Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gentlemanic 04-09-08, 05:18 PM	I am going to start a new Eberron campaign in about two weeks and I'm having serious thoughts about banning The Tome of Battle. Having seen 2 characters build with it (one nigh unkillable, the other dealing gargantuan amounts of damage, but with very low AC) I have my doubts about whether it is balanced or not. The second effect, dealing damage, can obviously be reached by a barbarian or fighter as well, so I won't whine about it. The other character, a crusader, I have my doubts about. At first he started out cool, protecting his friends and support healing. Later his +8d8 damage moves started coming up and he completely let go of his first character concept, running around dealing a ridicilous amount of damage, while remaining unkillable. As I dm, with a varied group, I have to tend to the desires and needs of all the players. If one of them is unstoppable in combat I have to throw strong foes at them to challenge the player. HOWEVER, my other player, who is a con 8 druid/wizard likes roleplaying but gets killed almost instantly when hit by these more powerful foes. Apart from this there ARE no nine swords in the Eberron setting. Maybe the book itself isn't overpowered, especially at lower levels I think power attack and charging is used alot more than manouvres, however I think the book is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a power gamer, which two of my players tend to be. I hope this didn't sound too much like a rant against Nine swords. Now, do you guys think it is OK for me as a DM to ban the book, or certain classes/feats from it? Would/do you? Please help me out here :)
LeeAlucard 04-09-08, 05:25 PM	As DM, you have power to ban any book you wish. The players will probably understand if you tell them that you want a game without using that book. If they don't, then they're the ones with the problem. :) I tell my players that unless I own the book/get a good chance to look everything over and say yes, any non-core book is banned.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-09-08, 05:29 PM	It's your prerogative as DM to ban the book if you feel the need to, however, I don't think the book is the problem here. It sounds like the problem is with having hardcore players and casual players in the game group (a druid/wizard with Con 8? Come on!)... and that problem isn't going to be alleviated by banning any one book, and will serve to annoy the players that enjoy using it. Instead, you might try asking the players who play rough to tone it down a bit, and asking the casual players to kick it up a notch. You as DM and likely the powergamers can help teach the casual players to come up with characters that are thematically similar to what they were doing before, but more capable of holding their own. This should help to level the playing field, and avoid punishing the casual players for playing with odd themes they like, or the hardcore players for their greater knowledge of the tactical side of the game. It's what I'd do.
iserith 04-09-08, 05:29 PM	Be aware that you have just unleashed yet another thread on "powergaming" versus "roleplaying," melee vs. casters, and the power of the DM to regulate his or her own gaming group without be referred to as a "fascist" or "control freak." You are the DM. If you don't like a book - for whatever reason - you don't have to allow it.
Metafictional 04-09-08, 05:35 PM	I personally have found the Book of Nine Swords to be a wonderful addition to my game, it's made combat more fun and interesting all around. However, one thing I did stress to my players is that they need to provide certain party roles in order to succeed. In the case you presented, a Con 8 Druid/Wizard is very vulnerable against strong melee opponents. In that case, you need to ask one of your players to be a "tank"; the Crusader is very good at this. My current group has gotten a lot of mileage out of the Stance that penalizes enemies for attacking anyone other than the Crusader. If one player accepts that it is his job in the group to keep enemies off your Druid/Wizard, then there's no real problem. The other thing to consider is that Druid/Wizard is a sub-optimal choice, and the player has to understand what he is giving up. Many people on these boards will tell you that a full Wizard will always out-perform even a ToB character at higher levels of play. I suggest you keep that in mind before you decide that the ToB forces you to change your game. That having been said, one thing that is true about a group with ToB characters is that they have a larger pool of resources; with per-encounter abilities, the only thing slowing down a group of martial adepts are their hit point totals. Thanks to our Dragon Shaman, I had a session a few weeks ago where the group waded through five encounters, and only had problems dealing with the sixth. A Wizard runs out of useful spells very quickly at low-levels by comparism. At higher levels, this is obviously less of an issue, a Wizard can have wands, scrolls, and many spell slots to burn; most sessions he won't even use all of his spells. A Druid/Wizard has many options, and many spell slots, but his spells are of a lower level than he is expected to use. This is the real problem, and banning the ToB won't fix this; imagine if one of your other players chose to play a straight Druid. This character would have less spells, but more powerful spells and special abilities. So you shouldn't ban a single-classed character's power based on the fact one of your players has to multi-class. Above all else, remind your players that it is to THEIR advantage, not yours, if they build characters that complement each other.
iserith 04-09-08, 05:43 PM	By the way: *Shameless Derailing Plug* If you're starting a new Eberron game, please feel free to download and use an adventure I just designed. You can find it in here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1014860) in another thread. I'm looking for some constructive criticism if you have the time.
dndfencer 04-09-08, 05:54 PM	First off, Banning is almost never a good solution and second a con 8 druid/wizard? You could try asking the powergamers to tone it down a little but I don't think its very likely they will obey. Also, banning a book will just **** them off and then they'll find other even more broken things somewhere else. But more importantly ask the players with weaker characters to rev it up a bit. I'm sure the more advanced players would be happy to help them optimize a concept (well, that is so long as you don't give players incentive to compete). Also, optimizing casters isn't hard so as long as the casual players play casters it shouldn't be hard for them to keep up- this also has the added benefit of limiting the power of the power gamers because fighter types are almost never as insanely broken as casters can be. Finally, book of nine swords is really fairly innocuous. There are a couple poorly worded maneuvers (like iron heart surge) but most of them simply serve to put fighter types on a level that can compete with casters. Granted, some maneuvers are a little overpowered, such as dancing mongoose and the 9th level tiger claw maneuver, but a simple limit on the number of times usable per day (in addition to other limits) will solve this problem.
Senevri 04-09-08, 05:57 PM	The problem isn't Bo9S. There are a few overpowered slips there - potential from Blood in the Water, the leap-stun from Tiger Claw, some readings of Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics, but nothing really nasty. Well, not unless broken on purpose. A 12th-level crusader with Extra Granted Maneuver is only missing two from their chosen maneuvers, so they get to spam attacks a lot, and if they're using healing stance, stone power + healing strikes --- yeah, they're healing a lot. He just should be healing allies, too. Could you give some more specific examples of the kinds of things the crusader is doing besides piddly +8d8 as a standard action? ( a 12th level slasher rogue should be doing 14-21d6 a round vs. crittable at that point. )
Ace_of_time 04-09-08, 05:57 PM	I am going to start a new Eberron campaign in about two weeks and I'm having serious thoughts about banning The Tome of Battle. Having seen 2 characters build with it (one nigh unkillable, the other dealing gargantuan amounts of damage, but with very low AC) I have my doubts about whether it is balanced or not. The second effect, dealing damage, can obviously be reached by a barbarian or fighter as well, so I won't whine about it. The other character, a crusader, I have my doubts about. At first he started out cool, protecting his friends and support healing. Later his +8d8 damage moves started coming up and he completely let go of his first character concept, running around dealing a ridicilous amount of damage, while remaining unkillable. As I dm, with a varied group, I have to tend to the desires and needs of all the players. If one of them is unstoppable in combat I have to throw strong foes at them to challenge the player. HOWEVER, my other player, who is a con 8 druid/wizard likes roleplaying but gets killed almost instantly when hit by these more powerful foes. Apart from this there ARE no nine swords in the Eberron setting. Maybe the book itself isn't overpowered, especially at lower levels I think power attack and charging is used alot more than manouvres, however I think the book is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a power gamer, which two of my players tend to be. I hope this didn't sound too much like a rant against Nine swords. Now, do you guys think it is OK for me as a DM to ban the book, or certain classes/feats from it? Would/do you? Please help me out here :)The fun thing should be the key. Your supposed to be having fun too. Any book that is making the game not fun for the DM/players should be considered for banning.
CaptainPicard 04-09-08, 06:07 PM	Crusaders are pretty tough. My third level Crusader was able to beat an Ettin in single combat with a bit of help from the Swordsage (who promptly went into the negatives) and a potion of Cure Light Wounds. Although we are using 34 point buy. However, they tend to help the party either by taking hits or healing damage, so nobody really minds them being around, and even with +8d8 as a standard action, unless everyone else has pitiful damage that's nothing to write home about, so the other players should still get their chance to shine. I find Crusader to be a very useful class both as a player and as a DM. They also make great villains, since a Crusader NPC who is around or a bit above the party's level (as is normal for a villain) has incredible staying power; almost enough to have them alone as a "boss" fight with only a few token minions. It's your call to ban it or not, of course, but I don't think it's a good idea.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-09-08, 06:08 PM	The fun thing should be the key. Your supposed to be having fun too. Any book that is making the game not fun for the DM/players should be considered for banning. The wizard/druid has Con 8. He could be killed by a strong breeze. I bet he wouldn't survive having fun. The other players should help him, sure, but this character is some kind of handicap to itself. Also, the Bo9N is really tough to break, so they aren't screwing the game that much, I'm sure.
Gentlemanic 04-09-08, 06:08 PM	Funny you guys talk about the 'more experienced' guys helping the less experienced guys optimise. Because my more experienced players actually like making flawed character with more roleplaying background, while the newbies make stronger characters who dive for loot. I might have exagurated about the con 8 wiz/drd a bit (it's about 12 con actually), to make a point. By the way, the player is working towards a prestige class in Races of the Wild, which requires a druid/wizard combination. Back to the crusader: His AC used to be very high, even a 2 level higher BBEG with good bab and weapon focus had trouble hitting him with his great sword. This was fine with me because it was his character concept to be a cool tank and frontline fighter. However.. When he got the 8d8 manouver he could do massive damage as well as heal, as well as not get hit. When a character just walks up to a bad guy, takes in two or three rounds of beating losing just a few HP and then knocks the guy down in a single round (all without help from his party) just doesn't feel right to me. Also, which manouvres do you guys think are poorly worded or unbalanced? I'll might try your Eberron adventure when starting, I've already glazed at it. Looks fine. Lastly, for now :P, all thanks for responding so quickly.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-09-08, 06:17 PM	So he's going what, Druid 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 4/Arcane Heirophant 10, or something like it? Versatile, but pretty slow in accumulating power, and that Con 12 is bloody suicidal even with the Wis/Int MAD problem. RE the Crusader: You mentioned his AC is very high... how high is it, specifically? Furthermore what are his Touch and Flat-Footed AC? Ref save, and does he have Evasion? Is it possible you simply need to alter how you're targeting him?
Neutronium_Dragon 04-09-08, 06:20 PM	One other thing... > Apart from this there ARE no nine swords in the Eberron setting. There are. While they haven't been printed in official material, the Eberron boards have discussed the subject of the various disciplines and their origins in Eberron*. KB has taken part in that, which gives it at least semi-official status in the eyes of most Eberron players, and if you wander on over to the Eberron section you can probably dig up a fair number of threads on the subject. * Examples: Iron Heart is a hobgoblin discipline in the ToB, and makes a natural fit as the martial style of Darguun. White Raven is suitable both for Darguun and especially for Karrnath, being a major focus of their war academies. Etc.
Gentlemanic 04-09-08, 06:29 PM	He was going for something like that, Shaggy. I guess I like it when people just play something they like, without building it for combat only. In comparison to other non-tome-of-battle-characters he managed to get by nicely. Also, thanks for point that out dragon, when I allow the book I will look into that. And I will ask the players who wants such characters to look into it as well...
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-09-08, 06:30 PM	One other thing... > Apart from this there ARE no nine swords in the Eberron setting. There are. While they haven't been printed in official material, the Eberron boards have discussed the subject of the various disciplines and their origins in Eberron*. KB has taken part in that, which gives it at least semi-official status in the eyes of most Eberron players, and if you wander on over to the Eberron section you can probably dig up a fair number of threads on the subject. * Examples: Iron Heart is a hobgoblin discipline in the ToB, and makes a natural fit as the martial style of Darguun. White Raven is suitable both for Darguun and especially for Karrnath, being a major focus of their war academies. Etc. The sweetest is in Dragon Magazine, in an article about the Draconic Prophecy. It had some kind of hobgoblin meeting ground described, complete with a table of a hundred possible finds while exploring this ''reunion rock''. One of them were ancient hobgoblin carvings detailing the basics of the Iron Heart discipline.:D
Ace_of_time 04-09-08, 06:52 PM	The wizard/druid has Con 8. He could be killed by a strong breeze. I bet he wouldn't survive having fun. The other players should help him, sure, but this character is some kind of handicap to itself. Also, the Bo9N is really tough to break, so they aren't screwing the game that much, I'm sure. It's only a -1 to HP which can easily be made up for by the imp toughness feat. Also a good type for undead type change with the right character story. There is a few undead that don't have to worry about the 0 HP thing. They could always just get an item that ups con or put two level points on. He is a druid and will get wild shape which will also increase con. Smart druids go summoner anyway.
Eikre 04-09-08, 07:44 PM	It's only a -1 to HP which can easily be made up for by the imp toughness feat. Also a good type for undead type change with the right character story. There is a few undead that don't have to worry about the 0 HP thing. They could always just get an item that ups con or put two level points on. He is a druid and will get wild shape which will also increase con. Smart druids go summoner anyway. One, it's not just -1 to HP every level... It's -1 to HP every level in a game where nearly everyone has positives. Compared to his peers, it's more like -3 to HP every level. Two, he's a druid. Undead. Druid. Yeah, he can make it work; I doubt he's got something like that in mind. Three, Wild Shape never increases your HP.
Senevri 04-09-08, 07:49 PM	I might have exagurated about the con 8 wiz/drd a bit (it's about 12 con actually), to make a point. By the way, the player is working towards a prestige class in Races of the Wild, which requires a druid/wizard combination. So this player chose the path of weakness, for the hope of Real Ultimate Power? I'm betting he still could almost marginalize the Crusader ;) Back to the crusader: His AC used to be very high, even a 2 level higher BBEG with good bab and weapon focus had trouble hitting him with his great sword. This was fine with me because it was his character concept to be a cool tank and frontline fighter. However.. When he got the 8d8 manouver he could do massive damage as well as heal, as well as not get hit. If his AC comes from gear, it's the same as anyone else's with full armor and shield proficiencies. IE, it doesn't even count. When a character just walks up to a bad guy, takes in two or three rounds of beating losing just a few HP and then knocks the guy down in a single round (all without help from his party) just doesn't feel right to me. I've been dancing around "challenging but not too challenging" issues for a while now. Few notes; Single bosses are usually a bad, bad idea in DnD. A lot of the time this means super-short combats, unless both combatants are more-or-less unable to harm the other. Coincidentally, you expect an appropriate-CR opponent to face a PC in a fair fight and hold their own? Not in this game. Also, which manouvres do you guys think are poorly worded or unbalanced? White Raven Tactics, if you count yourself as an ally.
navar100 04-09-08, 08:18 PM	The Crusader is awesome. As mentioned he can walk up to the bad guy, give the bad guy a beat down, suck up the hits he takes from the bad guy, and live to tell the tale with hit points to spare. That's the whole point. That is what the Crusader is supposed to do. Helping party members is gravy. This is a feature, not a bug. However, the Crusader is not invulnerable. Arrows go through Steely Resolve because they are not melee attacks. Direct damage spells go through Steely Resolve. Reflex save and range touch damage spells are the bane of Crusaders. Multiple opponents in melee can hurt the Crusader as well. There is a limit to Steely Reolve. Once that is filled, the overflow is direct hit point damage. How is hampering the Crusader harder than hampering a Cleric, which has better healing capability?
Kouk 04-09-08, 08:18 PM	Crusaders can be monsters, yeah. They fit the role of "I am the tank, and you will fear me," pretty darn well. I think though the main problem is the comparison between characters. If a player wants to optimize a character for a certain thing, he will do it and be good at it. If a player wants to intentionally make flawed characters for roleplaying, well, he can do it and be "good at it." You said that the Crusader's damage was acceptable compared to Barbarians or tweaked-out fighters. His AC is probably about the same as a Barbarian or tweaked-out fighter wearing the same gear. This leaves the main issue the constant healing, which I will agree kind of takes the threat out of a lot of encounters. Have you considered perhaps just asking that player not to make another Crusader? That may get rid of that last trouble spot, and at the same time make him more reliant on the other party members for healing. EDIT: Don't think of them as Fighters or Barbarians, think of them more like big tough Warlocks, Clerics and Wizards with less damage potential in the long run.
nightwyrm 04-09-08, 08:26 PM	However, the Crusader is not invulnerable. Arrows go through Steely Resolve because they are not melee attacks. Direct damage spells go through Steely Resolve. Reflex save and range touch damage spells are the bane of Crusaders. The description of steely resolve does not mention melee attacks. It only says, "When you are attacked, any hit point damage the blow deals is added to your delay damage pool." But you are right about the damage cap. And of course, the special effects (ie. stunning etc.) of attacks goes through even though the damage is delayed.
JaronK 04-09-08, 09:43 PM	The problem here is not the classes in question, but rather that your players are building characters of vastly different power. If that Druid/Wizard guy was instead just playing a pure Druid and emphasized Wis and Con, he'd be far stronger than the Crusader could ever dream of being (at least past level 5 or so). Banning ToB isn't going to help anything... none of the ToB classes are stronger than Wizards, Clerics, or Druids (assuming you don't do weird multiclass stuff). It's a great book and it's a lot of fun. What you do have to do is look over the builds your players want to use and see if you can get them to be on a similar power curve. JaronK
Ace_of_time 04-09-08, 10:34 PM	One, it's not just -1 to HP every level... It's -1 to HP every level in a game where nearly everyone has positives. Compared to his peers, it's more like -3 to HP every level. Two, he's a druid. Undead. Druid. Yeah, he can make it work; I doubt he's got something like that in mind. Three, Wild Shape never increases your HP. OK so call me stupid if you like but I thought if you increased your con score that gave you plus 1 per mod per HD. That doesn't happen in wild shape.:confused: You also loss HP when your con score dropes by two or more points at the same rate. 2. Don't know what he had in mind but my dump stat wouldn't be con unless I was going undead or I was rolling the one where you roll stats in order. 1. 2 level up points puts her at +0 then a +2 con from an item plus imp toughness gives him the same plus 2 every one has with minimum effort.
pmurray@bigpond.com 04-09-08, 10:48 PM	The main problem with overpowered ToB characters is simply players and DMs not understanding the rules, particularly about maneuver recovery, and about the fact that a strike is a standard action - if you use a strike then you cannot make a full round attack with multiple hitsies. Having said that - by all means ban it. 50 splatbooks should be enough for any munchkin - the don't need 51.
