Why ban ToB?

[Gusmo]

Heh, I'm being reminded of this little gem from an otherwise awful telling of Dragonlance.

[mindstalk]

(Also, your example is technically wrong, since you could just use your 3rd level spells slots to cast Light as a Sorcerer, but I take your point.)

In 5e yeah, but not in earlier editions.

[upho]

Most of the reasons have been covered. The fact it's 3rd party, the fact that it completely changes party dynamics, the fact that it completely overwrites core classes, the fact that it's an additional system people don't want to deal with, the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster. And by average caster I mean most ordinary people playing casters, not the people who hang out here.

Most people who play D&D want to play a party to chill with their friends and laugh about killing Bonzo the Ogre by Fighter Bob beating it to death with front door while Ozark the wizard made its minions sleep and Jimmy the rogue snuck around and slew the guards that were supposed to warn the ogre the party was coming. Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience. Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed.

Could you please elaborate on this, 'cause I understand very little of it. Notably:

1. "The fact it's 3rd party"
It's not. Why do you claim it is?

2. "the fact that it completely changes party dynamics"
How/in what way?

3. "the fact that it completely overwrites core classes"
There are AFAIK no rules stating that core classes aren't allowed in games with ToB content. Or were you actually trying to say that the ToB classes are so much stronger than the core classes they'd be near useless in any challenges suitable for the ToB classes, i.e.; what you're saying in point #4 below?

4. "the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster"
I assume you meant to say "...it raises the floor and the ceiling of the average martial...", since otherwise you'd be comparing apples and... uh... cheese? And if that assumption is correct, could you perhaps describe what makes for example a crusader a significantly more competent adventurer than a druid? Or, if you like, what makes Joe Average far more skilled at PO when building and playing say crusaders than he is when building and playing druids?

5. "Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience."
Do you know how/why ToB changes your players' preferences from "random fun" to "BATTLE TO THE DEATH"-PvP?

6. "Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed."
Since this appears to be the kind of game you and your group prefers, why is it a problem? (And regardless, see question #5 above.)

Lastly, I think some things may become at least a bit less confusing to me (and many other posters/readers) if you could post a basic build outline of the "typical average" wizard and perhaps fighter in your games, say at 10th level.

[NigelWalmsley]

In 5e yeah, but not in earlier editions.

No, you can do that in 3e too:

A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell.

I guess technically, given the context, that might imply that you can only do that as a prepared caster, but that seems like kind of a stretch.

[Calthropstu]

Could you please elaborate on this, 'cause I understand very little of it. Notably:

1. "The fact it's 3rd party"
It's not. Why do you claim it is?

2. "the fact that it completely changes party dynamics"
How/in what way?

3. "the fact that it completely overwrites core classes"
There are AFAIK no rules stating that core classes aren't allowed in games with ToB content. Or were you actually trying to say that the ToB classes are so much stronger than the core classes they'd be near useless in any challenges suitable for the ToB classes, i.e.; what you're saying in point #4 below?

4. "the fact that it raises the floor and the cieling of martials well above the average caster"
I assume you meant to say "...it raises the floor and the ceiling of the average martial...", since otherwise you'd be comparing apples and... uh... cheese? And if that assumption is correct, could you perhaps describe what makes for example a crusader a significantly more competent adventurer than a druid? Or, if you like, what makes Joe Average far more skilled at PO when building and playing say crusaders than he is when building and playing druids?

5. "Once ToB comes out into play, it ceases to be about random fun and more about "LETS SEE WHO CAN BE MORE AWESOME. I CHALLENGE YOUR CHARACTER TO A BATTLE TO THE DEATH ZOMG." At least in my experience."
Do you know how/why ToB changes your players' preferences from "random fun" to "BATTLE TO THE DEATH"-PvP?

6. "Of course, it'll often become that regardless, but ToB makes it virtually guaranteed."
Since this appears to be the kind of game you and your group prefers, why is it a problem? (And regardless, see question #5 above.)

Lastly, I think some things may become at least a bit less confusing to me (and many other posters/readers) if you could post a basic build outline of the "typical average" wizard and perhaps fighter in your games, say at 10th level.

