin, and has access to a special discpline that contains divine related powers. Complaining about him healing himself is akin to complaining about a cleric's ability to heal himself, or a Paladin's lay on hands ability.

The ability to get supernatural forms of damage comes from discplies like Shadowhand and Desert Flame. These discplies have a super natural flare to them.

The concealment ability you mention is the Child of Shadow stance, granted by the Shadowhand discipline. He has to move at least 10 feet to gain the benefit of the stance.

The ability to gain sneak attack you mentioned is a 4th level stance of the Shadowhand discpline. It gives +2d6 sneak attack. Harldy going to invalidate a straight rogue. The ToB character aquires this ability at level 5. +2d6 sneak attack at level 5. You'll pardon me if I roll my eyes.

The discplies you are thinking of that grant damage bonuses, attack bonuses, bonuses to diasrm/trip/grapple are things like Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, and White Raven.

Of course, Tome of Battle abilities are not limited to damage boosts. With Setting Sun, for instance, I can pick up one of my opponents and throw him a short distance. Useful for getting some breathing space.

There are dozens of manuvers with a bewildering array of effects. I think bascially any sort of melee fighter could be created using ToB, in a manner similar to the Fighter.

My question to you and the rogue are: If you envy these abilites, why the heck don't you just multiclass and take a few levels? Unless you are a wizard or something (the first command of wizardry: Thou shall not give up spell levels) I can't think of a class offhand that couldn't benefit from ToB.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Melee classes were never meant to have the power that casting classes do at the highest levels, trying to give them that just makes them overpowered in general.

Even if that were once the case, it certainly seems like Wizards of the Coast has realized that that's very poor game design, and is working to correct it.

[Dark_Wind]

I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

At first level, I can see a caster feeling overshadowed, since at first level you're liable to run out of spells before the day is done. As you gain levels, you'll find that to be less of a problem. As to the Rogue, well, they aren't so hot in combat anyway, but he's got SA and more and better skills than even a Swordsage.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers.

They have those already. They're called feats.

Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others

Not nessecarily when they want to, though. Have you read how the Crusaders' maneuvers work? It's not always convenient. That, and the healing is somewhat lackluster.

inflict cold damage

Ooh, 1d6 extra damage once per encounter (and it really is just once, that's a Swordsage maneuver if it's the one I'm thinking of, so unless he wants to spend a full-round action to recover it...). Scary.

get concealment

As long as he keeps moving 10 per round, ya. Hard to do that in melee without provoking AoOs at 1st level, though. Tumble is less than reliable at that point.

An unlimited number of times.

Per day, yes. How many encounters do you guys fight per day at 1st level? And long encounters kill them. Swordsages especially, since once they run out they have a tough time getting them back and basically turn into glorified Experts.

"But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

Your spells are better than his maneuvers, though. Especially as you gain levels. Well, except against mindless enemies and such, but you knew that when you chose to play a beguiler.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

Sucky sneak attack. It's not worth it to use one of those stances, IMO.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

If he does, then that is a problem. If you're worried he will, then bring up your concerns with him.

[Dausuul]

I have some gripes about the ToB. You see, we just started a 1st level campaign and three of the PCs are ToB classes. They seem to be far superior to the rest of us (a measily rogue and my beguiler); the problem is that my beguiler casts his 4 first level spells then he's pretty much done. Meanwhile these other first level characters can do all sorts of magical things, an unlimited number of times, without worrying about casting in melee.

I had originally thought that ToB maneuvers would be things like bonuses to hit and damage, and bonuses to other combat maneuvers. Nope; at first level they can heal themselves and others, inflict cold damage, get concealment, and who knows what else. An unlimited number of times. "But I have to spend a swift action to regain them" says on player. So what, you can do your super maneuver once every other round? I can cast a spell every round... but then we have to rest.

The poor rogue is gonna feel even more slighted, since these other guys can get sneak attack as well.

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

*shrug* The ToB characters get a bunch of relatively minor abilities, usable unlimited times per day. You get sleep, also known as "the first-level wail of the banshee," four times per day. You have a rocket launcher, they have machine guns.

The first couple of levels are always kind of annoying for casters--not so much because they're behind on power (they're not) as because they have so few spells they have to spend most of their time plinking away with crossbows, which is boring. But that would be a problem even if your teammates were regular fighters and barbarians and so on.

As for the rogue, well, yeah, a rogue can't keep up with a ToB character in combat. But then, a ToB character can't pick locks, find traps, or get 8 skills a level. Whether this makes up for it depends on how many locks and traps you encounter.

[Starsinger]

I just hope the DM doesn't plan encounters based entirely on the unlimited use characters.

Actually, that's my favorite part about ToB and Warlocks, the fact that they can go full throttle all day. "But... then players can fight all day.. *whine*" As opposed to the much less preferable, 30 minutes into the day, "Well.. out of spell slots, nap time!"

But the PCs are still human..oids. They have to sleep like everyone else does, just not because the Wizard and Band-Aid run out of spells.

[Orzel]

ToB isn't all that powerful. Most of the stances, boost, and strikes assume you can catch the enemy. This matters little at low level though since there are few evasive enemies at low level.

At low levels skill moneys and caster aren't supposed to kill everything. They can help but until they gain enough resources, they can't kill for long. You are doing the same job so there should be little competition.

[ZeroNumerous]

Actually, that's my favorite part about ToB and Warlocks, the fact that they can go full throttle all day.

Thats the one thing I hate about Warlocks. Their power is spread over all day, so they're going to be mediocre all day rather than have their 30 minutes of fame like a Wizard.

[Kalirren]

To give my two cents on the OP's question, the two questions of whether or not the ToB classes are overpowered compared to the normal classes and whether or not the ToB allows for grittiness are independent and should not be conflated. To answer the second question first, the classes in ToB don't lend themselves particularly to grittyness, but neither does D&D, really, yet you can still run gritty campaigns.

That said, balance-wise I think ToB is best left to itself, literally. ToB and traditional D&D spell-slots-based magic don't mix well at all. Either run completely without ToB, or run a campaign where the -only- thing allowed is ToB (or maybe ToB plus bard, and make the bard work like ToB), and build the world accordingly. I've contemplated doing the latter for a few months, and the opportunity to run/play in Wuxia d20 is tempting.