Jaxgaret 04-09-08, 11:02 PM	The problem here is not the classes in question, but rather that your players are building characters of vastly different power. If that Druid/Wizard guy was instead just playing a pure Druid and emphasized Wis and Con, he'd be far stronger than the Crusader could ever dream of being (at least past level 5 or so). Banning ToB isn't going to help anything... none of the ToB classes are stronger than Wizards, Clerics, or Druids (assuming you don't do weird multiclass stuff). It's a great book and it's a lot of fun. What you do have to do is look over the builds your players want to use and see if you can get them to be on a similar power curve. JaronK QFT, all of it. The main problem with overpowered ToB characters is simply players and DMs not understanding the rules, particularly about maneuver recovery, and about the fact that a strike is a standard action - if you use a strike then you cannot make a full round attack with multiple hitsies. Having said that - by all means ban it. 50 splatbooks should be enough for any munchkin - the don't need 51. Munchkins don't need ToB to be munchkins. They'll be munchkins with or without the ToB. Players who want to play a warrior class that can at least try and keep pace with the options spellcasters have are for the most part screwed without the ToB. With it, they have all sorts of nice options and powers that make playing a non-spellcaster a more interesting, varied experience. In other words, like JaronK said, banning ToB isn't going to help anything. It's the asshat players that don't take average party member optimization level into account that are the problem, not a book.
DrMorganes 04-09-08, 11:04 PM	Another quick suggestion regarding material from Bo9S: pay attention to the recovery methods. Each martial adept (crusader, swordsage, warblade) has its own method for recovering expended maneuvers. A few things to keep in mind with crusaders: Delayed Damage pool resets each round. The player chooses which maneuvers to ready, but readied maneuvers are granted randomly over several rounds. The player has no control over which maneuvers are granted at the beginning of an encounter or over the course of the encounter. The player gets to choose which maneuvers to expend and when, but once expended the maneuver is gone until all maneuvers refresh. Once readied maneuvers refresh, the crusader still can't re-use it until it's granted. Depending on when the maneuver was granted and when it was expended, it can take between 2 and 10 rounds before the maneuver can be used again. Each character gets one Swift OR Immediate action per turn. Boosts are generally swift actions. Counters are immediate actions. Martial adepts can't boost and counter in the same turn. Similarly, they can't enter or change their stance in the same round they boost or counter. Using cards is a great way to handle the bookkeeping for crusaders. Cut 3x5 index cards in half and write the known maneuvers on each. Have the player give you the cards for maneuvers his character has readied at the start of each encounter. At the start of his initiative, deal the appropriate number of cards. Maneuvers are discarded as they're expended and given back to you at the appropriate time to be reshuffled and dealt again.
Ace_of_time 04-09-08, 11:36 PM	My problem with it is the stances.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 12:09 AM	I am going to start a new Eberron campaign in about two weeks and I'm having serious thoughts about banning The Tome of Battle. Having seen 2 characters build with it (one nigh unkillable, the other dealing gargantuan amounts of damage, but with very low AC) I have my doubts about whether it is balanced or not. The second effect, dealing damage, can obviously be reached by a barbarian or fighter as well, so I won't whine about it. The other character, a crusader, I have my doubts about. At first he started out cool, protecting his friends and support healing. Later his +8d8 damage moves started coming up and he completely let go of his first character concept, running around dealing a ridicilous amount of damage, while remaining unkillable. As I dm, with a varied group, I have to tend to the desires and needs of all the players. If one of them is unstoppable in combat I have to throw strong foes at them to challenge the player. HOWEVER, my other player, who is a con 8 druid/wizard likes roleplaying but gets killed almost instantly when hit by these more powerful foes. Apart from this there ARE no nine swords in the Eberron setting. Maybe the book itself isn't overpowered, especially at lower levels I think power attack and charging is used alot more than manouvres, however I think the book is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a power gamer, which two of my players tend to be. I hope this didn't sound too much like a rant against Nine swords. Now, do you guys think it is OK for me as a DM to ban the book, or certain classes/feats from it? Would/do you? Please help me out here :) Most of the time when someone wants to ban this book it is due to blatant rule breaking or a misunderstanding of the rules. Nobody that I know who has taken the time to make sure the rules were followed has wanted to ban it. I hate to say it but I was in the camp of Tob=:eek: , but now that I have good understanding of the book I allow it, but if you can't handle the book for now maybe you should put it on a temporary ban, find out what you can't handle, and let the board help you out. It really is a good book.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 12:14 AM	Both me and my players have banned this book. We consider it a loop hole book and we have banned all loop holes in are game. I have found that the people that are for the book are for it because of the increase power it gives only.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 12:15 AM	I understand the druid/wizard wants to roleplay, but you can roleplay and still be strong. If he needs help being effective then let us know what he is trying to do mechanically, and some of the people here might be able to help him stay alive, or if he is Fubar then consider letting him retrain so he is viable. That way he can survive, and the others can keep using the book.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 12:17 AM	I understand the druid/wizard wants to roleplay, but you can roleplay and still be strong. If he needs help being effective then let us know what he is trying to do mechanically, and some of the people here might be able to help him stay alive, or if he is Fubar then consider letting him retrain so he is viable. That way he can survive, and the others can keep using the book. I would have to 2nd that. I believe and playing something fun over power/opt but roleplay doesn't = stupid ether.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 12:20 AM	I would have to 2nd that. I beleive and play some fun over power/opt but roleplay doesn't = stupid ether. On that nonstupid comment I definitely agree. I was in a game where a monk took athletics, blind-fight, skill focus, and some other non-feat and was surprised when he died. On another note why don't you like Tob. I am not trying to convert you just curious. What I mean is, what happened that made you give it up?
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 12:22 AM	I just introducted ToB in my Eberron game when the party was around L9. I didn't bother to split the sword traditions, I just had them all originate in the Valenar. Why? Cause I was feeling lazy and I wanted martial adepts to be about as rare as duskblades. But that's not what this post is about. The real thing that balances ToBs with spellcasters is spellcaster reserve feats. I honestly feel that without them, as much as I hate the 'lore' of reserve feats (So I prepare a lightning bolt that normally does 10d6 in one shot, but I can expend it in unlimited number of times in 3d6 increments?) that a martial adept makes being a lower level spellcaster unfun. L5 is a pretty prime example of a level where this occurs. A L5 straight swordsage can use death mark, 1/encounter (or more, if he bothers to refresh), and do 6d6 damage. Depending on what creature he hits with it (being L5, probably a large at biggest in fairness), he essentially is dealing a fireball at +1 caster level... and he can do it ALL DAY. The wizard, assuming your wizard poorly choose to memorize direct damage spells, can do 5d6. 1, maybe 3 times a day at MOST. Now, I'm the first to agree that wizards have a lot more options than just direct damage and direct damage is usually their worst option. But what I've observed in a party with a Cru 1/Warblade 1/Swordsage 9, a Paladin 10, a beguiler 10 and a master specialist conjurer 10, is that the paladin and Swordsage can go for... a really long time without really losing effectiveness. Sure the paladin starts running low on Lay on Hands eventually, but in the meantime, while the conjurer is carefully pickign when to use his spells, the swordsage can be expected to run up and bam dancing mongoose (w/haste from the beguiler, pretty much every combat) and throw down 7 attacks a round, while popping into that stance that heals for 2 points per hit, and bam 14 HP to any of them. Since they don't take much damage, since they buff and the melees have good ACs (upper 20s to mid 30s, varies), the two of them could honestly run for a very long time without support from their casters or outside healing.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 12:29 AM	Assuming you were typing to me. Reading it just seemed like most (not all) was just bending the rules alittle far. Stances (to me) should be limited to in combat unless the effect has an out of combat effect, like the terrain one or the like. Don't see someone walking around in the stances all day like a wizard with mage armor does. It just feels overpowering to me and I talking it over with my player and they read it and agreed. That how I most handle whether to use a book or not. Of course if the other 2 are (bad types) power gamers like most have said limiting one book isn't fixing the problem.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 12:30 AM	The real thing that balances ToBs with spellcasters is spellcaster reserve feats. I honestly feel that without them, as much as I hate the 'lore' of reserve feats (So I prepare a lightning bolt that normally does 10d6 in one shot, but I can expend it in unlimited number of times in 3d6 increments?) that a martial adept makes being a lower level spellcaster unfun. L5 is a pretty prime example of a level where this occurs. A L5 straight swordsage can use death mark, 1/encounter (or more, if he bothers to refresh), and do 6d6 damage. Depending on what creature he hits with it (being L5, probably a large at biggest in fairness), he essentially is dealing a fireball at +1 caster level... and he can do it ALL DAY. The wizard, assuming your wizard poorly choose to memorize direct damage spells, can do 5d6. 1, maybe 3 times a day at MOST. Now, I'm the first to agree that wizards have a lot more options than just direct damage and direct damage is usually their worst option. But what I've observed in a party with a Cru 1/Warblade 1/Swordsage 9, a Paladin 10, a beguiler 10 and a master specialist conjurer 10, is that the paladin and Swordsage can go for... a really long time without really losing effectiveness. Sure the paladin starts running low on Lay on Hands eventually, but in the meantime, while the conjurer is carefully pickign when to use his spells, the swordsage can be expected to run up and bam dancing mongoose (w/haste from the beguiler, pretty much every combat) and throw down 7 attacks a round, while popping into that stance that heals for 2 points per hit, and bam 14 HP to any of them. Since they don't take much damage, since they buff and the melees have good ACs (upper 20s to mid 30s, varies), the two of them could honestly run for a very long time without support from their casters or outside healing.[/QUOTE] Most lower level spellcaster are weak. They dont start to catch up until close to 10th level, and by 13(7th level spells) there is no doubt as to where the power lies, and but 15th(only 2 more levels) it does not matter if you are core or ToB, the casters rule. The swordsage is a striker and his advantage is that he is versatile, but he does not have a lot of powerful maneuvers, and if the enemy is still standing after 3 rounds he does not have a whole lot going for him since he can't regain manuevers in the middle of combat like a warblade can. I don't know if you are the DM, but if you want to bleed him out of manuvers then instead of letting them fightpowerful monsters let them fight a larger number of lower level monsters.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 12:31 AM	Assuming you were typing to me. Reading it just seemed like most (not all) was just bending the rules alittle far. Stances (to me) should be limited to in combat unless the effect has an out of combat effect, like the terrain one or the like. Don't see someone walking around in the stances all day like a wizard with mage armor does. It just feels overpowering to me and I talking it over with my player and they read it and agreed. That how I most handle whether to use a book or not. Of course if the other 2 are (bad types) power gamers like most have said limiting one book isn't fixing the problem. Most people that ban it are because of broken/misunderstood rules. Thanks for the answer.
Cold Napalm 04-10-08, 12:56 AM	Both me and my players have banned this book. We consider it a loop hole book and we have banned all loop holes in are game. I have found that the people that are for the book are for it because of the increase power it gives only. You know, I almost never play ToB characters when I power game. I'll play a fighter over a ToB if I wanted raw power quite frankly. However, I do like it when other players use it because it means I can play at a higher power level and not have to worry about them dying or feeling useless because they don't know how to optimize a fighter.
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 12:57 AM	The swordsage is a striker and his advantage is that he is versatile, but he does not have a lot of powerful maneuvers, and if the enemy is still standing after 3 rounds he does not have a whole lot going for him since he can't regain manuevers in the middle of combat like a warblade can. I don't know if you are the DM, but if you want to bleed him out of manuvers then instead of letting them fightpowerful monsters let them fight a larger number of lower level monsters.A swordsage can full regain their manuveurs and even change out their readied ones with a single full-round action via the Adapative style feat, by RAW. "You can change your readied manuveurs at any time by taking a full round action"Actually, by even more RAW, any full round action changes your manuveurs since it doesn't specify that it has to be a full round action to change them, just that you have to take a full round action. Of course, ignoring that particular bit, let's say the swordsage has used half of her manuveurs, and the ones she has remaining are ineffectual for the situation (lots of desert wind stuff and she's fighting a fire subtype creature, for example). A single full round action later, and she can replace all her expended maneuvers with unexpended ones... even the same one again.
Cold Napalm 04-10-08, 01:04 AM	Assuming you were typing to me. Reading it just seemed like most (not all) was just bending the rules alittle far. Stances (to me) should be limited to in combat unless the effect has an out of combat effect, like the terrain one or the like. Don't see someone walking around in the stances all day like a wizard with mage armor does. It just feels overpowering to me and I talking it over with my player and they read it and agreed. That how I most handle whether to use a book or not. Of course if the other 2 are (bad types) power gamers like most have said limiting one book isn't fixing the problem. I do find that allowing uses out of combat unlimited times per day can lead to some game breaking issues...so we use an in combat only rule that isn't really enforced unless somebody tries to do something to break the game. However, if the other two are really power gaming vs optimizing, then they won't care one wit if ToB is banned because you can make DM curl up into the fetal position with a core druid (done that because a DM annoyed me with how "broken" he thought my gish was and how anything non core is broken and anything core is fine).
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 01:16 AM	I see no logical reason why a martial adept can't use all their manuveurs out of combat, and wouldn't gain the fulltime stance benefit.
Cuindless 04-10-08, 01:37 AM	I think this is becoming a Stormwind Fallacy debate mixed with a ToB debate, and that's a bad bad combination. To the OP: It sounds like you have a mixed optimization level problem. Two of your players sound like they are fairly good at optimizing, meaning that their characters are going to be much more effective in their chosen role (which sounds like combat). One of your other players sounds like he doesn't focus on optimization much, if only because he's playing a Con 12 Arcane Hierophant. Now, granted, an AH can be optimized fairly well, but it is admittedly one of the more difficult classes to make effective simply because of the loss of caster levels. At 1st level it isn't as noticeable, but as you enter and exit the 8 - 12 level "sweet spot", a high variance in optimization can be party breaking. You have a few choices at this point. You can ask the optimizers to tone it down. If they're your friends, they shouldn't really have a problem doing that. If they're whiny little kids, though, they might try to make a "Core Only Game Breaker" (TM). You could also ask the non-optimizer to start ramping up his optimization. If he is under the delusion that optimizing means sacrificing roleplay, though, he might not do that. If he doesn't mind, just take a trip over to the CO boards and do a search for "Arcane Hierophant". There's a lot of good stuff in there. Another choice is to just ban it. As the Sage is fond of saying, "You can't play with everything." I personally see no reason to ban ToB when there are other books with way more broken stuff in them, but you ban what you like. It's your gaming table.
Cold Napalm 04-10-08, 01:52 AM	I see no logical reason why a martial adept can't use all their manuveurs out of combat, and wouldn't gain the fulltime stance benefit. Oh I don't know, using your concentration check for ALL saves ALL the time means traps mean diddly and squat maybe? Making the party rogue even MORE marginal. Mountain hammer while naked in a jail cell makes such things worth diddly and squat again. Logically, yes...mechanically...no. Mechanically, allowed at all times can break a game if one so choose to (especially the way iron heart surge is worded). To loosely limit it to combat only helps fix those issues. And even then, it's not enforced until somebody tries to break the game with it. It's a nice reminder to the power gamers to not break the game since the casual gamer who don't will be allowed to and the power gamer who try will be told no with the reason being the rule stated above. Since some people need rules to not break a game, it's there. Of course in the power gamers only games, we have no such rules....
Cold Napalm 04-10-08, 01:59 AM	I "Core Only Game Breaker" (TM). Hey that only comes out if the DM is under the delusion that core is balanced and non core is broken no matter what. Quite frankly, mechanically speaking, core only is pretty fricking unbalanced.
Cuindless 04-10-08, 01:59 AM	As usual I sort of object to the term "power gamer" being applied to people intentionally trying to break the game. Power gamer just means optimizer, not munch-kin.
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 02:03 AM	People still roll rogue? Why? Artificer was as official a replacement for that class as yer gonna get for trapfinding and other 'dungeoneering rogues'. And 'combat rogues' have been replaced by other classes that do it better, like a wide variety of caster-sneak attack combo classes that help get you past all that nasty "immune to crit" that you see on 50% of monsters above L10 (where all the power-undead, constructs, and major elementals start showing up). And yeah, I see no reason why if you're going to allow ToB in your game at all, not to let him Mountain Hammer his way barefisted right out of a jail cell, or use any of the shadow-jaunt chain to teleport 50 feet every other round (swordsages must refresh their manuveurs with full round, so even if you treat the entire movement sequence as an encounter, he still can teleport 50 feet every 12 seconds.. Not very useful, unless he's bypassing obstacles, obviously). An arbitrary "you can only do it in combat" rule to limit would just get you this kind of result: Player: "So... I can only use my mountain hammer in combat right?" DM: "Right. So you can't smash the bars with your bare hands" Player: "Okay, Joe The Rogue, hit me." Joe: "What?" Player: "Hit me. We're gonna start a combat, then I'm gonna punch the bars while you hit me, to keep me in combat till we bust out of here" DM: "Um, that doesn't work." Player: "Why not?" DM: "Because you aren't really in combat with Joe. You're just trying to get around the combat rule." Player: "Well, it doesn't make much sense that I can do all these neat stuff, and as long as I'm fighting normal opponents, I can do it as much as I want, but if I want to do it on my own, totally helpless." DM: "..." Again, this scenario can be avoided by not ToBing in the first place, or just accepting that by moving into the 'tier 2' classes and abilities that were published after the first wave of Completes, you are basically letting the power curve for non-casters increase dramatically, and the game is starting to look like BESM.
Cold Napalm 04-10-08, 02:24 AM	Yes we did get power gamers doing silly thing like starting a fight to heal or tunnel. However, anything that does not net you exp is not an encounter so is not "combat" and as such we end that loop hole. Once again, this is more for mixed games since we don't have enough casual gamers to justify a casual gamer only games (4 casual gamers vs 31 optimizer/powergamer/munchkins in our circle of gamers). Yes those 4 casual gamers do not have the same night available (in all truthfulness however, one of the casual gamer is the role player type who makes weak characters on purpose). And yes such rules are in place for magic as well (no wall of salt for infinate money). When we don't have them, we play by RAW...and have a blast twisting and turn that into our will (and dying a lot...but we expect that). And like I said, the rule isn't really enforced unless somebody goes out of their way to break a game. We do the same with magic. It's a lazy house rule. If you don't break the game, we don't care...you take all the save manuvers to make the party rogue feel useless...then no the you broke the game clause kicks in and now you can only use your ToB goodness in combat. Yes it's a play nice clause in the our house rule.