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

[noob]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

Essentially it is a player problem: some players really wants power that feels awesome and wants to be the strongest (which involves themselves comparing to the other players and thus pvp) and TOB grants that feeling more than just the core classes (Because let us face it: building a bridge by waving your hands ten minutes or making your allies attack and move faster does not feels as awesome as smashing someone so hard it throws them backwards even if fabricate and haste are very powerful)

[DeTess]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.

[el minster]

It seems like the bad type of players like ToB

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.

True enough. Which is why when they mention ToB I drop the player. ToB appeals to a particular player type it seems, a player type I don't need at all.

[upho]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

This sounds pretty horrible, even though I can't see why this kind of player mentality has much to do with ToB. I mean, with just a little bit more effort, in most games these idiots would be able to do pretty much the same kind of asshattery with a barbarian, pally or fighter.

Regardless, you have my sympathies, FWIW.

Yeah, this is a player problem. These players would have been exactly the same problem if they'd not been allowed to use ToB, and instead where limited to things like cleric or druid.

For sure. But still, I'm curious if there are more of these players among those who prefer games with ToB, or if Calthropstu's experiences is simply a statistical outlier. FWIW, my own experiences with both ToB and PoW have been nothing like this. But then, I've been lucky enough to never play with someone intentionally trying to prove their PC stronger than that of another, at least not in-game and certainly not through PvP. I have however been in two games with unintentionally OP PCs (both of them full casters).

Essentially it is a player problem: some players really wants power that feels awesome and wants to be the strongest (which involves themselves comparing to the other players and thus pvp) and TOB grants that feeling more than just the core classes (Because let us face it: building a bridge by waving your hands ten minutes or making your allies attack and move faster does not feels as awesome as smashing someone so hard it throws them backwards even if fabricate and haste are very powerful)

Hmm... Maybe there's some truth to this. Although I still don't really understand why these schmucks would need ToB.

(In PF, I think I can see why these asshats would want PoW however, as I'd wager none of them have the op-fu to make a 1PP martial as OP as they can make a PoW class.)

[Rater202]

AH right, tob is 1st party, keep thinking PF since I play it almost exclusively now. During the time I played 3.5 I had 3 people use ToB in my games/games I was in. The one where I was playing, I built my character to the table I was playing at. Within 3 sessions he declared himself the party leader "because he was strongest." He trashed the fighter and rogue at the same time in pvp and after the 4th session was asked not to return. The other 2 were in games I ran. 1 decided to "prove a point" killed the party wizard (level 9) and knocked the cleric unconcious. I decided to ask him to make a char more in line with the party dynamic, and that if he initated pvp again he was booted from the table. Guy lasted 3 more sessions. Third guy started getting domineering and I nipped it in the bud. Booted him from the table after 1 session and decided anyone asking "Can I use ToB" was grounds t disinvite them to my tables.

This isn't a problem with ToB

This is a problem with players--in the first game you were being a jerk by picking on other pcs who are weaker than you and in the other cases it was otherplayers being jerks.

If they didn't have access to ToB they'd bee playing Codzillas.

[GrayDeath]

For sure. But still, I'm curious if there are more of these players among those who prefer games with ToB, or if Calthropstu's experiences is simply a statistical outlier. FWIW, my own experiences with both ToB and PoW have been nothing like this. But then, I've been lucky enough to never play with someone intentionally trying to prove their PC stronger than that of another, at least not in-game and certainly not through PvP. I have however been in two games with unintentionally OP PCs (both of them full casters).

In the last 5 game groups where we used ToB or PoW (since we almost always play 3.x I am using them interchangeably) we had the following 2 Problems:

1.: A Player that obviously ran from Caltropsus table to ozurs built a monstrosity of bartely RAW legal Swordsage, held his (aside from not being able to fly, which will come up again) existant superiority to the other PC`s (a regular Wildshape Ranger, a Favoured Soul and a Beguiler) to no end, frustrating us for 2 Sessions (even after the DM more than clearly, if nicely,a sked to tone it dowmn.
Late in that 2nd night, we came to a vast (over 400meters) lavafilled Chasm of at least 200 miles length, where the Raptoran Beguiler, the Wildshaping Ranger and the FS casting Flight simply decided that "he could go and try to be awesome over here, they were going over there".
Nooo, the DM surely merely rolled the Random encounter table for terrain....

Exopectadly the immature moron left.

2.: A latecomer to the table was simply asked to build a "powerful but not cheesy" ToB Character of Level 8.

Sadly, he came with a Character built so carefully to not overdo it, that he ended up being very mediocre, and quite overshadowed by the well built Paladin of the Group.
We helped him fine tune it, and he was a happy palyer for almost a year.


The other 3 rounds had absolutely no problems whatsoever. Incidentally, except for one player who ALWAYS plays an Elf magic user of some kind, they al consisted of mature (30+years old) and overall experienced and NICE players.


So yeah, if you give it to "MOA POWAH (to ME)" Morons, ToB or PoW are bad, as even a monkey can build powerful characters with them.
It needs a smart ******* to do that with most other classes, wouldnt you agree?


Though insteads of banning ToB, I simply have decided not to play with morons and *******s. ^^

[InvisibleBison]

It seems like the bad type of players like ToB

ToB appeals to a particular player type it seems, a player type I don't need at all.

This reasoning is invalid. The fact that there are people who both like ToB and are bad players does not preclude there from being people who like ToB and aren't bad players, any more than it precludes there from being people who are bad players and dislike ToB.

[Calthropstu]

In the last 5 game groups where we used ToB or PoW (since we almost always play 3.x I am using them interchangeably) we had the following 2 Problems:

1.: A Player that obviously ran from Caltropsus table to ozurs built a monstrosity of bartely RAW legal Swordsage, held his (aside from not being able to fly, which will come up again) existant superiority to the other PC`s (a regular Wildshape Ranger, a Favoured Soul and a Beguiler) to no end, frustrating us for 2 Sessions (even after the DM more than clearly, if nicely,a sked to tone it dowmn.
Late in that 2nd night, we came to a vast (over 400meters) lavafilled Chasm of at least 200 miles length, where the Raptoran Beguiler, the Wildshaping Ranger and the FS casting Flight simply decided that "he could go and try to be awesome over here, they were going over there".
Nooo, the DM surely merely rolled the Random encounter table for terrain....

Exopectadly the immature moron left.

2.: A latecomer to the table was simply asked to build a "powerful but not cheesy" ToB Character of Level 8.

Sadly, he came with a Character built so carefully to not overdo it, that he ended up being very mediocre, and quite overshadowed by the well built Paladin of the Group.
We helped him fine tune it, and he was a happy palyer for almost a year.


The other 3 rounds had absolutely no problems whatsoever. Incidentally, except for one player who ALWAYS plays an Elf magic user of some kind, they al consisted of mature (30+years old) and overall experienced and NICE players.


So yeah, if you give it to "MOA POWAH (to ME)" Morons, ToB or PoW are bad, as even a monkey can build powerful characters with them.
It needs a smart ******* to do that with most other classes, wouldnt you agree?


Though insteads of banning ToB, I simply have decided not to play with morons and *******s. ^^

Hmmmm. It could be because I am advertising my games by a college campus that I get these kind of people regularly. But you get what you can I guess? Fortunately, I have a decent group I am in. And ToB and PoW never come up.

[NigelWalmsley]

Hmm... Maybe there's some truth to this. Although I still don't really understand why these schmucks would need ToB.

They don't. Calthropsu probably just had one or two bad experiences with people who liked ToB and generalized them. Which is not entirely unsurprising. There are people out there who are *****, and at small sample sizes it is quite possible for the majority of the obnoxious people you run into to all share some trait or other. I'm sure there are people out there who would give equally vitriolic rants about how players who like Psionics, or Eberron, or Binders are evil powergamers.

I also suspect his attitude towards ToB is making the problem worse. I know if someone told me I was a bad person for liking ToB, that would not do anything to ingratiate me to them. If you say "everyone who likes X is toxic", don't be surprised that your interactions with fans of X aren't positive.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Hmmmm. It could be because I am advertising my games by a college campus that I get these kind of people regularly. But you get what you can I guess? Fortunately, I have a decent group I am in. And ToB and PoW never come up.