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 02:36 AM	Concentration checks for saves isn't a problem if you use traps that make attack rolls instead. There's no save involved then.
Fireclave 04-10-08, 02:51 AM	OK so call me stupid if you like but I thought if you increased your con score that gave you plus 1 per mod per HD. That doesn't happen in wild shape.:confused: You also loss HP when your con score dropes by two or more points at the same rate. The normal rules for con score changes applied to wildshape once upon the time, but it's been errated for a while now. Now, if you your con score changes due to wildshaping (for better or worse), you HP total stays the same. Anything else that references con will continue to be affected by your new con score (like your fort save, for example). Mainly, it means that druids only have three dump scores instead of four (the others being str, dex, and cha).
Vaelan 04-10-08, 03:32 AM	Oh I don't know, using your concentration check for ALL saves ALL the time means traps mean diddly and squat maybe? Traps suck anyway. They're a waste of table time. Also, you have to choose those maneuvers and have them readied at all times. This is a significant trade-off for each of the classes that have access to them. Making the party rogue even MORE marginal. Were I playing a Rogue, I would be pleased to be marginialized in such a way. Traps are boring. Mountain hammer while naked in a jail cell makes such things worth diddly and squat again. Yeah... beating down the walls while you're imprisoned is so smart! If your captors are deaf.
CrimsonDeath 04-10-08, 04:07 AM	OK so call me stupid if you like but I thought if you increased your con score that gave you plus 1 per mod per HD. That doesn't happen in wild shape.:confused: You also loss HP when your con score dropes by two or more points at the same rate. Normally, a change in your Constitution score does change your HP. However, Wild Shape is a special case. The confusion likely arises from the fact that it's been errataed to the Nine Hells and back. Both me and my players have banned this book. We consider it a loop hole book and we have banned all loop holes in are game. I have found that the people that are for the book are for it because of the increase power it gives only. So I'm guessing you banned the three core rulebooks too? Because they have a lot more loopholes than ToB. As usual I sort of object to the term "power gamer" being applied to people intentionally trying to break the game. Power gamer just means optimizer, not munch-kin. "Munchkin" is fairly well-defined. So is "optimizer". "Powergamer", unfortunately, appears to be synonymous with both, depending on whom you ask. That's why I avoid using the term. However, anything that does not net you exp is not an encounter so is not "combat" and as such we end that loop hole. So, if a level 10 Warblade is defending a caravan, and four level 1 Goblin Warriors ambush it, that's not a combat encounter?
Cuindless 04-10-08, 04:31 AM	So I'm guessing you banned the three core rulebooks too? Because they have a lot more loopholes than ToB. Win. "Munchkin" is fairly well-defined. So is "optimizer". "Powergamer", unfortunately, appears to be synonymous with both, depending on whom you ask. That's why I avoid using the term As should everyone, since it's in such contention. I consider myself a power-gamer because I optimize, game as much as possible and read the books during my spare time. I'm not a munchkin, though, because I don't cheat or make Pun-Pun-esque characters.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 06:57 AM	As usual I sort of object to the term "power gamer" being applied to people intentionally trying to break the game. Power gamer just means optimizer, not munch-kin.I have found that a powergamer in general can use some opt skills and mind sets but most stick to increase one part of the PC to powerfull levels. Opts for the most part try to make the over all PC powerfull with allot more balance. The good types of power gamers just like too build powerfull PCs and the bad ones use loop holes and in gneral don't care about the DM or others feelings about it. Here is a fun threads on the subject.Optimization?? Powergaming??
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 07:18 AM	Normally, a change in your Constitution score does change your HP. However, Wild Shape is a special case. The confusion likely arises from the fact that it's been errataed to the Nine Hells and back. So I'm guessing you banned the three core rulebooks too? Because they have a lot more loopholes than ToB. "Munchkin" is fairly well-defined. So is "optimizer". "Powergamer", unfortunately, appears to be synonymous with both, depending on whom you ask. That's why I avoid using the term. So, if a level 10 Warblade is defending a caravan, and four level 1 Goblin Warriors ambush it, that's not a combat encounter? Going by the SRD it doesn't say anything about not getting hp for the increase con. Can you post where that errata is at please, thanks. In general we discuss as a group with we find loop holes ether from the boards or books. We have yet to find one that's not just someone trying to get something for nothing. You talk as if you think people that don't use loop holes are bad/make bad PCs.:confused: If more people just sit down as a group and discussed the overall theme and direction of their games with the DM then most problem would be solved. I never said the book was or wasn't broken. I said the book goes alittle to far in bending the rules for me and my players. More loops holes in the core books??:confused: :confused: I'll see if I can find that errata. Add the following text to the end of Line 6 of the changes: Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. That makes no sense to me. That like saying you can use a new form as you like but can't add the new str bonus to your damage. Every other increase increases HP.
Senevri 04-10-08, 07:49 AM	Going by the SRD it doesn't say anything about not getting hp for the increase con. Can you post where that errata is at please, thanks. Um, yes it does: This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here. The creature gains the physical ability scores (Str, Dex, Con) of its new form. It retains the mental ability scores (Int, Wis, Cha) of its original form. Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. The creature retains its hit points and save bonuses, although its save modifiers may change due to a change in ability scores. *edit* Oh, wait, you found it. would be solved. I never said the book was or wasn't broken. I said the book goes alittle to far in bending the rules for me and my players. This bugs me a bit; A book defining rules, by default, cannot bend them. D&D is an exception-based game, and all that. More loops holes in the core books??:confused: :confused: Polymorph line, Gate, Candle of Invocation, Alter Self... just off the top of my head. That makes no sense to me. That like saying you can use a new form as you like but can't add the new str bonus to your damage. Every other increase increases HP. D&D rules aren't about the big V. it's about having a playable game. Constantly re-calculating HP? Not fun. Also, it means Druids can have CON 8, and after hitting level 6, they'll NEVER have less than CON 19. For free. Would you allow your spells to have access to +11 CON boost by level 6, at a duration of hour/level, if they weren't a druid? Again, this is one of those cases where they should just have removed Natural Spell, probably. ... Oh, add that to the list of broken things in Core.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 08:21 AM	My point was that you have to every other time you get a temp mod for con. Bear’s Endurance Transmutation Level: Clr 2, Drd 2, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw:Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes The affected creature gains greater vitality and stamina. The spell grants the subject a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution, which adds the usual benefits to hit points, Fortitude saves, Constitution checks, and so forth. Hit points gained by a temporary increase in Constitution score are not temporary hit points. They go away when the subject’s Constitution drops back to normal. They are not lost first as temporary hit points are. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: They let Monks according to the sages use TWF in a flurry because of some loop hole in the rules just because every other person has the option to do it. But then don't let druid do what everyone else would normaly be allow with any other con increase. How does that make sense? A small to medium animal with a 23con that she knows. Not likely and doesn't get large till 8th. But if that was the case that is only a +5 to +6 increase in HP which would increase her HP by 30 to 36. The most I have seen is a +8 which would give only a +4 HP per level making it a increase 24hp. Sorry off topic alittle.
Sunic_Flames 04-10-08, 09:03 AM	ToB is pretty hard to break. I'm really getting a kick out of how many are scared of martial characters getting nice things. The primary value of it is not needing an exact 1-20 build where the slightest deviation will ruin you just to be slightly useful. Wanna know a funny thing about optimization? Those that don't know how to do it tend to misunderstand it a lot. See, the perception is that the more exacting questions you ask such as asking about having feat x, ability y, item z... the more powerful you are trying to be. This can be true, but likely isn't. The reality is that the stronger you already are, the less specific you need to be. For example the only 'must have' druid feat is Natural Spell. Everything else... up to you. You could trash it up with 2/2 skill feats if you really want to. While you'll obviously be weakened by this, it won't be enough to ruin you. Meanwhile the already weak classes... say, a fighter need that exacting specificness as they are at best one trick ponies with a working trick and at worst a waste of space. But what happens is the DM has a kneejerk reaction to all the questions, disallows it, and it is one more contributing factor to the 'you're a fighter, you don't get nice things' mentality. The Tome of Battle classes do not require exact and highly optimized 1-20 builds just to be usable. Moreover, since your only options ever period need more than one hand to be counted, they are more fun to play. Because it is such a horrible thing to have non full casters do something useful besides carry equipment, which a packmule could do far cheaper. :rolleyes: Also, this entire thread has been Suned.
iserith 04-10-08, 09:16 AM	Be aware that you have just unleashed yet another thread on "powergaming" versus "roleplaying," melee vs. casters, and the power of the DM to regulate his or her own gaming group without be referred to as a "fascist" or "control freak." I must have used witchcraft to see into the future of this thread yesterday (see above). :D
Alyss 04-10-08, 09:32 AM	Ban it. ToB doesn't fit the flavour of Eberron, it's anime fanboy pap.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 09:50 AM	Now we are going to this old argument again. So you are saying that reg people ruining reg PCs suck because a OPt can make a stronger PC. Why most a PC be Opted to be good at D&D. I thought the DM decide how much of a challenge the game is. Now We have to make a PC per set challenges that would overwhelm us common folks. That is why the have the raise dead type spell. Us stupid people ain't much good at mading prettied good characters?!:rolleyes: The CRs for the most part are based on the average group of four players. Average group not super opted group. Average is the norm and opted is for those that want an increased challenge. Fighter is only consider weaker class because of standards used by most opts/ powergamers. To everyone else it is just another option for a PC class.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-10-08, 10:12 AM	Actually, Fighter is unable to really do anything at high levels without really specific gear. Druid is waaay broken, and I made it so druids default to the shapeshift variant in PHII, with animal companion. They can sack both for wild shape though. The reason why fighter is underpowered is they are way to gear reliant compared to other classes. My fix for the fighter was a unique class feature, and reducing the entire weapon focus feat chain to just a weapon focus that scales with Fighter levels. :D IIRC, the monk is underpowered due to no abilities that really are coordinated, and the Paladin is too restricted. I'm not too sure on the paladin though, could someone check if I'm right?
Count Arioch the 28th 04-10-08, 11:02 AM	It's not the paladin's restrictions that are why they suck, it's the fact that they don't give good enough abilities past level 5 or so.
Sunic_Flames 04-10-08, 12:01 PM	It's not the paladin's restrictions that are why they suck, it's the fact that they don't give good enough abilities past level 5 or so. Bit of column A, bit of column B. Ace did all the work for me. Average group. Fighters are significantly below average unless heavily optimized to become average. Full casters are significantly above average unless heavily screwed up, or nerfed in some way (see: forced shapeshift variant). Certain splatbook options such as the more limited casters, and martial adepts are average out of the box. And this is the real and proper baseline, because as you once again said for me optimization is meant to be optional, not a requirement. Therefore the classes that are playable without a lot of highly specific choices are the ones that are done right. This implicitly excludes core by the way.
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-10-08, 01:17 PM	Call me 2edition, but I feel that fighters are supposed to be nothing more than caster meat shields at high levels, and the same for any other non-primary casters. Teach them not to go to school.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 01:40 PM	Bit of column A, bit of column B. Ace did all the work for me. Average group. Fighters are significantly below average unless heavily optimized to become average. Full casters are significantly above average unless heavily screwed up, or nerfed in some way (see: forced shapeshift variant). Certain splatbook options such as the more limited casters, and martial adepts are average out of the box. And this is the real and proper baseline, because as you once again said for me optimization is meant to be optional, not a requirement. Therefore the classes that are playable without a lot of highly specific choices are the ones that are done right. This implicitly excludes core by the way.Still have the same question. How are you getting that? Fighter is a tank most of the time. How is the fighter tank weaker then other tank classes? How is a wizard spell caster better then other spellcaster? You're taking opt veiws and standards and grading class based on that. You take the average group should be able to take out a CR = level encounter loosing 25% of everything including HPs. If you are not doing that you are above average. Most opts consider even lossing HP before defeating an encounter as sucking. It is the no more then one round thing. Your supposed to lose HP in an encounter. Not saying you should want to just that grade classes as better or worse based on opt standards is questionable at best. It is really being said that the book should not be banned just so THE COMMONER classes to be as good as spellcasters. I say again for the 100th time their not supposed to be casters.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-10-08, 01:42 PM	Ban it. ToB doesn't fit the flavour of Eberron, it's anime fanboy pap. Wow. I never an argument filled with so much power before. I mean, how did you managed to see through the whole book, to so perfectly analyse it? Obviously this crappy lecture is was just made for all anime fans, people whose lives are little more valuable than those of insects! How could such a book be printed? This unmutable flavor bounds the characters to scream their attacks and shapeshift into shibies everytime they are furious/laughing/uneasy! WHY WOTC WHY?! :rolleyes: :P
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-10-08, 01:45 PM	Still have the same question. How are you getting that? Fighter is a tank most of the time. How is the fighter tank weaker then other tank classes? How is a wizard spell caster better then other spellcaster? You're taking opt veiws and standards and grading class based on that. You take the average group should be able to take out a CR = level encounter loosing 25% of everything including HPs. If you are not doing that you are above average. Most opts consider even lossing HP before defeating an encounter as sucking. It is the no more then one round thing. Your supposed to lose HP in an encounter. Not saying you should want to just that grade classes as better or worse based on opt standards is questionable at best. It is really being said that the book should not be banned just so THE COMMONER classes to be as good as spellcasters. I say again for the 100th time their not supposed to be casters. And we all say again they are equivalent in power to normal meleeists.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 01:55 PM	Then how are they a weaker class?
Sunic_Flames 04-10-08, 02:48 PM	Still have the same question. How are you getting that? Fighter is a tank most of the time. How is the fighter tank weaker then other tank classes? How is a wizard spell caster better then other spellcaster? You're taking opt veiws and standards and grading class based on that. You take the average group should be able to take out a CR = level encounter loosing 25% of everything including HPs. If you are not doing that you are above average. Most opts consider even lossing HP before defeating an encounter as sucking. It is the no more then one round thing. Your supposed to lose HP in an encounter. Not saying you should want to just that grade classes as better or worse based on opt standards is questionable at best. It is really being said that the book should not be banned just so THE COMMONER classes to be as good as spellcasters. I say again for the 100th time their not supposed to be casters. Ok first off, are we using the proper definition of the word tank? Because it doesn't mean high AC sword and board. That's called mobile difficult terrain. Assuming we are, and we are either looking at a high damage dealer who is thereby threatening enough to draw fire away from the wizard, or a tripper to lock down an area in a radius around himself... The Fighter's tricks are pretty much all countered by the same thing. And that thing becomes increasingly common with levels. That thing is size. Size means reach, which negates your reach advantage, possibly and then some. Being hit, without being able to hit back means getting mauled. It also means resistance or immunity to special maneuvers such as tripping, necessary to control an area as it is all the Fighter has. Meanwhile, say the Crusader's tanking ability still works fine. So he can still draw fire away from his teammates. Now the way the Fighter is set up, his sole class features are feats. Except the game was deliberately designed so that it takes 2-3 feats (at least) to be worth as much as a single class feature. Ergo, the Fighter loses out, and becomes a one trick pony. This not only makes him less effective as he is far more easily countered, it makes him less fun to play as you're essentially 'auto battling' everything by doing the same few things throughout the entire game. Now as for resource expenditure, it's actually 20%. The idea being you maul the first and second easily, without even breaking a sweat. The third is a little annoying, and the fourth actually poses a threat via attrition. You then rest, because the 5th would take off the last 20% and 100% resources gone = TPK. After which you repeat ad nauseum. The fighter might be able to take on 1, or perhaps 2. Not 4. Not unless heavily optimized to be up to par. The casters could take 4. Now why is the wizard better? Ignoring cheese like Celerity, Time Stop, and so forth he has versatility. He can generally do something useful in every round of combat. What's more, not only does he have more options but said options tend to be better, often proving encounter enders if they work. Even the lowly Color Spray can insta win an encounter at low levels for example. Wizard sees a big, stupid looking creature he attacks its mind with Will saves. He sees another mage, he attacks its body with Fortitude saves. He sees something big and slow, touch AC. Or maybe Reflex. Obscure weakness? He knows what it is, and can probably exploit it. Immune to magic? It's only immune to direct applications of magic.
CrimsonDeath 04-10-08, 03:23 PM	Sorry for the long post. I believe consolidating posts is better than multiposting. Feel free to chop my post up and reply only to part of it. In general we discuss as a group with we find loop holes ether from the boards or books. We have yet to find one that's not just someone trying to get something for nothing. You mean like using a Candle of Invocation to summon an Efreet and Wish for three more Candles of Invocation (or one more Candle and two other things)? Or using Polymorph Any Object or Shapechange to gain the form of a Planetar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetar), which has as one of its abilities the spells of a level 17 Cleric? What do you do about things like that? You talk as if you think people that don't use loop holes are bad/make bad PCs.:confused: I didn't realize I'd attached a value judgement to anything I'd said. You said you banned ToB because of its loopholes; I just pointed out that more (and worse) loopholes exist in Core. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetarIf more people just sit down as a group and discussed the overall theme and direction of their games with the DM then most problem would be solved.[/quote] And that's a much better solution than banning a book. If you had the time and energy to hammer out all the problems in Core, Tome of Battle should be a breeze. (All you really need to do is house-rule White Raven Tactics so you can't use it on yourself, and either ban or overhaul Iron Heart Surge.) Ban it. ToB doesn't fit the flavour of Eberron, it's anime fanboy pap. The sun must be down. The trolls are coming out. Now we are going to this old argument again. So you are saying that reg people ruining reg PCs suck because a OPt can make a stronger PC. Who said that? Why most a PC be Opted to be good at D&D. Depends on your definition of "good at D&D". If you mean "good at portraying the behavior of a character", then it's not necessary. If you mean "good at killing monsters/beating high skill check/saving throw DCs", then optimization helps a good deal. I thought the DM decide how much of a challenge the game is. In case you weren't paying attention to the thread, it started when a DM didn't know how to set an appropriate challenge level. Us stupid people ain't much good at mading prettied good characters?!:rolleyes: There's an enormous body of information for you to draw upon. Smarter people than I have run the numbers and figured out which weapons, skills, spells, feats, and multiclassing options can accomplish various tasks most efficiently, and they have shared their research on the Character Optimization board. It's your choice not to draw upon this knowledge. And choosing not to draw upon it is a valid decision, if you have a reason for it. (For the moment, I'll assume that you do, because I don't want to start a side argument about whether your reasons are "good enough". If they're good enough for you, they're good enough for me.) Druid is waaay broken, and I made it so druids default to the shapeshift variant in PHII, with animal companion. They can sack both for wild shape though. That's a pretty good house rule. I might consider using it myself (if I ever get my game going...) IIRC, the monk is underpowered due to no abilities that really are coordinated, and the Paladin is too restricted. I'm not too sure on the paladin though, could someone check if I'm right? Paladin's a lot better outside Core, where he gets Divine feats (to make his turning attempts actually useful) and a few more decent spells. However, he still lacks versatility; he can't do much in combat aside from damage. Certain splatbook options such as the more limited casters, and martial adepts are average out of the box. By "limited casters", I'm guessing you mean things like the Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, and Lurk? Call me 2edition, but I feel that fighters are supposed to be nothing more than caster meat shields at high levels, and the same for any other non-primary casters. Teach them not to go to school. I hope you're joking. Personally, I wouldn't want to play a character whose job could be done better and more efficiently by a Wall of Force. Still have the same question. How are you getting that? Fighter is a tank most of the time. How is the fighter tank weaker then other tank classes? How is the Fighter weaker than other "tank" classes? Because you can build a Cleric or Druid tank that does his job better. Or build a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard who can cast a spell that does the job better.