When I was in college, I ran games for around a dozen people every semester (multiple concurrent games, obviously, I'm not crazy enough to run a 12-PC party), and while some people in my group of friends loved ToB and others refused to use it, none of them were the kind of disruptive jerks like the ones you describe.

Jerkish players have no correlation with age, intellect, profession, playstyle, experience level, or preferred material. One player can ruin a game as a 50-something lifetime gamer running a straight fighter in an overdramatic "real roleplayer" fashion as easily as another can as a teenager whose very first PC is a swordsage with an incredibly cliché personality.

[Blue Jay]

This reasoning is invalid. The fact that there are people who both like ToB and are bad players does not preclude there from being people who like ToB and aren't bad players, any more than it precludes there from being people who are bad players and dislike ToB.

No, you're wrong: it's perfectly valid reasoning. Here's how the reasoning works:

First, you look at the entire pool of players, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

Then, you look at only the players who are ToB fans, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

If the ToB fans have a higher proportion of douche-nozzles than you find in the general player pool, then you can safely conclude that allowing ToB will increase your chances of getting a douche-nozzle in your group.

If you are unwilling to accept that increased risk, then banning ToB is a perfectly rational thing to do. Thus, his reasoning is entirely valid.

Now, is it actually the case that ToB fans are more likely to be douche-nozzles than the general player pool? I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate. But, based on Calthropstu's experiences, I can't fault the guy for the conclusions he drew or the actions he took based on those conclusions. Maybe he could have reserved his judgment and collected more data first, but that's neither here nor there: everyone makes decisions with insufficient data on a pretty regular basis, and a sample size of 3 is pretty much par for the course, so it would be hypocritical to accuse him of anything here.

[Doctor Despair]

No, you're wrong: it's perfectly valid reasoning. Here's how the reasoning works:

First, you look at the entire pool of players, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

Then, you look at only the players who are ToB fans, and observe what proportion of them are douche-nozzles.

If the ToB fans have a higher proportion of douche-nozzles than you find in the general player pool, then you can safely conclude that allowing ToB will increase your chances of getting a douche-nozzle in your group.

If you are unwilling to accept that increased risk, then banning ToB is a perfectly rational thing to do. Thus, his reasoning is entirely valid.

Now, is it actually the case that ToB fans are more likely to be douche-nozzles than the general player pool? I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate. But, based on Calthropstu's experiences, I can't fault the guy for the conclusions he drew or the actions he took based on those conclusions. Maybe he could have reserved his judgment and collected more data first, but that's neither here nor there: everyone makes decisions with insufficient data on a pretty regular basis, and a sample size of 3 is pretty much par for the course, so it would be hypocritical to accuse him of anything here.

Emphasis mine. Anecdotal evidence based on three sessions is not enough data to draw conclusions about every player that would ever want to use TOB. Additionally, it wasn't even 100% of their sample size that acted in that way; they admit that they booted their third player in session one before any egregious behavior could occur to "nip it in the bud" after they "start getting domineering" which, based on their apparently strong feelings about the system, may very well have been able to be resolved amicably without banning the player or the system.

Now, is it understandable for someone to feel negatively about a system based on two or three negative experiences with it? Sure. However, it is not logical or well-founded to claim that people who use TOB are more likely to be jerks without a much broader form of data-collection from multiple DMs and multiple parties. It's understandable for them to not want to play with it, but we should have no illusions that it's a decision based on logic rather than feelings.

[Dimers]

we should have no illusions that it's a decision based on logic rather than feelings.

Logic or no logic, it's not incumbent upon Calthropstu to study a subject intensely before making a decision about how they get to spend their time. How many experiences is "enough"? How many craptastic experiences does that mean they'll need to sit through to satisfy someone's demands that they have a broader data pool? Life's too short for that nonsense. Feel free to rigorously test every assumption about games YOU play, but don't try to inflict it on someone else.

In human relationships, logic is overrated and compassion needs to count for more. Games are human relationships.

[Doctor Despair]

How many craptastic experiences does that mean they'll need to sit through to satisfy someone's demands that they have a broader data pool? Life's too short for that nonsense. Feel free to rigorously test every assumption about games YOU play, but don't try to inflict it on someone else.