LordTarmos 04-10-08, 03:54 PM	if you have a powergamer in your group, no matter what books you ban they will find a way to become overpowered. the only real way to handle this is on a one on one basis, you have to talk to him and let him know that he is ruining it for everyone else(if he is) and ask him to tone down his character then talk it over with him and come to agreements over how to tone it down without making his character weak. It should be ok for him to be stronger than the others just not so much so that he could whipe out the whole group in his sleep. Do not be afraid to put limits on feats (but only if you have to) I had a guy once that could force others to attack him and loved it he had a really high ac and would have every enemy attack him if he had 5 enemies with 4 attacks each he would be attacked 20 times in that round and with robilars gambit and his high dex (that allowed him up to 23 aoo per round)with combat reflexes he would counter attack them all at his highest bab usually killing off them all by the end of one rould so we came to an agreement that he could not attack that many and i limited him to 10 aoo and he was ok with it. He knew he was overpowered and when he realized the others were having no fun because he killed everyone he was ok to tone it down. ps. But remember if the whole group is powergamers do not weaken them just to make it easier on you, put in the work and they become the best games ever. I have one group a week that I dm for powergamers only and we all look forward to it because of what they can face, it is the most awesome game I have ever been a part of.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-10-08, 04:31 PM	Then how are they a weaker class? Watch this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12819646&postcount=108), and enlighten yourself. I could thrust you for reading it, but too many times whiners, when facing the undeniable thruth provided in a link, prefered pretending. I think that if you have maturity enough, you understand and support our point. (The following part has been written by Tempest StormWind in the Tome of Battle Removed from our World?! thread.) For both characters, I'll consider them to have ability scores of 16/13/14/10*/12*/8. The warblade will put the 12 into Intelligence, the barbarian into Wisdom (as he has no need for Intelligence). This is the elite array adjusted for character level. As for equipment, both characters have 5400 GP to spend, according to the DMG. Both characters will be using a greatsword (arguably the best way to get big damage in the PHB, especially with Power Attack, which they will both have). The greatsword is a +1 weapon, which is appropriate for level 4 characters. Similarly, they will be wearing +1 breastplates, which (barring mithral) is the best core armor available to these classes at this level. Left with 1700 GP, they can't pump their AC or their attack rolls any higher in the core books or the Tome, so we'll leave the rest for "general equipment". Both classes have d12 HD, medium armor proficiency, and 4 skill points per level. It is for this reason that I compare the warblade and the barbarian as opposed to the warblade and the fighter. (There are also fewer complaints about barbarians in general.) This means that both characters have a +8 bonus to attack with their greatsword, which deals 2d6+5 damage by default, while they have an AC of 17. These numbers are critical. I've left out critical hits for the sake of time, but crits favor the barbarian (since the bonus damage from maneuvers is almost always damage dice, which don't multiply in the case of a crit).The Critter Filter (http://megariqueza.com/DnD/CritterFilter.php) (a popular CO resource) illustrates the following statistics about the 85 CR 4 monsters in all the listed D&D books: Mean (Std. Deviation): AC: 16.26 (2.59) HP: 44.76 (17.47) Melee Attack Roll: 7.82 (3.82) Assuming a normal distribution (a fair assumption given how D&D has grown), this means that 68.2% of the CR 4 monsters have values within one standard deviation of the mean (for instance, 68.2% of the CR 4 monsters have ACs between 13 and 18 -- truncating to integers here because there are no non-integer ACs). These numbers are critical to the demonstration. CritterFilter, however, doesn't give an easy way of searching monster counterattack damage values. Thus, we just assume that getting hit is a Very Bad Thing. Thus, if your AC would drop to the point where the monsters have greater than a 65% chance to hit you, we'll call it unacceptable. (It would be 50%, but let's face it, due to medium armor and high HP, these two are meant to take hits, not negate them. I figured the extra 15% would account for that, based on the difference between the highest core Medium armor (+5 AC) to the highest core Heavy armor (+8) being 3, equating to a 15% higher chance to be hit in medium armor.)On a related note, this analysis (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=861084) suggests that the following grades be used, at least as far as weighted damage (average damage * chance to hit) is concerned. Passable: 10% of monster HP in one round Optimal: 20% of monster HP in one round Overpowered: 50% of monster HP in one round Twink: 100% of monster HP in one round. I will be using these to rate the result. (Note that "optimal" means that in a party of 4 optimal characters, a monster goes down in just over one round. Spells that don't do damage are translated into equivalents -- for instance, Slay Living deals 100% of the monster's HP in damage, equivalently, but has a chance of working based off of its save and your DC, which weights it.) However, I'm differing from it in one regard: I'm using the *average* values for monsters of this CR. I'm not evaluating it against boss monsters, nor am I evaluating a specific build. I'm assuming all things are equal and average wherever possible (which is also why I've only used one feat on each character).The warblade at level 4 has 5 maneuvers known, up to 2 of which can be 2nd level. The strongest reliable damaging maneuver he has access to at the moment (in terms of raw damage) is Rabid Wolf Strike, but that drops his AC to 14 (69.1% chance for the monster to hit him, greater than 65%), making it an unacceptable choice. Mountain Hammer and Tactical Strike deal similar damage (+2d6) and have their own situational benefits (bypassing DR and letting adjacent allies scatter, for instance), and as such I'll consider these instead. Due to the maneuver prerequisites, it's POSSIBLE to know both maneuvers at this level, but not recommended, especially since you can only ready 4 maneuvers and you probably want a defensive move or two on the list (Diamond Mind counters or Iron Heart's Wall of Blades, for instance), in addition to diverse offenses. Thus, we'll give the warblade one or the other of these. Note that Mountain Hammer is a common source of knee-jerk reactions on this board, so it's appropriate we'll work with it. So, let's evaluate each of these. Note that stances might change this (and are discussed below), but boosts will not (as there are no level 1 or 2 warblade boosts that relate to damage; in fact, the only warblade boost at this point is Sudden Leap). Round 1 On this round, the warblade advances to his foe and uses a standard action to initiate either maneuver I mentioned above. He can't make other attacks, nor can he charge and use this maneuver. Since the enemy is AC 16 and we have a +8 attack bonus on an attack that deals 4d6+5 (average 19) damage before Power Attack, it's easy to crunch the numbers and determine that the optimal Power Attack number is -1. This results in 4d6+7 damage (average 21) hitting 55% of the time, which produces a weighted average of 11.5 damage (25.7% of the average CR 4 monster's HP). Round 2 The maneuver you used earlier is now expended. You cannot use it again this encounter unless you recover it, which involves spending a swift action and then making a normal melee attack. Since you don't get your maneuver's bonus damage here, you have a lower base seed damage (2d6+5 without Power Attack) for the same attack rolls. Running the numbers on this again shows the optimal Power Attack number to be -3, which gives us 2d6+11 (avg. 18) hitting 45% of the time -- a weighted average of 8.1 damage (or 18.1% of the monster's HP). DR discussion: Since we're using Mountain Hammer, the first hit ignores DR. However, the CR 4 monster crowd rarely has DR, and what little is there is mostly DR/Magic (which your +1 sword bypasses). Thus, this will not have a significant impact on battles at this point (in fact, Mountain Hammer is more likely to see use out of combat (which you can do once per minute) for breaking objects, or in combat at this level to sunder, which deprives the party of loot.) Stance discussion: The warblade has two stances at this point that could impact damage: Leading the Charge (+4 on charge damage) and Punishing Stance (+1d6 on melee damage, -2 AC). He's not charging here, so Leading the Charge is out. Punishing Stance does adjust the numbers ever so slightly (to 13.5 damage on the first round and 9.75 damage the second round, equating to 51.9% of the monster's HP). This may make it look good, even with the -2 AC penalty (which equates to a 64.1% chance of the monster hitting him, as opposed to 54.1%. Still acceptable, as determined above)... except for one little detail. Punishing Stance sucks in general. It's great in low-level mooks, but since you can't change your stances known as you level up, and you can't use two stances at once (until level 20), the non-scaling Punishing Stance generally isn't taken except by characters who don't expect to see higher-level use. This might be the case in your game, I don't know, so I'll include both numbers. Total weighted damage over two rounds: Without Punishing Stance: 43.8% of the monster's HP (25.7%/18.1%) With Punishing Stance: 51.9% of the monster's HP (30.2%/21.8%). Final grade: Without Punishing Stance: Optimal on the first hit and Passable on the second. With Punishing Stance: Optimal on both hits. Please read the Punishing Stance note above to guess how common this shows up (summary: Not as often as you'd think except in always-low-level games, and level 4 is, as I said above, a sweet spot for the warblade).The barbarian has primitive tactics, naturally: Rage, move in, and attack. Rage increases his Strength to 20, his attack bonus to +10, and his base damage output to 2d6+8 (average 15) before Power Attack. Rage does reduce his AC to 15 (a 64.1% chance of being hit; we're still fine), but it also provides other defensive benefits as well. Round 1 Approach and hit the bugger. The optimal power attack against AC 16 for this character is -3, resulting in 11.55 weighted damage (25.8% of the monster's HP). Round 2 Second verse, same as the first. Another 25.8% of the monster's HP. Total weighted damage over two rounds: 51.6% (25.8%/25.8%) of the monster's HP. Final Grade: Optimal on both attacks.Note that the warblade, without Punishing Stance (which is rarely chosen due to bad scaling; as I said above level 4 is a sweet spot for warblades), dishes out 43.8% of the average CR 4 monster's HP over two rounds (that is, 19.6 damage), as compared to the core-only barbarian dishing out 51.6% of the same monster's HP (23.1 damage)). The core-only barbarian outdoes the fancy-schmancy warblade at this level. However, if the warblade does use Punishing Stance at this special sweet-spot in his career, which is a subpar choice in the long run since other 1st level stances, notably Hunter's Scent, Blood in the Water, and Leading the Charge, happen to scale, he dishes out 51.9% (23.2 damage) over two rounds, outdoing the barbarian by 0.3% (that is, 0.1 damage). That said, if he does use Punishing Stance, his AC drops to the same as the raging barbarian (15)... without the commensurate +8 HP and +2 Will increase the barbarian gets in a rage. Plus, for opposed checks (such as trips), Punishing Stance is no substitute for an increase in Strength. (In short, -2 AC for +2 damage, +2 attack, +2 Strength checks, +2 Will, +8 HP is better than -2 AC for +3.5 damage.) The warblade can outperform a core-only barbarian at this level if and only if he uses a poor stance selection, which is only useful at this level because, as I've said, it's a sweet spot for the warblade. The only reason the barbarian won't be doing so hot later in the day is because he was first developed in his current form SEVEN YEARS AGO, back when the per-day balancing paradigm reigned supreme. If Rage were built on a per-encounter system (i.e. Berserker Strength, PHB2), you can get similar results all day long. The results are similar -- but the warblade is far more fun to use since it's not the same tactics round in, round out. Furthermore, the warblade has reason to NOT use his maneuvers -- if that maneuver was Tactical Strike, he'd probably want to save it until his allies were in position, meaning he has to pay attention to and work with his allies, holding himself back until he needs to lead the attack.I keep saying "sweet spot". I mean it. I've done comparisons at level 1 (the strongest level 1 maneuver in terms of increased weapon damage is Sapphire Nightmare Blade; Charging Minotaur and Wolf Fang Strike can come close but we were using greatswords). I've done comparisons at level 6 (using Bonecrusher). I've done comparisons at level 8 (using White Raven Strike; Ruby Nightmare Blade doesn't surpass it at this level except on a critical hit, which can't be guaranteed). I've done it again at level 11 (using Rabid Bear Strike's whopping +10d6 damage). I've done each of these levels using Punishing Stance and using other stances; as soon as level 6 hits, it doesn't keep up with the barbarian. The results are always the same -- very comparable to a barbarian. The key is that as levels go up, the barbarian's rage boosts all of his attack rolls enough that he can Power Attack more than the warblade can for the same chance to hit. Typically, the barbarian will come close to matching the warblade over two rounds if his first attack of each round hits, and he's got a pretty good chance of exceeding the warblade dramatically if ANY of his secondary attacks of either round hit. There are, of course, a few sweet-spots for the warblade, usually on the levels right when the warblade gains a new maneuver level but the barbarian doesn't gain an additional attack. Level 4, the level you had KalTorak start at, happens to be one such level (access to 2nd level maneuvers, no second attack on the barbarian), although level 5 is actually a bit more skewed (3rd level maneuvers, one attack on the barbarian). This is virtually IDENTICAL to the warlock, I might add (another class where the words "at will" were met with a knee-jerk 'too strong' reaction), where 5th level warlocks have been deemed "too strong" and "overpowered" by several DMs, when they rapidly drop to second-fiddle by level 6-7. And yet they, and ToB adepts, remain remarkably fun to play. As I noted in other threads, there *is* the potential for the warblade to outdo the barbarian -- but it's more along the lines of THIS SPECIFIC warblade in THIS SPECIFIC situation (for level 4, it's a charging White Raven specialist going nova with two maneuvers in two rounds and relying on enemy positioning). For repeatable assaults from general builds (those requiring a minumum number of manuevers), we consistently see numbers very close to a barbarian with no feats spent except Power Attack. (There are a few exceptions -- level 5 and level 15 favor the warblade. At most other levels, though, it's the barbarian, providing that the barbarian can full attack.)
Gentlemanic 04-10-08, 04:53 PM	In case you weren't paying attention to the thread, it started when a DM didn't know how to set an appropriate challenge level. Alright. This has turned into something of a famewar. I started this thread because I wanted some advice on this matter. So far I think I have handled ToB characters pretty well, but with my players whining about the book being too powerful I wanted to see what the general consensus about it was. Many of you have given your oppinions now and I thank you for that. For now I have decided to watch my players using the book a lot closer but I will allow it. Mostly because I feel bad that one of them has purchased the book already. When it gets out of hand I can always kill his character on something :P Thanks again all! Now this has been settled all please walk along, nothing more to see here!
Cuindless 04-10-08, 05:20 PM	I have found that a powergamer in general can use some opt skills and mind sets but most stick to increase one part of the PC to powerfull levels. Opts for the most part try to make the over all PC powerfull with allot more balance. The good types of power gamers just like too build powerfull PCs and the bad ones use loop holes and in gneral don't care about the DM or others feelings about it. Here is a fun threads on the subject.Optimization?? Powergaming?? So basically, a "good" powergamer is an optimizer or a min/maxer, while a "bad" powergamer is a munch-kin. I'm guessing that a powergamer, in it's purest form, would be any gamer that is concerned with the power of his character, yes?
CrimsonDeath 04-10-08, 05:27 PM	Alright. This has turned into something of a famewar. I started this thread because I wanted some advice on this matter. So far I think I have handled ToB characters pretty well, but with my players whining about the book being too powerful I wanted to see what the general consensus about it was. Many of you have given your oppinions now and I thank you for that. For now I have decided to watch my players using the book a lot closer but I will allow it. Mostly because I feel bad that one of them has purchased the book already. When it gets out of hand I can always kill his character on something :P Thanks again all! Now this has been settled all please walk along, nothing more to see here! I apologize if the way I phrased that made you think I was attempting to insult you. That was not my intention. Perhaps I should've said that you weren't sure how to set up encounters that would challenge all of your party members to a reasonable degree? Because that was what I gathered from your original post-- more of a difficult situation than a problem of experience or information.
Sunic_Flames 04-10-08, 05:29 PM	So basically, a "good" powergamer is an optimizer or a min/maxer, while a "bad" powergamer is a munch-kin. I'm guessing that a powergamer, in it's purest form, would be any gamer that is concerned with the power of his character, yes? A munchkin is a cheater. An example would be taking an epic feat at level 6. From my sig: Optimizing - trying to make a character good at a particular purpose Powergaming - optimizing for sheer dazzling effectiveness Minmaxing - optimizing by means of using finite resources in an efficient manner Munchkinizing - powergaming through rules abuse and/or violations of commonly accepted social norms
Cuindless 04-10-08, 05:36 PM	A munchkin is a cheater. An example would be taking an epic feat at level 6. From my sig: See, that's what I always thought, but I so often see powergamer associated with munchkin that I start to doubt my own understanding of the gamer dialect. Thanks, SF.