I never said they should test it more rigorously before deciding they don't want to play with it; you've misread my post. I said that we shouldn't pretend it's a decision predicated on logic and data. A decision made based on emotions is not necessarily an unjust or wrong decision. It's inaccurate to say that a decision made on such limited anecdotal data is logical, however; as others in the thread have shared, two out of three games' worth of negative experiences is not enough information to logically extrapolate how the entire player pool should be characterized, however, or even how much a majority or plurality of the player pool should be interpreted. If they decided not to run it because it reminds them on an unpleasant childhood experience, that would also be a valid reason not to use it, but as with the logic they did use, we shouldn't pretend it's a logical one.

[Gusmo]

Correlation =/= causation is a life lesson that's worth learning. The subject at hand may be trivial, but more generally when I see people who don't understand this, it makes me wary of other places this fallacy may arise in my interactions with them, and what other fallacies they may allow.

[Calthropstu]

I never said they should test it more rigorously before deciding they don't want to play with it; you've misread my post. I said that we shouldn't pretend it's a decision predicated on logic and data. A decision made based on emotions is not necessarily an unjust or wrong decision. It's inaccurate to say that a decision made on such limited anecdotal data is logical, however; as others in the thread have shared, two out of three games' worth of negative experiences is not enough information to logically extrapolate how the entire player pool should be characterized, however, or even how much a majority or plurality of the player pool should be interpreted. If they decided not to run it because it reminds them on an unpleasant childhood experience, that would also be a valid reason not to use it, but as with the logic they did use, we shouldn't pretend it's a logical one.

It IS a decision based on data. Just because the data doesn't meet YOUR standards, doesn't make it any less viable for me. Let's look at the data available.

A book I dislike was used, on 3 occasions, to perform separate actions which I disliked, seems to attract a certain player type I dislike, with the book having provided zero positives. It seems eliminating an overwhelming negative is a good idea in my book. Is it possible there are good players who just want to try a crusader to try something different? Sure. And maybe, if a person made an approach of "Hey, I've never tried out this ToB book before and I really like the character concept of a crusader type not tied to the holy vows of the paladin. Can we give it a shot?" And if I otherwise decided the player was pretty ok, maybe, just maybe, I'd give it a shot. But that's not what I get. I get "So I want to play a Crusader with these options and these items because it allows me to perform these moves. Oh, and can I build this custom magic item while I am at it?"

Nope.

[Doctor Despair]

It IS a decision based on data. Just because the data doesn't meet YOUR standards, doesn't make it any less viable for me. Let's look at the data available.

Let's take that to an extreme to illustrate a point. I sign up for a foreign language class. The teacher is rude on day one, so I go home. I decide that all speakers of X language are rude. Maybe I also decide all teachers are rude. This is not logical even though it is technically based on data because it is limited anecdotal data. Drawing an inference based on insufficient data is not logical.

...with the book having provided zero positives.

You can't concede there is a single, solitary benefit to using this system? Not one positive thing? Even if you think it's net negative, that's an extreme view to hold.

Is it possible there are good players who just want to try a crusader to try something different? Sure. And maybe, if a person made an approach of "Hey, I've never tried out this ToB book before and I really like the character concept of a crusader type not tied to the holy vows of the paladin. Can we give it a shot?" And if I otherwise decided the player was pretty ok, maybe, just maybe, I'd give it a shot.

That's a much more reasonable response than concluding all TOB-users are garbage human beings you don't want to play with, yes.

[Blue Jay]

Emphasis mine. Anecdotal evidence based on three sessions is not enough data to draw conclusions about every player that would ever want to use TOB. Additionally, it wasn't even 100% of their sample size that acted in that way; they admit that they booted their third player in session one before any egregious behavior could occur to "nip it in the bud" after they "start getting domineering" which, based on their apparently strong feelings about the system, may very well have been able to be resolved amicably without banning the player or the system.

So, what is "enough data?" How many times does he need to expose himself to a potential negative experience before he's allowed to make a decision and call it "logical"? If you can't give a solid number, then how can you argue that 3 isn't "enough"?