Khan2000 04-10-08, 07:07 PM	A DM has every right to ban any book for any reason. I am a firm believer in hands-on learning; the best way to learn a class in D&D is to play the class. That said, I've recently played a swordsage at epic levels. Loads of fun. The swordsage has 25 manuevers and 6 stances at lvl 20. OH NO!!! THAT IS SO BROKEN!!! No. The swordsage may have 25 manuevers, but he has 12 manuevers available to use. My particular swordsage had boosts, counters, and strikes--something I suggest for any martial adept. These manuevers are once per encounter, which means that he can use at least one boost, one counter, and one strike. There are swift actions, immediate actions, standard actions, and full-round actions depending on the manuever. A DM also has every right to pull the BS card if a player is doing something seems shady in the slightest. If the first level barbarian is dealing 200d12 on each of his four hits, then something shady is definitely going on. If I'm the offending player, I claim ignorance, simply because of all the math involved; I'm more than happy to adjust my character if I made mistakes.
navar100 04-10-08, 07:10 PM	The description of steely resolve does not mention melee attacks. It only says, "When you are attacked, any hit point damage the blow deals is added to your delay damage pool." But you are right about the damage cap. And of course, the special effects (ie. stunning etc.) of attacks goes through even though the damage is delayed. Last sentence of the first paragraph under Steely Resolve: "When an opponent strikes you, the injury does not immediately affect you."
navar100 04-10-08, 07:15 PM	Each character gets one Swift OR Immediate action per turn. Boosts are generally swift actions. Counters are immediate actions. Martial adepts can't boost and counter in the same turn. Similarly, they can't enter or change their stance in the same round they boost or counter. [/list] Incorrect. You can use a swift and immediate action on a turn. Using an immediate action uses up your swift action on your next turn. An adept can use a swift action to boost or change stance (not both at once) yet still be able to use a counter maneuver on his opponent's attack. The following round he couldn't use a swift action to boost or switch stance.
navar100 04-10-08, 07:20 PM	Both me and my players have banned this book. We consider it a loop hole book and we have banned all loop holes in are game. I have found that the people that are for the book are for it because of the increase power it gives only. That's right. I'd rather player a puny cleric, wizard, or druid and force my opponents to save or die, from a distance. Who needs warriors that can move more than 5ft and do something interesting? It's power attacking smiting spirited charge paladins for me, not a crusader moving 10ft to deal 1d8+3 damage so that my friend can heal 3d8+7 hit points.
Cuindless 04-10-08, 07:22 PM	If the first level barbarian is dealing 200d12 on each of his four hits, then something shady is definitely going on. My initial reaction is to say, "That's impossible," but I bet there's a way to do it that I'm unaware of. Still, you were probably exaggerating.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 07:24 PM	A swordsage can full regain their manuveurs and even change out their readied ones with a single full-round action via the Adapative style feat, by RAW. Actually, by even more RAW, any full round action changes your manuveurs since it doesn't specify that it has to be a full round action to change them, just that you have to take a full round action. Of course, ignoring that particular bit, let's say the swordsage has used half of her manuveurs, and the ones she has remaining are ineffectual for the situation (lots of desert wind stuff and she's fighting a fire subtype creature, for example). A single full round action later, and she can replace all her expended maneuvers with unexpended ones... even the same one again. The main advantage to the SS is he knows different ways to hurt you, and since he only has medium BAB all his attacks still won't hit so if he miss an attack he only gets two rounds to be effective, and before he gets to sit in the corner again. The book says you have to use a full round action to recover one maneuver without the feat, and adaptive style only allows you to change the ones you have readied, not recharge/recover them, and it is still a full round action. So if has the wrong manuevers, and he has to take one full round to change them out, and another one to recharge/recover ONE of them then he just lost two rounds of action. Sudden recovery gets you one back as a swift action, but it has a limited uses on page 33, so limited it is not worth a feat. You are meditating when you are recovering a maneuver, not fighting, moving, only meditating. And if your players have been changing maneuvers in the middle of combat they have been cheating or playing the character incorrectly since swordsages can only change maneuvers without "adaptive style" out of combat.
nightwyrm 04-10-08, 07:25 PM	Last sentence of the first paragraph under Steely Resolve: "When an opponent strikes you, the injury does not immediately affect you." That whole paragraph is pure flavour. In any case, "strike" does not mean melee attack.
navar100 04-10-08, 07:25 PM	Oh I don't know, using your concentration check for ALL saves ALL the time means traps mean diddly and squat maybe? Making the party rogue even MORE marginal. Mountain hammer while naked in a jail cell makes such things worth diddly and squat again. Logically, yes...mechanically...no. Mechanically, allowed at all times can break a game if one so choose to (especially the way iron heart surge is worded). To loosely limit it to combat only helps fix those issues. And even then, it's not enforced until somebody tries to break the game with it. It's a nice reminder to the power gamers to not break the game since the casual gamer who don't will be allowed to and the power gamer who try will be told no with the reason being the rule stated above. Since some people need rules to not break a game, it's there. Of course in the power gamers only games, we have no such rules.... Once a save maneuvers has been used, it can't be used again. Woe to a warblade who has to make two will saves in a round. Who needs Mountain Hammer? The barbarian can just Power Attack his way out.
nightwyrm 04-10-08, 07:34 PM	The the book says you have to use a full round action to recover one maneuver without the feat, and adaptive style only allows you to change the ones you have readied, not recharge/recover them, and it is still a full round action. So if has the wrong manuevers, and he has to take one full round to change them out, and another one to recharge/recover ONE of them then he just lost two rounds of action. Sudden recovery gets you one back as a swift action, but it has a limited uses on page 33, so limited it is not worth a feat. Actually, adaptive style allows a swordsage to recover and ready his menuvers with just one full round action. The ruling is somewhere via the sage or custserv. I'm sure someone on the board has the link, or one of the ToB handbooks in CO has it. To Jancarious: In any case, so what if a SS can use a full round action to recover all his menuvers with a feat. That's hardly overpowering. The warblade can do it as a swift action following a full attack, while the crusader recovers automatically.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 07:43 PM	Actually, adaptive style allows a swordsage to recover and ready his menuvers with just one full round action. The ruling is somewhere via the sage or custserv. I'm sure someone on the board has the link, or one of the ToB handbooks in CO has it. To Jancarious: In any case, so what if a SS can use a full round action to recover all his maneuvers with a feat. That's hardly overpowering. The warblade can do it as a swift action following a full attack, while the crusader recovers automatically. The RAW says nothing about recovering, and while the Sage(who I do listen to most of the time), and customer service:rolleyes: can interpret unclear rules they can't change them. I don't consider it overpowering to be able to use the feat to recover the maneuver since it would be pointless to change all the maneuvers, but not be able to use them. They should just errata it. 4th ed is not out yet so they still have time, but that is a discussion for my other thread. P.S. I will use the Sage's ruling since I tend to use RAI over RAW in my games, but I wanted to point that out, thanks for the heads up.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 09:09 PM	Ok first off, are we using the proper definition of the word tank? Because it doesn't mean high AC sword and board. That's called mobile difficult terrain. Assuming we are, and we are either looking at a high damage dealer who is thereby threatening enough to draw fire away from the wizard, or a tripper to lock down an area in a radius around himself... The Fighter's tricks are pretty much all countered by the same thing. And that thing becomes increasingly common with levels. That thing is size. Size means reach, which negates your reach advantage, possibly and then some. Being hit, without being able to hit back means getting mauled. It also means resistance or immunity to special maneuvers such as tripping, necessary to control an area as it is all the Fighter has. Meanwhile, say the Crusader's tanking ability still works fine. So he can still draw fire away from his teammates. Now the way the Fighter is set up, his sole class features are feats. Except the game was deliberately designed so that it takes 2-3 feats (at least) to be worth as much as a single class feature. Ergo, the Fighter loses out, and becomes a one trick pony. This not only makes him less effective as he is far more easily countered, it makes him less fun to play as you're essentially 'auto battling' everything by doing the same few things throughout the entire game. Now as for resource expenditure, it's actually 20%. The idea being you maul the first and second easily, without even breaking a sweat. The third is a little annoying, and the fourth actually poses a threat via attrition. You then rest, because the 5th would take off the last 20% and 100% resources gone = TPK. After which you repeat ad nauseum. The fighter might be able to take on 1, or perhaps 2. Not 4. Not unless heavily optimized to be up to par. The casters could take 4. Now why is the wizard better? Ignoring cheese like Celerity, Time Stop, and so forth he has versatility. He can generally do something useful in every round of combat. What's more, not only does he have more options but said options tend to be better, often proving encounter enders if they work. Even the lowly Color Spray can insta win an encounter at low levels for example. Wizard sees a big, stupid looking creature he attacks its mind with Will saves. He sees another mage, he attacks its body with Fortitude saves. He sees something big and slow, touch AC. Or maybe Reflex. Obscure weakness? He knows what it is, and can probably exploit it. Immune to magic? It's only immune to direct applications of magic. 1. Sorry don't know why I posted 25% for. They still loss 20% of resources including spells and HP. Plus looking at the same thing in the front of the MM we see that it doesn't without breaking a sweat. Challenge Rating This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty. It is amazing how most people using that one skip right over this part. How is moderate = easy/not breaking a sweat. I guess most opts find them easy encounter but again their PC are above the average and not the norm. 2. That would be the average party which would include 1 tank, 1 skill monkey, 1 healer, 1 spellcaster. I love how every one using that same argument puts fighters by them selves and wizards by them selves. Again average group. 3.Remember I asked why fighters were weaker on the melee side as opposed to other tanks and why wizards were better classes for spell casters. We will start with fighter. My fighter use the core of three things. One is the feat from UA to add tumble as a fighter class skill. The 2nd is I go whirlwind strike and defense builds which also gives me another option for reach problems, also using light armor such as mithral chainmail to not lower my speed and keep my armor up. 3rd ghostwarded armor and shields. Sometimes I pick up the power charge feats too. I hate the tripper builds. A good fighter need more then one option like any other class does. Sorcs also get the same spells as wizard. Mind you most consider wizards better because they get spells soon. I don't see it except at a few spell levels unless they use SC and that drops those level to none. Wizards skills are a little better then sorc but I wouldn't say that is them over the top for all caster. Druids also have a great number are good spells. The wizard spells do not put them over the top. The options you said works well with just about all casters not just wizards.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-10-08, 09:29 PM	Druid can wildshape into a hydra with MoMF, use natural spell to nuke the area with any one of insane spells, and then tidy up with an animal companion. ONLY 1 NON-CORE BOOK! If you don't use CD, switch to some other form. I don't have the best form in my memory bank, but someone else pull it up. Fighter gets 11 measly feats. I didn't use all the druid things either. The Wizard is blasting the entire area with magic, even with 4 encounters per day, he can easily do those. Not breaking a sweat for the first one is that they aren't anywhere near exhausted. They should have 60-80% of their resources after the first two encounters.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 09:29 PM	Sorry for the long post. I believe consolidating posts is better than multiposting. Feel free to chop my post up and reply only to part of it. You mean like using a Candle of Invocation to summon an Efreet and Wish for three more Candles of Invocation (or one more Candle and two other things)? Or using Polymorph Any Object or Shapechange to gain the form of a Planetar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetar), which has as one of its abilities the spells of a level 17 Cleric? What do you do about things like that? I didn't realize I'd attached a value judgement to anything I'd said. You said you banned ToB because of its loopholes; I just pointed out that more (and worse) loopholes exist in Core. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelPlanetarIf more people just sit down as a group and discussed the overall theme and direction of their games with the DM then most problem would be solved.[Quote And that's a much better solution than banning a book. If you had the time and energy to hammer out all the problems in Core, Tome of Battle should be a breeze. (All you really need to do is house-rule White Raven Tactics so you can't use it on yourself, and either ban or overhaul Iron Heart Surge.) The sun must be down. The trolls are coming out. Who said that? Depends on your definition of "good at D&D". If you mean "good at portraying the behavior of a character", then it's not necessary. If you mean "good at killing monsters/beating high skill check/saving throw DCs", then optimization helps a good deal. In case you weren't paying attention to the thread, it started when a DM didn't know how to set an appropriate challenge level. There's an enormous body of information for you to draw upon. Smarter people than I have run the numbers and figured out which weapons, skills, spells, feats, and multiclassing options can accomplish various tasks most efficiently, and they have shared their research on the Character Optimization board. It's your choice not to draw upon this knowledge. And choosing not to draw upon it is a valid decision, if you have a reason for it. (For the moment, I'll assume that you do, because I don't want to start a side argument about whether your reasons are "good enough". If they're good enough for you, they're good enough for me.) That's a pretty good house rule. I might consider using it myself (if I ever get my game going...) Paladin's a lot better outside Core, where he gets Divine feats (to make his turning attempts actually useful) and a few more decent spells. However, he still lacks versatility; he can't do much in combat aside from damage. By "limited casters", I'm guessing you mean things like the Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, and Lurk? I hope you're joking. Personally, I wouldn't want to play a character whose job could be done better and more efficiently by a Wall of Force. How is the Fighter weaker than other "tank" classes? Because you can build a Cleric or Druid tank that does his job better. Or build a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard who can cast a spell that does the job better.I said me and my player decided together to bann the book because of loop hole. Luckly for me My players don't and won't use loop holes because for the most part ruins the fun of the game. I have no worries of those type of things happening. Using a spell to kill/defeat a monster does not make the class weaker then the other class. Fighters can defeat monsters, wizards can defeat monsters, monks can defeat monsters, and ect. A good opt can make any class effective in battle and be above average doing it. If the class was truely weaker an opt would never be able to be above average with that class.
Merestil Haye 04-10-08, 09:33 PM	Adaptive Style allows a martial adept to reset his entire suite of maneuvers with a single full-round action. This is quite plain from the text of the feat, which states that without the feat you can only recover maneuvers by spending five minutes. In short, the feat allows you to do what spending five minutes resting normally does.
Ace_of_time 04-10-08, 09:43 PM	So basically, a "good" powergamer is an optimizer or a min/maxer, while a "bad" powergamer is a munch-kin. I'm guessing that a powergamer, in it's purest form, would be any gamer that is concerned with the power of his character, yes?I found that this is the best at describing the differences. You people are over complicating this. Optimization: This is the act of finding the best possible set of classes, race, feats, spells, items, and abilities to make the MOST effective character at doing a certain task or tasks. It's done within the rules of RAW but often ignores RAI. There is a subset of optimization that self limits itself to say "building an optimized Bard" for example. But they are still called optimizers. Powergaming: This is a STYLE of play. It features characters who are very powerful in combat. And the central type of activity in a powergaming play style is combat. Defeating enemies quickly with little possible harm to yourself, is paramount. Min/Maxing: This is a term used to represent choices where a player can get more effectiveness with some choices than with different choices without any increased penalties. For example a certain feat may give a better bonus than another and without any additional drawbacks. It would be considered min/maxing to select the better feat. Munchkin: A term applied to a type of player who abuses or ignores rules in order to create a ridiculously powerful character. OR a term used to represent a possibly abusive problem player. -As you can see: you can both powergame AND optimize. In fact most powergamers ARE optimizers. Although it isn't a requirement and it wouldn't be hard to find non-optimized powergamers. In fact you can be all four at the same time. The heart of optimization is min/maxing. But you don't necessarily have to min/max to optimize. A poorer choice might end up making a stronger (or more desirable) character in the end, and would then justify the use in an optimized build. Although it would be rare.If it helps. I'm not trying to fight. But the average PC should be used to decide weaker or stronger. It is the opinion most on the boards that if it isn't opted the build sucks or the character will die. Or that every PC should kill things in one round because an opted PC can. That is not how it should be veiwed. This book may very well be a good tool for opted or powergaming games but for the average group the book causes more problems then it helps and that is why it is banned in most average groups. People should be more carefull typing opinions.
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-10-08, 10:47 PM	It's actually more balanced. It has a higher minimum power level, and a lower maximum. Uber-frenzy charger is the max for the fighter, while a guy who spreads out his power base a lot is the minimum. Warblade, the power level is consistently a bit above a 50 on a 1-100 scale, 99 being pun-pun, 20 being about the power of the healer base class. Power range of a Warblade is probably about 53-65. Fighter is 30-70. See the difference? Core only Druid is about 65-80. Average wizard is 60-75. You can completely screw up your character, but were not including that. We are including average ability scores, and average skill choices. Note: Rogue is about 40-60, for a comparison.
wraithstrike 04-10-08, 11:30 PM	I said me and my player decided together to bann the book because of loop hole. Luckly for me My players don't and won't use loop holes because for the most part ruins the fun of the game. I have no worries of those type of things happening. Using a spell to kill/defeat a monster does not make the class weaker then the other class. Fighters can defeat monsters, wizards can defeat monsters, monks can defeat monsters, and ect. A good opt can make any class effective in battle and be above average doing it. If the class was truely weaker an opt would never be able to be above average with that class. It is weaker because it requires a lot more work to be effective. Codzilla, and batman(I think this is the codename for the wizard) only need the PHB, and DMG to break the game. A monk needs a couple of books, and if you only use the PHB can pretty much be ignored. He is hard to kill, but he won't kill anyone else either. A fighter has to be specialized in one area, and if you find a way to deny that advantage he is almost useless. It is not just about what you do, but how well you do it. Codzilla can heal the party and beat up most fighters. Clearly if I can do your job, and mine I have a better profession. PS: I like the monk a lot, a whole lot, but unless I make the sundering monk I am nothing more than a distraction, if that much, and the issue with the sundering monk build is that it destroys party treasure, and that just won't make you popular with the rest of the group.
navar100 04-11-08, 02:45 AM	Let's not turn this into another Fighter thread, but still, a Fighter does not become useless just because a particular shtick won't work for a combat. He has enough feats to engage in different combat tactics. McTrippy Fighters, for example, do not just twiddle their thumbs when large 4-legged flying creatures, or earthworms for that matter, happen accross their path. For further details, please read the Fighter threads in the classes forum. One is active now.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 03:29 AM	I said me and my player decided together to bann the book because of loop hole. Luckly for me My players don't and won't use loop holes because for the most part ruins the fun of the game. I have no worries of those type of things happening. So if you're capable of identifying loopholes and choosing not to use them, why ban a book because of them? a 1-100 scale, 99 being pun-pun What's 100?
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-11-08, 03:40 AM	I think 100 is when Pun-Pun finally manifests in the real world, retroactively removes Rule 0 from all sourcebooks, and uses his limitless reach to hold a knife at the ba throats of any DMs that even think about using the term.