Correlation =/= causation is a life lesson that's worth learning. The subject at hand may be trivial, but more generally when I see people who don't understand this, it makes me wary of other places this fallacy may arise in my interactions with them, and what other fallacies they may allow.

Granted. But causation is notoriously difficult to demonstrate. When you get right down to it, observing correlation is really the only way to judge causation; so in practice, "correlation =/= causation" is not a very helpful life guide. The only thing it does is tell you to keep collecting data, even in cases where you don't actually need extra data.

The way to test this is to ask Calthropstu if he has had significantly fewer bad experiences since he banned ToB.

I'm one of those guys who doesn't have the self-confidence to make executive decisions, and I'm too timid to ask somebody to leave my group. So, I tend to suffer through bad experiences for a long time. I have made some of those guys into good friends this way, so it can be rewarding; but it's also caused me no end of stress, and I spend a lot of my gaming time cursing myself for not having the guts to stand up for myself.

So, is it really better to be slow at the trigger? I don't know. I don't have the data to say that being a slow-trigger person has made my gaming experience significantly more enjoyable than Calthropstu's, so I can't really justify saying that my strategy is better or more logical than Calthropstu's.

Let's take that to an extreme to illustrate a point. I sign up for a foreign language class. The teacher is rude on day one, so I go home. I decide that all speakers of X language are rude. Maybe I also decide all teachers are rude. This is not logical even though it is technically based on data because it is limited anecdotal data. Drawing an inference based on insufficient data is not logical.

Okay, I really think this needs to be clear here: "logic" is just a formulaic means of reasoning, and has nothing at all to do with how big your sample size should be, or even with whether or not you're conclusion is correct. With logical reasoning, you define your premises, and as long as your premises lead to your conclusion, your reasoning is "valid." In Calthropstu's case, one premise is "These 3 ToB fans are representative of the entire community of ToB fans." Well, if you accept that premise, then his reasoning leads directly to his conclusion; therefore, his conclusion is valid.

Now, you can argue that his premise is not true, and therefore reject his conclusion. But, that's an entirely different thing from saying that his reasoning is invalid or "not logical." It's entirely possible to be perfectly logical and still be wrong. My personal experience with ToB has not been terribly negative, so I don't think I agree with Calthropstu; but I'm sure my sample isn't particularly representative of the gamer community at large, either; so I'm going to reserve my judgment.

That's a much more reasonable response than concluding all TOB-users are garbage human beings you don't want to play with, yes.

See, I don't think Calthropstu ever concluded anything like this. What he concluded is that ToB increases the rate of douche-nozzlery to an intolerable level. He talks in pretty superlative terms, but I'm reasonably certain that he doesn't actually believe ToB fans are all "garbage human beings": he just doesn't want to deal with the perceived increase in risk. Here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate, this time using a large sample size and totally made-up numbers:

After years of DMing in his area, Calthropstu has observed that about 10% of respondents to his ads are douche-nozzles. But, that hasn't interfered with his enjoyment of the game, so he's willing to accept that 10% risk.

Then, he has also observed that about 15% of respondents who want to use ToB are douche-nozzles. The other 85% are perfectly fine, and he still has enjoyable experiences with them. But, that 15% risk is more than he's willing to take on, and it seems like that modestly increased rate of douche-nozzlery really interferes with his overall enjoyment of the hobby. So, even though most ToB fans are not problem players, that extra 5% risk makes it not worth it to him.

Sure, made-up numbers and all that. But, the salient point is that you don't need 100% of results to fit your hypothesis before you act on it. You don't even need a majority or a plurality of results to fit. You just need reason to believe that it correlates with increased risk. Certainly, we should all hope for higher accuracy than 15%, but that doesn't mean 15% is useless information, or that it's "not logical" to act on 15%.

[H_H_F_F]

As someone who's never played with ToB, I wouldn't use it in a game I DM. Two points on why:

1. As has been pointed out, the whole "readied maneuvers" thing feels very gamey. When using magic, it is easy to suspend disbelief (though 90% of games I've played made spontaneous casting the only casting), but when playing with martials, one wants to feel like what they do is real fighting.

I completely agree that the idea is based on real martial arts. I really liked the image of the princess bride fight. Now imagine the line "However, unfortunately for me, though I have studied my Agrippa I did not prepare it before this fight."