Sunic_Flames 04-11-08, 10:26 AM	1. Sorry don't know why I posted 25% for. They still loss 20% of resources including spells and HP. Plus looking at the same thing in the front of the MM we see that it doesn't without breaking a sweat. It is amazing how most people using that one skip right over this part. How is moderate = easy/not breaking a sweat. I guess most opts find them easy encounter but again their PC are above the average and not the norm. And that is easy. Losing 20% means using a handful of spells, taking a few hits, but never being at any real risk unless you seriously screw up. Think about it. 20% * 4 = 80%. As in low on spells, almost dead and needing a rest after 4 fights. If any one fight posed a considerable threat, that would go against the underlying assumption the PCs are supposed to win, and therefore they'd be losing more than 20% in an average fight so that they must perform above average to win. Your constant use of abbreviations makes your posts hard to read, but it's not so bad yet so I'll continue. Their average assumption is actually low end, not by an optimizer's standards but by normal playing standards. This is because it is based upon three underlying assumptions, only two or less of which are likely to apply to any given game. 1: The PCs are core only 25 PB types, meaning most of the weight is being carried by half the party. 2: No multiclassing or PRCing is taking place. 3: The players (not characters) are of below average intelligence, and therefore constantly attempt stupid moves such as attempting to overrun something stronger and bigger than them without having the Improved Overrun feat, resulting in them wasting a round sitting on their ass. Now as we all know, even if you do play core only 25 PB single classed characters, chances are your players are not complete idiots and will therefore make smarter use of the abilities they do have. ensuring that their definition of 'moderate' does not apply. And really, if the first encounter with you at full power was 'moderate difficulty' then that would make the fourth with you softened up considerably as 'very dangerous'. This is obviously not the case as people are not dying all the time in routine combats. Sometimes it happens, but more likely they die against an important foe like the BBEG who is CR + 3 or something. 2. That would be the average party which would include 1 tank, 1 skill monkey, 1 healer, 1 spellcaster. I love how every one using that same argument puts fighters by them selves and wizards by them selves. Again average group. I did assume that. I put the fighter by himself because he's the one supposed to be drawing fire. Do you include the rogue into healing ability? Unless he has UMD and a wand of lesser vigor no. Even if he does, his contribution is going to be on a far lesser scale. 3.Remember I asked why fighters were weaker on the melee side as opposed to other tanks and why wizards were better classes for spell casters. We will start with fighter. My fighter use the core of three things. One is the feat from UA to add tumble as a fighter class skill. The 2nd is I go whirlwind strike and defense builds which also gives me another option for reach problems, also using light armor such as mithral chainmail to not lower my speed and keep my armor up. 3rd ghostwarded armor and shields. Let's start. What is 'whirlwind strike'? Is it whirlwind attack? If so I'm not seeing how this helps with reach problems, or much of anything really because chances are by the time you get it you're dealing with big tough enemies, not hordes of weak ones. Therefore using a full round to hit everyone once... Mild annoyance at best. Ghost ward will get your touch AC to a decent level. But you'll need more than that to ward off much in the way of touch attacks. Sometimes I pick up the power charge feats too. I hate the tripper builds. A good fighter need more then one option like any other class does. I agree. However the issue is not a case of them not needing it, it's a case of them not being able to get it as feats are so narrow in scope. Even something as simple as Powerful Build (everything large gets except the best thing - reach) is apparently as good as 3 feats. You get how many? 18? Using 1/6th your total abilities ever to get a something equivalent to a minor to moderate ability... Sorcs also get the same spells as wizard. Mind you most consider wizards better because they get spells soon. I don't see it except at a few spell levels unless they use SC and that drops those level to none. Wizards skills are a little better then sorc but I wouldn't say that is them over the top for all caster. Druids also have a great number are good spells. The wizard spells do not put them over the top. The options you said works well with just about all casters not just wizards. I can only understand part of this. It sounds like you're saying sorcs get all the same stuff with no disadvantages. I can't tell, because your wording is odd. The reason why wizards are hands down superior to sorcerers are: 1: Wizards get new spell levels 1 level sooner. Every new spell level is a big step up in power. Sorcerers will always lag behind. 2: Wizards can get far more spells known. Even if he never scribes anything extra into his spellbook ever, he has more spells known at every single level just by his free 2/level thing. With your sorcerer, you'll have a hard time getting a spell set up just to cover the general basics, and to deal with more obscure situations you need both foresight and expenditure of consumable resources. The wizard only needs the former. If he didn't prepare that spell, he takes a few minutes, prepares it from his spellbook into a slot he left open, and now he can solve the problem. The sorcerer in such a case would need to head back to town and buy a scroll or something. Time wasted. 3: Wizards qualify sooner, and often benefit more from PRCs. As they don't have much in the way of class features aside from spellcasting, any PRC that does not hinder progression is pretty much automatically better, allowing improvement in whatever way you desire. With that said, 100 is actually anything that beats Pun-Pun. Like the Omnifiscer. If the class was truely weaker an opt would never be able to be above average with that class. This is false. Wraithstrike is correct. The baseline of average is a average player, making average choices plays it and it functions well without functioning too well. An average fighter will not meet this criteria. He is too weak. With extra optimization effort he can, but it's an uphill battle. An average core full caster will not meet this criteria. He is too strong. Unless you deliberately make a number of suboptimal choices, actively working to screw your character up you will be significantly above average. An average martial adept will meet this criteria, as he is playable outside of the box. He can be improved with optimization of course, but is fairly hard to break. He can also be screwed up a bit, but not so much so that he becomes unplayable. Note that in the proper example of average, optimization is an option and not a requirement. They can be simply used without having to worry too much about keeping it in check one way or the other. You'll also note that many of the examples of balanced characters function just fine 1-20. In other words, multiclassing and PRCing is also optional and not a requirement. Compare to the low end, that demands it to try to make up for the weakness with lots of frontloadedness being stacked on. And compare to the high end, which doesn't need PRCs, but will pretty much always be better off with them provided they advance full casting as they lose nothing and gain something. Now if you ban all full casters, half of core content, and just about everything else then banning ToB on the basis of being too powerful is at least valid, even though I don't agree with it. Otherwise it is either false or hypocritical depending on if you know what you're doing or not.
Gentlemanic 04-11-08, 10:48 AM	I apologize if the way I phrased that made you think I was attempting to insult you. That was not my intention. Perhaps I should've said that you weren't sure how to set up encounters that would challenge all of your party members to a reasonable degree? Because that was what I gathered from your original post-- more of a difficult situation than a problem of experience or information. Alright. No offense taken then. Thanks for your response. :)
Ace_of_time 04-11-08, 10:55 AM	So if you're capable of identifying loopholes and choosing not to use them, why ban a book because of them? What's 100?Because it was easier then bann only half the book.
Ace_of_time 04-11-08, 12:23 PM	And that is easy. Losing 20% means using a handful of spells, taking a few hits, but never being at any real risk unless you seriously screw up. Think about it. 20% * 4 = 80%. As in low on spells, almost dead and needing a rest after 4 fights. If any one fight posed a considerable threat, that would go against the underlying assumption the PCs are supposed to win, and therefore they'd be losing more than 20% in an average fight so that they must perform above average to win. Your constant use of abbreviations makes your posts hard to read, but it's not so bad yet so I'll continue. Their average assumption is actually low end, not by an optimizer's standards but by normal playing standards. This is because it is based upon three underlying assumptions, only two or less of which are likely to apply to any given game. 1: The PCs are core only 25 PB types, meaning most of the weight is being carried by half the party. 2: No multiclassing or PRCing is taking place. 3: The players (not characters) are of below average intelligence, and therefore constantly attempt stupid moves such as attempting to overrun something stronger and bigger than them without having the Improved Overrun feat, resulting in them wasting a round sitting on their ass. Now as we all know, even if you do play core only 25 PB single classed characters, chances are your players are not complete idiots and will therefore make smarter use of the abilities they do have. ensuring that their definition of 'moderate' does not apply. And really, if the first encounter with you at full power was 'moderate difficulty' then that would make the fourth with you softened up considerably as 'very dangerous'. This is obviously not the case as people are not dying all the time in routine combats. Sometimes it happens, but more likely they die against an important foe like the BBEG who is CR + 3 or something. I did assume that. I put the fighter by himself because he's the one supposed to be drawing fire. Do you include the rogue into healing ability? Unless he has UMD and a wand of lesser vigor no. Even if he does, his contribution is going to be on a far lesser scale. Let's start. What is 'whirlwind strike'? Is it whirlwind attack? If so I'm not seeing how this helps with reach problems, or much of anything really because chances are by the time you get it you're dealing with big tough enemies, not hordes of weak ones. Therefore using a full round to hit everyone once... Mild annoyance at best. Ghost ward will get your touch AC to a decent level. But you'll need more than that to ward off much in the way of touch attacks. I agree. However the issue is not a case of them not needing it, it's a case of them not being able to get it as feats are so narrow in scope. Even something as simple as Powerful Build (everything large gets except the best thing - reach) is apparently as good as 3 feats. You get how many? 18? Using 1/6th your total abilities ever to get a something equivalent to a minor to moderate ability... I can only understand part of this. It sounds like you're saying sorcs get all the same stuff with no disadvantages. I can't tell, because your wording is odd. The reason why wizards are hands down superior to sorcerers are: 1: Wizards get new spell levels 1 level sooner. Every new spell level is a big step up in power. Sorcerers will always lag behind. 2: Wizards can get far more spells known. Even if he never scribes anything extra into his spellbook ever, he has more spells known at every single level just by his free 2/level thing. With your sorcerer, you'll have a hard time getting a spell set up just to cover the general basics, and to deal with more obscure situations you need both foresight and expenditure of consumable resources. The wizard only needs the former. If he didn't prepare that spell, he takes a few minutes, prepares it from his spellbook into a slot he left open, and now he can solve the problem. The sorcerer in such a case would need to head back to town and buy a scroll or something. Time wasted. 3: Wizards qualify sooner, and often benefit more from PRCs. As they don't have much in the way of class features aside from spellcasting, any PRC that does not hinder progression is pretty much automatically better, allowing improvement in whatever way you desire. With that said, 100 is actually anything that beats Pun-Pun. Like the Omnifiscer. This is false. Wraithstrike is correct. The baseline of average is a average player, making average choices plays it and it functions well without functioning too well. An average fighter will not meet this criteria. He is too weak. With extra optimization effort he can, but it's an uphill battle. An average core full caster will not meet this criteria. He is too strong. Unless you deliberately make a number of suboptimal choices, actively working to screw your character up you will be significantly above average. An average martial adept will meet this criteria, as he is playable outside of the box. He can be improved with optimization of course, but is fairly hard to break. He can also be screwed up a bit, but not so much so that he becomes unplayable. Note that in the proper example of average, optimization is an option and not a requirement. They can be simply used without having to worry too much about keeping it in check one way or the other. You'll also note that many of the examples of balanced characters function just fine 1-20. In other words, multiclassing and PRCing is also optional and not a requirement. Compare to the low end, that demands it to try to make up for the weakness with lots of frontloadedness being stacked on. And compare to the high end, which doesn't need PRCs, but will pretty much always be better off with them provided they advance full casting as they lose nothing and gain something. Now if you ban all full casters, half of core content, and just about everything else then banning ToB on the basis of being too powerful is at least valid, even though I don't agree with it. Otherwise it is either false or hypocritical depending on if you know what you're doing or not.Don't remember the bolded part in any core books regarding CRs. Oh well. You are still comparing the fighter to the wizard. There is no way possible for the fighter to do the same thing a wizard can, the fighter can't cast spell. Just like you will not see a wizard walk up to a creature and swing a great sword at them. Not to say you can't make a good tank out of a wizard but they lack HP and con to do more then hope the creature does get past buffs. Why is the problemsolving solution to the fighter is making them a caster type using the book that spends half the book bending the rules to the point that it crosses the line for most regular player and Dms. There are tons of other options that help make a better fighter. I'm wrong for banning it because of my and my players views on characters and builds. Using wizard class as a base for judging how all other classes should handle a CR encounter is going to take out half of the D&D options. I can take an artificer and turn them into God. Playing both skill monkey and caster. Does that make the wizard class weaker just because of what the other class can do, no. Stand for average group would use the 4d6 from the PHB. Points buy is well favored online but is only an option in the DMG. The CR rating would have used the same method as most players would use. Now now a days that would be points buy for the online is more then it used to be, but not then. Ether way the normal power of the game would be CR = levels. Higher powered games would be CR=level +1. Lower powered games would be -1. Now although the fighter by them selves is considered weaker his main job is to stand there and take hits and deal damage while the rest of the group takes out others/that monster. As a group the group with a fighter would still be able to beat the CR of the right level just as good as one with out the fighter. Now we could play what if all day, but a fighter player use mostly good choices should be able to help his group beat the monster. On the average. Yes I meant attack sorry. As one of the requirements is spring attack which can be of help used right. I also use reach weapons when needed but cost my sheild. Now I will have to wait to atleast 4th level for spring attack and 6th for whrilwind attack. But I can go human and get combat expertise, dodge, and mobility at 1st level. 2nd and 3rd feats would be weapon feats, 4th spring attack, 6th would be whirlwind attack and power charge. After that I get what ever will help leaning more towards defense. Now here are the roles. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061226 How is a wizard ever going to be better at the physical combat then the fighter is. The fighter doesn't need advanced spell in effect to do the role. They just move up and protect the rest from the dangerous foes. Now at higher levels the wizard can do it as good as a fighter but why. Fighter has more HP, mostly higher ACs, and stonger attacks physical. The fighter is just going to last longer on the average then the wizard would in that role. Just like a wizard is going to be better at slinging spell then a UMD rogue would. That doesn't make the rogue a weaker class. Feats would based off of what feats you picked. some are better some are worse. using a opted view to judge how many feats equal a class feture doesn't have anything to do with how well he can do his role in battle. Of coarse class freatures would be better then feats, but not having them doesn't make them weaker in that role. As long as the class does the job/role in battle with out getting killed or letting others get killed. Having more powerful spell sooner does not make wizard better then sorc just lets them have higher spell levels. Using spell comp book greatly lower this gap with a well plan sorc. Opted sorc and opted wizard is still going to fill the spell slinger role well.
Traya 04-11-08, 02:05 PM	Because it was easier then bann only half the book. So why not ban clerics , druids , and wizards? You will get more loopholes out of them than any other classes. I'd also like to add where are these said loopholes in TOB? I haven't seen any. Ive heard people say that stances shouldnt be on at all times , well yeah , in fact they should. Most of them only effect battle anyway , but the ones that don't are things like Sneak attack damage , extra speed , being able to float (swordsage one because they are magical-ish). Every stance is no better than a normal class feature and for most classes you can only choose one at a time. So where good sir , are there these so called "loopholes"?
Sunic_Flames 04-11-08, 03:37 PM	Don't remember the bolded part in any core books regarding CRs. Oh well. Game design research. Reading between the lines and observing records of the iconic's battles. It's there. The game was tested with 25 PB single classed core only characters. Enemies and Allies even includes statblocks for each of them at level 5, 10, and 15. This allows us to see a number of flat out wasted feats which further magnifies this. I don't mean suboptimal when I say wasted, I mean wasted. They're all over the place feat wise. You are still comparing the fighter to the wizard. There is no way possible for the fighter to do the same thing a wizard can, the fighter can't cast spell. Just like you will not see a wizard walk up to a creature and swing a great sword at them. Not to say you can't make a good tank out of a wizard but they lack HP and con to do more then hope the creature does get past buffs. Someone hasn't seen a proper gish. Hint: They do the martial guy's job much better and still do their own. Why is the problemsolving solution to the fighter is making them a caster type using the book that spends half the book bending the rules to the point that it crosses the line for most regular player and Dms. There are tons of other options that help make a better fighter. I'm wrong for banning it because of my and my players views on characters and builds. Using wizard class as a base for judging how all other classes should handle a CR encounter is going to take out half of the D&D options. I can take an artificer and turn them into God. Playing both skill monkey and caster. Does that make the wizard class weaker just because of what the other class can do, no. :nonono: First off this 'bending the rules' bit? It's utter nonsense. Unless there's a hardset rule 'you're a fighter, you do not get nice thing and you must be boring and ineffectual without heavy optimization drawing from half the books in existence' it does not bend any rules. You're welcome to provide specific examples to counter that, but the same old fallback doesn't hold up unless proven a valid counterpoint. The only significant flaws in that entire book is not wording Iron Heart Surge a bit better, not applying rule -1 = don't be an idiot to White Raven Tactics infinite loops, and... oh wait, that's all of it. In other words, the only way it will ever remotely be a rule bending problem is if you allow borked interpretations of the rules, at which point you should be more concerned about Wish infinite loops, Pun-Pun, Hiveminds, and other such things. Stand for average group would use the 4d6 from the PHB. Points buy is well favored online but is only an option in the DMG. The CR rating would have used the same method as most players would use. Now now a days that would be points buy for the online is more then it used to be, but not then. Ether way the normal power of the game would be CR = levels. Higher powered games would be CR=level +1. Lower powered games would be -1. Now although the fighter by them selves is considered weaker his main job is to stand there and take hits and deal damage while the rest of the group takes out others/that monster. As a group the group with a fighter would still be able to beat the CR of the right level just as good as one with out the fighter. Now we could play what if all day, but a fighter player use mostly good choices should be able to help his group beat the monster. On the average. 4d6 drop lowest = effectively 28-29 PB. Doesn't change the fact the iconics who were used for game and CR balance are 25, and having 25 be the standard when it should be 28 proves CR is higher than it should be slightly, not lower. As anyone who has played more than a game or two knows, this is not the case. For the fighter to take hits he needs to be both tough enough to do so, and threatening enough so the enemies want to hit him. To do this, he must be significantly optimized in order to bring his default low effectiveness to average. And you're saying the same thing, but acting like you're disagreeing? :confused: Yes I meant attack sorry. As one of the requirements is spring attack which can be of help used right. I also use reach weapons when needed but cost my sheild. Now I will have to wait to atleast 4th level for spring attack and 6th for whrilwind attack. But I can go human and get combat expertise, dodge, and mobility at 1st level. 2nd and 3rd feats would be weapon feats, 4th spring attack, 6th would be whirlwind attack and power charge. After that I get what ever will help leaning more towards defense. Ok, feat chain and at least 6th level to do something that would have been nice if you got it sooner when you were still getting swarmed by kobold warrior 1s. Ok. How is a wizard ever going to be better at the physical combat then the fighter is. The fighter doesn't need advanced spell in effect to do the role. They just move up and protect the rest from the dangerous foes. Now at higher levels the wizard can do it as good as a fighter but why. Fighter has more HP, mostly higher ACs, and stonger attacks physical. The fighter is just going to last longer on the average then the wizard would in that role. Just like a wizard is going to be better at slinging spell then a UMD rogue would. That doesn't make the rogue a weaker class. Bad example. Again, do some research on gishes. By the way, wizards can easily end up with higher AC than the fighter both because they can craft their own gear cheaper and spells. Though it would be more efficient to just cast Mirror Image or something and have 80+% of attacks miss before it even gets to the attack roll stage... Also, for the fighter to protect the rest he must again both be capable of taking it and capable of convincing the enemies to engage him. This too has already been addressed. Feats would based off of what feats you picked. some are better some are worse. using a opted view to judge how many feats equal a class feture doesn't have anything to do with how well he can do his role in battle. Of coarse class freatures would be better then feats, but not having them doesn't make them weaker in that role. As long as the class does the job/role in battle with out getting killed or letting others get killed. There's that annoying abbreviation again... It has every importance. As this is the sole variable in fighter effectiveness, it is everything to them. Except feats were deliberately designed to be narrow and ineffective, so that actual class features were far better. It is one more testament to a lack of forethought in the core books that they did not connect the dots between 'intentional design decision to make feats weak' and 'class with only extra feats' to mean 'said class will now suck without massive splatbook and optimization support'. Being weaker means being less capable of doing his job. It's simple to understand. Having more powerful spell sooner does not make wizard better then sorc just lets them have higher spell levels. Using spell comp book greatly lower this gap with a well plan sorc. Opted sorc and opted wizard is still going to fill the spell slinger role well. :nonono: :banghead: Try again.