ToB could work so much better (from the perspective of feeling like a real fighter) if every initiator had maneuvers known and then something like "stamina points". If they're out of stamina, they can only strike in less demanding ways - normal attack. That could feel like a cool fighter who has studied specific ways of fighting. Instead, it all feels like what it's called - Blade Magic.

2. I have 15 years of experience with the parts of 3.5 I have had access to. I know how to balance it, I know how to tweak it as needed, I know how to make sure that my players are all on around the same power level, that the martials are not outshined by the casters, and that the players have appropriate encounters. I wouldn't be able to do any of that if I had a warblade sitting at my table. Is that "low system mastery"? Maybe so.

Does that mean I should buy an expensive book that's not available in my native language and study it thoroughly because I have a player who likes it? I really don't think so. I won't let you play it because I don't know how to balance it, and I'm not going to learn because it's a huge investment of time and money I don't want to make.

[Gavinfoxx]

1. As has been pointed out, the whole "readied maneuvers" thing feels very gamey. When using magic, it is easy to suspend disbelief (though 90% of games I've played made spontaneous casting the only casting), but when playing with martials, one wants to feel like what they do is real fighting.

I completely agree that the idea is based on real martial arts. I really liked the image of the princess bride fight. Now imagine the line "However, unfortunately for me, though I have studied my Agrippa I did not prepare it before this fight."

ToB could work so much better (from the perspective of feeling like a real fighter) if every initiator had maneuvers known and then something like "stamina points". If they're out of stamina, they can only strike in less demanding ways - normal attack. That could feel like a cool fighter who has studied specific ways of fighting. Instead, it all feels like what it's called - Blade Magic.

Readied maneuvers actually does simulate real martial arts, though. That's the thing. Once you do certain techniques, you are in position for certain other techniques, and out of position for some other set of them. In real swordfighting (like HEMA), you see people close for a clash and then retreat to reset their stance all the time. What ISN'T realistic is being able to do all of your moves while right next to another person, regardless of the situation and how you two are interacting.

[H_H_F_F]

Readied maneuvers actually does simulate real martial arts, though. That's the thing. Once you do certain techniques, you are in position for certain other techniques, and out of position for some other set of them. In real swordfighting (like HEMA), you see people close for a clash and then retreat to reset their stance all the time. What ISN'T realistic is being able to do all of your moves while right next to another person, regardless of the situation and how you two are interacting.

This logic supports not being able to do the same maneuver twice in a row, which makes sense. What bothers me, as my Agrippa example explained, is the thought of someone having perfected a move but being unable to do it because he didn't think he'd be using that one today.

[Gavinfoxx]

That just means he isn't in the right mindset to use it against a resisting opponent until he does a few weapon drills and flourishes and practices it again and gets in the right mindset to resolve to use that fighting style rather than his other fighting style. He could still use it (over and over again), against a training dummy or a non-resisting training partner for sparring or whatever.

[H_H_F_F]

That just means he isn't in the right mindset to use it against a resisting opponent until he does a few weapon drills and flourishes and practices it again and gets in the right mindset to resolve to use that fighting style rather than his other fighting style. He could still use it (over and over again), against a training dummy or a non-resisting training partner for sparring or whatever.

It is simply not my experience that this is how real world fighting ever goes. However, I think we both understand each other's point of view and simply disagree on how believable the system is, so there's probably not much point in us repeating ourselves further.

[Elves]

I like TOB but HHFF is right that the readied maneuvers are a mechanical artifice. It's a way of having you know a decent number of maneuvers without giving you decision overload while in combat. It's not a bad solution from a gameplay perspective but there are other ways you could make it work that flavor purists would like more.

Does that mean I should buy an expensive book that's not available in my native language and study it thoroughly because I have a player who likes it? I really don't think so. I won't let you play it because I don't know how to balance it, and I'm not going to learn because it's a huge investment of time and money I don't want to make.

If you really don't want to pirate it you can get the pdf for $15 on DMsguild. System only takes 1-2 hours to learn. Also, maybe put more trust in players and only look into "balancing it" if it presents issues?