Jaxgaret 04-11-08, 04:23 PM	You can use a swift and immediate action on a turn. Incorrect. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed. You cannot use a Swift and Immediate action on the same turn. You can, however, use a Swift action on your turn and an Immediate action right after your turn - two similar, but distinctly different orders of operation.
Jaxgaret 04-11-08, 04:30 PM	The RAW says nothing about recovering, and while the Sage(who I do listen to most of the time), and customer service:rolleyes: can interpret unclear rules they can't change them. QFT, including the rolleyes emoticon. I don't consider it overpowering to be able to use the feat to recover the maneuver since it would be pointless to change all the maneuvers, but not be able to use them. Actually, it means that you can then proceed to recover any one of your maneuvers, whether or not it was previously one of your readied maneuvers. That is an advantage. They should just errata it. 4th ed is not out yet so they still have time, but that is a discussion for my other thread. 3e is dead to WotC. ;) P.S. I will use the Sage's ruling since I tend to use RAI over RAW in my games, but I wanted to point that out, thanks for the heads up. RAI is such a loaded and often completely off-base term that it should be avoided; IMO there is only RAW and RAYW. Also IMO allowing Adaptive Style to refresh all of a Swordsage's maneuvers is an overpowered interpretation of the feat - I can see allowing it to do what you stated above, that you can use a full-round action to ready any one of your maneuvers, whether or not it was previously readied.
Jaxgaret 04-11-08, 04:42 PM	So if you're capable of identifying loopholes and choosing not to use them, why ban a book because of them? Because it was easier then bann only half the book. Why would you ban half of the book? There is very little material in ToB that would be considered a "loophole". There are a handful of things that were already outlined early in this thread. What's 100? Ao.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 05:19 PM	Ao. What does Ao have that Pun-Pun can't copy?
Cold Napalm 04-11-08, 05:47 PM	What does Ao have that Pun-Pun can't copy? diety powers that have no written rules...and as such can not be copied by pun pun. On a side note, if your not banning the druid, I find the concept of banning anything because it's overpowered laughable at best.
Sunic_Flames 04-11-08, 06:38 PM	On a side note, if your not banning the druid, I find the concept of banning anything because it's overpowered laughable at best. +1.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 07:02 PM	diety powers that have no written rules...and as such can not be copied by pun pun. Technically nothing stops Pun-Pun from using Manipulate Form to give himself his own unique powers... But that's as much as I'm going to say on the subject. I think this sidetrack has gone on long enough.
navar100 04-11-08, 08:12 PM	So why not ban clerics , druids , and wizards? You will get more loopholes out of them than any other classes. I'd also like to add where are these said loopholes in TOB? I haven't seen any. Ive heard people say that stances shouldnt be on at all times , well yeah , in fact they should. Most of them only effect battle anyway , but the ones that don't are things like Sneak attack damage , extra speed , being able to float (swordsage one because they are magical-ish). Every stance is no better than a normal class feature and for most classes you can only choose one at a time. So where good sir , are there these so called "loopholes"? 1) White Raven Tactics with misinterpreting Crusader recovery system and 2) Iron Heart Surge 1) Step one: Thinking White Raven Tactics, giving someone another turn within a round works on yourself. [It doesn't.] Step two: Thinking when a crusader recovers his maneuvers, any he didn't use he still has. As such, if he has 4 maneuvers granted and not used, after using White Raven Tactics, when he recovers he gets back White Raven Tactics as it's the only one expended and immediately granted. In this way, combined with mistakenly using White Raven Tactics on himself, the crusader gets infinite turns. This is wrong because when a crusader recovers his maneuvers, any he happened not to use are also part of the randomization and all his maneuvers go back to not granted status excepting for the random two he starts with granted. 2) Iron Heart Surge is poorly worded and written such that it allows a warblade to end effects he shouldn't but not end effects he should. Iron Heart Surge, RAW, allows a warblade to end an Anti-Magic Field or Entangle because it's an ongoing effect. That is silly. It doesn't allow the warblade to end being stunned or nauseated because he can't take the standard action to activate the maneuver. Being stunned or nauseated is an ongoing condition that makes logical sense for the maneuver to have been able to end.
Jaxgaret 04-11-08, 10:26 PM	Technically nothing stops Pun-Pun from using Manipulate Form to give himself his own unique powers... Yes, but can Pun-Pun give himself Divine Rank? If not, then those unique powers are not Salient Divine Abilities. While Pun-Pun might be powerful enough to take out lesser gods, Ao is almost assuredly more powerful than Pun-Pun.
Cuindless 04-11-08, 10:29 PM	Yes, but can Pun-Pun give himself Divine Rank? Yes. Pun-Pun has the Ice Assassin spell as a spell-like ability at-will. He uses it to copy an arbitrarily high number of gods. Pun-Pun then commands a god clone to make him a proxy. This makes Pun-Pun a rank 1 demigod. Pun-Pun then makes another creature (Lokiyn, the originator of the trick, used squirrels) a proxy. This lowers Pun-Pun to divine rank 0. Pun-Pun then orders another ice assassin god to make him a proxy. At divine rank 1 again, Pun-Pun invests another squirrel with a divine rank. Pun-Pun repeats this process a NI number of times. Then, he uses a standard action to recall each divine rank back from the squirrels. A NI number of squirrels with 1 divine rank invested equals a NI number of divine ranks recalled and gained by Pun-Pun. This gives Pun-Pun a NI divine rank. Since Salient Divine Abilities are based on divine rank, Pun-Pun has a NI number of salient divine abilities. (That is at least all of the ones in the book and includes the awesome Alter Reality.)
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-11-08, 10:29 PM	Divine Rank NI, in fact.nja'ed, damn it. :P
Jaxgaret 04-11-08, 10:34 PM	All I can say is lolz. I'm looking up Ice Assassin now. EDIT: Are gods definitely considered "creatures"? Also, it is entirely plausible that every god has a power on 24/7 called "Ice Assassin won't copy me", which necessitates Pun-Pun actively confronting a god and disabling the power before this trick will work. That spell is hilarious as an SLA since it simply ignores the trifecta of components necessary for the spell, two of which are quite expensive.
Cuindless 04-11-08, 10:50 PM	All I can say is lolz. I'm looking up Ice Assassin now. EDIT: Are gods definitely considered "creatures"? Also, it is entirely plausible that every god has a power on 24/7 called "Ice Assassin won't copy me", which necessitates Pun-Pun actively confronting a god and disabling the power before this trick will work. That spell is hilarious as an SLA, since it ignores the trifecta of components necessary for the spell, two of which are quite expensive. 1. Gods are definitely considered creatures in Faerun. See "Faiths and Pantheons". 2. Ice Assassin Won't Copy Me isn't a spell in any sourcebook I'm aware of, so that would fall under a houserule. Houserules are generally disregarded in pure optimization. 3. That trifecta is precisely the reason to make it an SLA, though the epic feat "Ignore Material Components" would work too.
pmurray@bigpond.com 04-11-08, 11:02 PM	:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: They let Monks according to the sages use TWF in a flurry because of some loop hole in the rules just because every other person has the option to do it. Agreed. IMO: flurry is TWF - monk style. The rules would be clearer if they said a monk gets TWF with monk weapons automatically, and "flurry of blows" is the class feature that gradually lowers the twf penalty (with monk weapons) to zero. Given that interpretation, the monk's class feature progression needs to include improved flurry and the other one that increases the number of off-hand attacks to 2 and 3 (with monk weapons). It's not overpowered compared to a fighter because of the monk's 3/4 BAB progression. The monk may take twf defense and all that. However, if they were to want to use non-monk weapons then they's have to take martial wepon proficiency, normal TWF etc. Using two swords the way a soldier does it is a completely different way of fighting.
Ace_of_time 04-11-08, 11:29 PM	Game design research. Reading between the lines and observing records of the iconic's battles. It's there. The game was tested with 25 PB single classed core only characters. Enemies and Allies even includes statblocks for each of them at level 5, 10, and 15. This allows us to see a number of flat out wasted feats which further magnifies this. I don't mean suboptimal when I say wasted, I mean wasted. They're all over the place feat wise. Someone hasn't seen a proper gish. Hint: They do the martial guy's job much better and still do their own. :nonono: First off this 'bending the rules' bit? It's utter nonsense. Unless there's a hardset rule 'you're a fighter, you do not get nice thing and you must be boring and ineffectual without heavy optimization drawing from half the books in existence' it does not bend any rules. You're welcome to provide specific examples to counter that, but the same old fallback doesn't hold up unless proven a valid counterpoint. The only significant flaws in that entire book is not wording Iron Heart Surge a bit better, not applying rule -1 = don't be an idiot to White Raven Tactics infinite loops, and... oh wait, that's all of it. In other words, the only way it will ever remotely be a rule bending problem is if you allow borked interpretations of the rules, at which point you should be more concerned about Wish infinite loops, Pun-Pun, Hiveminds, and other such things. 4d6 drop lowest = effectively 28-29 PB. Doesn't change the fact the iconics who were used for game and CR balance are 25, and having 25 be the standard when it should be 28 proves CR is higher than it should be slightly, not lower. As anyone who has played more than a game or two knows, this is not the case. For the fighter to take hits he needs to be both tough enough to do so, and threatening enough so the enemies want to hit him. To do this, he must be significantly optimized in order to bring his default low effectiveness to average. And you're saying the same thing, but acting like you're disagreeing? :confused: Ok, feat chain and at least 6th level to do something that would have been nice if you got it sooner when you were still getting swarmed by kobold warrior 1s. Ok. Bad example. Again, do some research on gishes. By the way, wizards can easily end up with higher AC than the fighter both because they can craft their own gear cheaper and spells. Though it would be more efficient to just cast Mirror Image or something and have 80+% of attacks miss before it even gets to the attack roll stage... Also, for the fighter to protect the rest he must again both be capable of taking it and capable of convincing the enemies to engage him. This too has already been addressed. There's that annoying abbreviation again... It has every importance. As this is the sole variable in fighter effectiveness, it is everything to them. Except feats were deliberately designed to be narrow and ineffective, so that actual class features were far better. It is one more testament to a lack of forethought in the core books that they did not connect the dots between 'intentional design decision to make feats weak' and 'class with only extra feats' to mean 'said class will now suck without massive splatbook and optimization support'. Being weaker means being less capable of doing his job. It's simple to understand. :nonono: :banghead: Try again.1. I think you are confused a little about whirlwind strike. I don't have to drop any one to get the extra attacks. I get one attack to any with in reach. It allows a 5' step. With the side stepping boots I can get 2-5' steps during that move. It doesn't work like cleave. It doesn't matter how many HP something has. I can do it every round. WHIRLWIND ATTACK [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4. Benefit: When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities. Special: A fighter may select Whirlwind Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats. 2. Working on the fighter spell slinger. Post back after it is done.
Jaxgaret 04-12-08, 12:09 AM	1. Gods are definitely considered creatures in Faerun. See "Faiths and Pantheons". Yeah, I thought so, just checking. 2. Ice Assassin Won't Copy Me isn't a spell in any sourcebook I'm aware of, so that would fall under a houserule. Houserules are generally disregarded in pure optimization. True, though Epic Spellcasting kind of requires houserules, since the Epic Spell List is so small. Developing Epic Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/developingEpicSpells.htm) 3. That trifecta is precisely the reason to make it an SLA Yep. , though the epic feat "Ignore Material Components" would work too. There's still the XP cost.
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 02:57 AM	1) White Raven Tactics with misinterpreting Crusader recovery system and 2) Iron Heart Surge 1) Step one: Thinking White Raven Tactics, giving someone another turn within a round works on yourself. [It doesn't.] Step two: Thinking when a crusader recovers his maneuvers, any he didn't use he still has. As such, if he has 4 maneuvers granted and not used, after using White Raven Tactics, when he recovers he gets back White Raven Tactics as it's the only one expended and immediately granted. In this way, combined with mistakenly using White Raven Tactics on himself, the crusader gets infinite turns. This is wrong because when a crusader recovers his maneuvers, any he happened not to use are also part of the randomization and all his maneuvers go back to not granted status excepting for the random two he starts with granted. 2) Iron Heart Surge is poorly worded and written such that it allows a warblade to end effects he shouldn't but not end effects he should. Iron Heart Surge, RAW, allows a warblade to end an Anti-Magic Field or Entangle because it's an ongoing effect. That is silly. It doesn't allow the warblade to end being stunned or nauseated because he can't take the standard action to activate the maneuver. Being stunned or nauseated is an ongoing condition that makes logical sense for the maneuver to have been able to end. Which is considerably less than "half the book". So we're still waiting on Ace_of_Time to show us the other 81 pages of loopholes.
Bergtann 04-12-08, 07:40 AM	I did actually ban the BoNS. Not for power reasons. Core is obviously a lot higher on the book-to-ban list if brokenness is an issue. I banned the Cleric and Druid partially for reasons of brokenness. I banned all the tomes, etc, because I haven't been back in the game for that long, and I am not allowing any alternate systems in untill I feel I have perfected my grip on the basic one.
kelvinaw273 04-12-08, 08:04 AM	I'm not trying to fight. But the average PC should be used to decide weaker or stronger. It is the opinion most on the boards that if it isn't opted the build sucks or the character will die. Or that every PC should kill things in one round because an opted PC can. That is not how it should be veiwed. This book may very well be a good tool for opted or powergaming games but for the average group the book causes more problems then it helps and that is why it is banned in most average groups. People should be more carefull typing opinions. Define 'weaker' and 'stronger'. Problem here is that some classes can do things well that others cannot do at all. Do you judge them by how well they can stand up to a straight slugging match? How well they can function in a standard party? Or do you summarize how each class alone could deal with a situation? There's no weak or strong classes, just different classes which fit different tactics. When people say a class is weaker or stronger what they really mean is they aren't using the class optimally, either because they do not know how to, or because the rest of the party demands different tactics that suit them. If you judge a 20th level wizard against a 20th level fighter, for example, and start them three feet apart, no prepared spells or buffs ... thing is circumstances and context are everything.
Cuindless 04-12-08, 08:13 AM	One contrived circumstance does not equalize two classes.
Magikeeper 04-12-08, 09:46 AM	Define 'weaker' and 'stronger'. Problem here is that some classes can do things well that others cannot do at all. Do you judge them by how well they can stand up to a straight slugging match? How well they can function in a standard party? Or do you summarize how each class alone could deal with a situation? Generally, I consider the fighter weak because of how well he functions in a standard party. Or a non-standard party for that matter. When you need to optimize in order to achieve mediocrity, there is a problem. There's no weak or strong classes, just different classes which fit different tactics. When people say a class is weaker or stronger what they really mean is they aren't using the class optimally, either because they do not know how to, or because the rest of the party demands different tactics that suit them. If you judge a 20th level wizard against a 20th level fighter, for example, and start them three feet apart, no prepared spells or buffs ... thing is circumstances and context are everything. How often will the fighter be standing 3 feet in front of an unprepared wizard? Furthermore, what class couldn't kill a lvl 20 wizard in that situation? Heck, with the right circumstances a lvl 20 commmoner with the right feats could kill that wizard. Does this mean that the commoner is as useful in a party as the fighter? No, because in most situations the commoner is worse. Circumstances may make all the difference, sure, but what we care about is the average. If you are subpar most of the time, you are weaker than those that are above par most of the time. This is because "most of the time" happens frequently while "3ft in front of a doomed wizard" situations rarely happen at all. I, in RL, could kill the best RL fighter in the world if he/she was sleeping. Heck, give me a gun and I can take 'em awake but unarmed. That does not make me as useful in combat as the best fighter. Getting back to your quote, are you seriously suggesting that the commoner is as useful to the party as the wizard? Better yet, as you saying that the NPC warrior class is as useful to the party as the fighter? The fact that they are NPC classes is beside the point. If there is no such thing as a weak class, then even NPC classes are as powerful as everyone else.
Count Arioch the 28th 04-12-08, 10:11 AM	I think that saying a fighter is equal to a wizard when the wizard doesn't have any spells and is five feet away from the fighter is pretty much a textbook example of a straw man argument.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-12-08, 10:25 AM	You didn't read my post, Ace of Time? Watch this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=12819646&postcount=108), and enlighten yourself. I could thrust you for reading it, but too many times whiners, when facing the undeniable thruth provided in a link, prefered pretending. I think that if you have maturity enough, you understand and support our point. (The following part has been written by Tempest StormWind in the Tome of Battle Removed from our World?! thread.) For both characters, I'll consider them to have ability scores of 16/13/14/10*/12*/8. The warblade will put the 12 into Intelligence, the barbarian into Wisdom (as he has no need for Intelligence). This is the elite array adjusted for character level. As for equipment, both characters have 5400 GP to spend, according to the DMG. Both characters will be using a greatsword (arguably the best way to get big damage in the PHB, especially with Power Attack, which they will both have). The greatsword is a +1 weapon, which is appropriate for level 4 characters. Similarly, they will be wearing +1 breastplates, which (barring mithral) is the best core armor available to these classes at this level. Left with 1700 GP, they can't pump their AC or their attack rolls any higher in the core books or the Tome, so we'll leave the rest for "general equipment". Both classes have d12 HD, medium armor proficiency, and 4 skill points per level. It is for this reason that I compare the warblade and the barbarian as opposed to the warblade and the fighter. (There are also fewer complaints about barbarians in general.) This means that both characters have a +8 bonus to attack with their greatsword, which deals 2d6+5 damage by default, while they have an AC of 17. These numbers are critical. I've left out critical hits for the sake of time, but crits favor the barbarian (since the bonus damage from maneuvers is almost always damage dice, which don't multiply in the case of a crit).The Critter Filter (http://megariqueza.com/DnD/CritterFilter.php) (a popular CO resource) illustrates the following statistics about the 85 CR 4 monsters in all the listed D&D books: Mean (Std. Deviation): AC: 16.26 (2.59) HP: 44.76 (17.47) Melee Attack Roll: 7.82 (3.82) Assuming a normal distribution (a fair assumption given how D&D has grown), this means that 68.2% of the CR 4 monsters have values within one standard deviation of the mean (for instance, 68.2% of the CR 4 monsters have ACs between 13 and 18 -- truncating to integers here because there are no non-integer ACs). These numbers are critical to the demonstration. CritterFilter, however, doesn't give an easy way of searching monster counterattack damage values. Thus, we just assume that getting hit is a Very Bad Thing. Thus, if your AC would drop to the point where the monsters have greater than a 65% chance to hit you, we'll call it unacceptable. (It would be 50%, but let's face it, due to medium armor and high HP, these two are meant to take hits, not negate them. I figured the extra 15% would account for that, based on the difference between the highest core Medium armor (+5 AC) to the highest core Heavy armor (+8) being 3, equating to a 15% higher chance to be hit in medium armor.)On a related note, this analysis (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=861084) suggests that the following grades be used, at least as far as weighted damage (average damage * chance to hit) is concerned. Passable: 10% of monster HP in one round Optimal: 20% of monster HP in one round Overpowered: 50% of monster HP in one round Twink: 100% of monster HP in one round. I will be using these to rate the result. (Note that "optimal" means that in a party of 4 optimal characters, a monster goes down in just over one round. Spells that don't do damage are translated into equivalents -- for instance, Slay Living deals 100% of the monster's HP in damage, equivalently, but has a chance of working based off of its save and your DC, which weights it.) However, I'm differing from it in one regard: I'm using the *average* values for monsters of this CR. I'm not evaluating it against boss monsters, nor am I evaluating a specific build. I'm assuming all things are equal and average wherever possible (which is also why I've only used one feat on each character).The warblade at level 4 has 5 maneuvers known, up to 2 of which can be 2nd level. The strongest reliable damaging maneuver he has access to at the moment (in terms of raw damage) is Rabid Wolf Strike, but that drops his AC to 14 (69.1% chance for the monster to hit him, greater than 65%), making it an unacceptable choice. Mountain Hammer and Tactical Strike deal similar damage (+2d6) and have their own situational benefits (bypassing DR and letting adjacent allies scatter, for instance), and as such I'll consider these instead. Due to the maneuver prerequisites, it's POSSIBLE to know both maneuvers at this level, but not recommended, especially since you can only ready 4 maneuvers and you probably want a defensive move or two on the list (Diamond Mind counters or Iron Heart's Wall of Blades, for instance), in addition to diverse offenses. Thus, we'll give the warblade one or the other of these. Note that Mountain Hammer is a common source of knee-jerk reactions on this board, so it's appropriate we'll work with it. So, let's evaluate each of these. Note that stances might change this (and are discussed below), but boosts will not (as there are no level 1 or 2 warblade boosts that relate to damage; in fact, the only warblade boost at this point is Sudden Leap). Round 1 On this round, the warblade advances to his foe and uses a standard action to initiate either maneuver I mentioned above. He can't make other attacks, nor can he charge and use this maneuver. Since the enemy is AC 16 and we have a +8 attack bonus on an attack that deals 4d6+5 (average 19) damage before Power Attack, it's easy to crunch the numbers and determine that the optimal Power Attack number is -1. This results in 4d6+7 damage (average 21) hitting 55% of the time, which produces a weighted average of 11.5 damage (25.7% of the average CR 4 monster's HP). Round 2 The maneuver you used earlier is now expended. You cannot use it again this encounter unless you recover it, which involves spending a swift action and then making a normal melee attack. Since you don't get your maneuver's bonus damage here, you have a lower base seed damage (2d6+5 without Power Attack) for the same attack rolls. Running the numbers on this again shows the optimal Power Attack number to be -3, which gives us 2d6+11 (avg. 18) hitting 45% of the time -- a weighted average of 8.1 damage (or 18.1% of the monster's HP). DR discussion: Since we're using Mountain Hammer, the first hit ignores DR. However, the CR 4 monster crowd rarely has DR, and what little is there is mostly DR/Magic (which your +1 sword bypasses). Thus, this will not have a significant impact on battles at this point (in fact, Mountain Hammer is more likely to see use out of combat (which you can do once per minute) for breaking objects, or in combat at this level to sunder, which deprives the party of loot.) Stance discussion: The warblade has two stances at this point that could impact damage: Leading the Charge (+4 on charge damage) and Punishing Stance (+1d6 on melee damage, -2 AC). He's not charging here, so Leading the Charge is out. Punishing Stance does adjust the numbers ever so slightly (to 13.5 damage on the first round and 9.75 damage the second round, equating to 51.9% of the monster's HP). This may make it look good, even with the -2 AC penalty (which equates to a 64.1% chance of the monster hitting him, as opposed to 54.1%. Still acceptable, as determined above)... except for one little detail. Punishing Stance sucks in general. It's great in low-level mooks, but since you can't change your stances known as you level up, and you can't use two stances at once (until level 20), the non-scaling Punishing Stance generally isn't taken except by characters who don't expect to see higher-level use. This might be the case in your game, I don't know, so I'll include both numbers. Total weighted damage over two rounds: Without Punishing Stance: 43.8% of the monster's HP (25.7%/18.1%) With Punishing Stance: 51.9% of the monster's HP (30.2%/21.8%). Final grade: Without Punishing Stance: Optimal on the first hit and Passable on the second. With Punishing Stance: Optimal on both hits. Please read the Punishing Stance note above to guess how common this shows up (summary: Not as often as you'd think except in always-low-level games, and level 4 is, as I said above, a sweet spot for the warblade).The barbarian has primitive tactics, naturally: Rage, move in, and attack. Rage increases his Strength to 20, his attack bonus to +10, and his base damage output to 2d6+8 (average 15) before Power Attack. Rage does reduce his AC to 15 (a 64.1% chance of being hit; we're still fine), but it also provides other defensive benefits as well. Round 1 Approach and hit the bugger. The optimal power attack against AC 16 for this character is -3, resulting in 11.55 weighted damage (25.8% of the monster's HP). Round 2 Second verse, same as the first. Another 25.8% of the monster's HP. Total weighted damage over two rounds: 51.6% (25.8%/25.8%) of the monster's HP. Final Grade: Optimal on both attacks.Note that the warblade, without Punishing Stance (which is rarely chosen due to bad scaling; as I said above level 4 is a sweet spot for warblades), dishes out 43.8% of the average CR 4 monster's HP over two rounds (that is, 19.6 damage), as compared to the core-only barbarian dishing out 51.6% of the same monster's HP (23.1 damage)). The core-only barbarian outdoes the fancy-schmancy warblade at this level. However, if the warblade does use Punishing Stance at this special sweet-spot in his career, which is a subpar choice in the long run since other 1st level stances, notably Hunter's Scent, Blood in the Water, and Leading the Charge, happen to scale, he dishes out 51.9% (23.2 damage) over two rounds, outdoing the barbarian by 0.3% (that is, 0.1 damage). That said, if he does use Punishing Stance, his AC drops to the same as the raging barbarian (15)... without the commensurate +8 HP and +2 Will increase the barbarian gets in a rage. Plus, for opposed checks (such as trips), Punishing Stance is no substitute for an increase in Strength. (In short, -2 AC for +2 damage, +2 attack, +2 Strength checks, +2 Will, +8 HP is better than -2 AC for +3.5 damage.) The warblade can outperform a core-only barbarian at this level if and only if he uses a poor stance selection, which is only useful at this level because, as I've said, it's a sweet spot for the warblade. The only reason the barbarian won't be doing so hot later in the day is because he was first developed in his current form SEVEN YEARS AGO, back when the per-day balancing paradigm reigned supreme. If Rage were built on a per-encounter system (i.e. Berserker Strength, PHB2), you can get similar results all day long. The results are similar -- but the warblade is far more fun to use since it's not the same tactics round in, round out. Furthermore, the warblade has reason to NOT use his maneuvers -- if that maneuver was Tactical Strike, he'd probably want to save it until his allies were in position, meaning he has to pay attention to and work with his allies, holding himself back until he needs to lead the attack.I keep saying "sweet spot". I mean it. I've done comparisons at level 1 (the strongest level 1 maneuver in terms of increased weapon damage is Sapphire Nightmare Blade; Charging Minotaur and Wolf Fang Strike can come close but we were using greatswords). I've done comparisons at level 6 (using Bonecrusher). I've done comparisons at level 8 (using White Raven Strike; Ruby Nightmare Blade doesn't surpass it at this level except on a critical hit, which can't be guaranteed). I've done it again at level 11 (using Rabid Bear Strike's whopping +10d6 damage). I've done each of these levels using Punishing Stance and using other stances; as soon as level 6 hits, it doesn't keep up with the barbarian. The results are always the same -- very comparable to a barbarian. The key is that as levels go up, the barbarian's rage boosts all of his attack rolls enough that he can Power Attack more than the warblade can for the same chance to hit. Typically, the barbarian will come close to matching the warblade over two rounds if his first attack of each round hits, and he's got a pretty good chance of exceeding the warblade dramatically if ANY of his secondary attacks of either round hit. There are, of course, a few sweet-spots for the warblade, usually on the levels right when the warblade gains a new maneuver level but the barbarian doesn't gain an additional attack. Level 4, the level you had KalTorak start at, happens to be one such level (access to 2nd level maneuvers, no second attack on the barbarian), although level 5 is actually a bit more skewed (3rd level maneuvers, one attack on the barbarian). This is virtually IDENTICAL to the warlock, I might add (another class where the words "at will" were met with a knee-jerk 'too strong' reaction), where 5th level warlocks have been deemed "too strong" and "overpowered" by several DMs, when they rapidly drop to second-fiddle by level 6-7. And yet they, and ToB adepts, remain remarkably fun to play. As I noted in other threads, there *is* the potential for the warblade to outdo the barbarian -- but it's more along the lines of THIS SPECIFIC warblade in THIS SPECIFIC situation (for level 4, it's a charging White Raven specialist going nova with two maneuvers in two rounds and relying on enemy positioning). For repeatable assaults from general builds (those requiring a minumum number of manuevers), we consistently see numbers very close to a barbarian with no feats spent except Power Attack. (There are a few exceptions -- level 5 and level 15 favor the warblade. At most other levels, though, it's the barbarian, providing that the barbarian can full attack.) If you tell me it isn't satisfying...
wraithstrike 04-12-08, 11:33 AM	Define 'weaker' and 'stronger'. Problem here is that some classes can do things well that others cannot do at all. Do you judge them by how well they can stand up to a straight slugging match? How well they can function in a standard party? Or do you summarize how each class alone could deal with a situation? There's no weak or strong classes, just different classes which fit different tactics. When people say a class is weaker or stronger what they really mean is they aren't using the class optimally, either because they do not know how to, or because the rest of the party demands different tactics that suit them. If you judge a 20th level wizard against a 20th level fighter, for example, and start them three feet apart, no prepared spells or buffs ... thing is circumstances and context are everything. A class is weaker when it does not contribute as much to a party, and that situation does not prove the fighter is equal to a wizard. It only proves a DM is good at railroading, because that is the only way a fighter will get that close to a caster with any spells prepared. If you are going to judge two classes, and you take away one class's abilities the experiment is already contaminated. I am sure if any of the MMA fighters lost both arms, and legs I could beat them in a fight since that is their means of offense, so a fighter beating a crippled wizard really does nothing for your argument, except prove a fighter only has a standing chance when the wizard is crippled, further proving his weakness. You just scored in the wrong goal.
kelvinaw273 04-12-08, 12:51 PM	I'm glad most people saw the point I was trying to make - circumstances make a big difference, and if you rig the test to favour the strengths of one class over the weakness of another, there's no point in the test. Certainly I concede the point that you can then rig it so that a commoner can beat pun-pun (well, maybe not THAT far, but you see what I mean). I've seen it a lot in the "bards/monks/fighters/etc. are useless" threads, where the 'test' is measured by a yardstick that is skewed. If a character can fulfill a role in the party, then the character is not useless. Getting the most out of characters is a question of tactics, not just class abilities. Sometimes parties need to use different tactics to bring this out. Assuming every adventure will be a series of four encounters, rest, repeat is not a good idea. Some adventures base around intrigue and mystery; others around blowing things up. If your spellcasters have run out of spells after four encounters and you have a fifth (sometimes enemies don't wait for you to come to them, you know) your fighter suddenly looks really nifty as the only party member still able to function properly. No character is useless, but some don't get to be useful as often as they (or other characters) would like, something I am sure you will agree with. Redressing this balance is a question of allowing the different classes to contribute effectively at different levels in different circumstances, or else allowing them to excel beyond others in an area that occurs reasonably frequently.
Traya 04-12-08, 02:15 PM	Which is considerably less than "half the book". So we're still waiting on Ace_of_Time to show us the other 81 pages of loopholes. Not to mention any smart DM would know what is ok and what goes too far with those abilities. Its not that hard to think in between the lines on things badly described. Also a Druid has his own little loop hole by throwing off his gear and equipping it after shape shifting into a humanoid-ish creature such as a monkey. This gives you the bonuses of your armor AND your shape shifted form. I think people keep blaming TOB for breaking or ignoring the rules because they don't have another reason to dislike it. They say it ignores rules because they don't know how it works or they like the vastly superior strength of spellcasters. But its ok guys , melee can and should be powerful too. If you don't like the book , don't blame it on stupid reasons like "it breaks the rules" , "It ignores the rules" , or "Its too anime". Because we all know you are wrong and have given many examples on how you are wrong.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 02:22 PM	Getting the most out of characters is a question of tactics, not just class abilities. Sometimes parties need to use different tactics to bring this out. Assuming every adventure will be a series of four encounters, rest, repeat is not a good idea. Some adventures base around intrigue and mystery; others around blowing things up. If your spellcasters have run out of spells after four encounters and you have a fifth (sometimes enemies don't wait for you to come to them, you know) your fighter suddenly looks really nifty as the only party member still able to function properly. So your fighters have a houserule granting them infinite HP? No? Oh too bad, looks like they get the limited resource stick too. See, 4 encounters expected to take 20% means the 5th is a TPK. 100% resources gone = -10 HP. Also, what party isn't sleeping in a Rope Trick or similar? And to Ace: I'm not confused at all. One attack to every opponent in reach, instead of focusing attacks means it would have been useful when you fought large numbers of weak enemies such as those kobold warrior 1s, but at this point you see a lot more of the smaller numbers of bigger, tougher enemies. This makes it considerably less useful. There was a thread about this. I forget the details, but the gist of it was 80-90% of the time you were better off not using it, at least as it took very rare circumstances for it to be worth using. As for crafting custom items (assuming that's what you're doing) if we're to delve deep into house rules, we enter onto grounds that greatly favor the caster. It would only weaken your case to do so. If not, let's see it.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 02:23 PM	I think people keep blaming TOB for breaking or ignoring the rules because they don't have another reason to dislike it. They say it ignores rules because they don't know how it works or they like the vastly superior strength of spellcasters. But its ok guys , melee can and should be powerful too. If you don't like the book , don't blame it on stupid reasons like "it breaks the rules" , "It ignores the rules" , or "Its too anime". Because we all know you are wrong and have given many examples on how you are wrong. :bow: +1.
Alyss 04-12-08, 03:13 PM	Disliking a book ecaue of its flavour isn't wrong. And ToB has a very anime-esque flavour (I know that's a broad term, but I think we all know what I mean). So if you don't like that flavour, ToB sucks. Rules-wise, there's clearly nothing wrong with it.
Khan2000 04-12-08, 03:21 PM	My initial reaction is to say, "That's impossible," but I bet there's a way to do it that I'm unaware of. Still, you were probably exaggerating. I was. :D But I think my point was made.
Jaxgaret 04-12-08, 03:22 PM	Disliking a book ecaue of its flavour isn't wrong. True, unless you're wrong about its flavor. There have been many threads on this very topic. And ToB has a very anime-esque flavour (I know that's a broad term, but I think we all know what I mean). No, we don't know what you mean, beyond your using the word "anime" to describe the ToB. We're not mindreaders. Anime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anime). What you are possibly referring to is shonen anime, but it's possible that it is not. Again, I could not tell you what you think, because I (and the other posters on this board) am not a mindreader. So if you don't like that flavour, ToB sucks. Rules-wise, there's clearly nothing wrong with it. What do you specifically dislike about the flavor? Also, flavor is mutable, even if you really do dislike the base flavor.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-12-08, 03:25 PM	Oh of course it's not wrong. The problem is, using as arbitrary a reason as that to ban a book (or encouraging banning it by others) is ridiculous. Nearly all classes are just tool kits to build a character's abilities anyway, they've got little or no connection to its flavour and that can be redone however you like. It's about as reasonable as having this exchange. DM: There will be no eating while I'm DM! Players: What? Why?! DM: I dislike sweet flavours, and snacks are sweet. Look at Snickers bars! Players: Um, okay, but we could just bring chips and stuff, they're salty, not sweet. Just as long as we've got a source of carbs to keep the brain topped off on glucose... DM: No snacks for anyone! I am DM, my word is inviolable!!
Senevri 04-12-08, 03:39 PM	I guess one could say ToB has CINEMATIC flavor, so if you'd never ever consider using Action Points either.... That being said, ToB entered my game before action points did.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 03:48 PM	Where's that thread where the Warblade was reflavored to have a Nordic theme? CLW potion = healing salve. I forget what the maneuvers were changed to be called.
Senevri 04-12-08, 03:54 PM	Also, Diamond Mind + Stone Dragon = hard style Karate. Diamond Mind + Setting Sun = Aikido ... Or something like that. There's a ToB reflavoring thread here somewhere. It's REALLY easy to draw parallels, though.
Cuindless 04-12-08, 04:48 PM	Oh of course it's not wrong. The problem is, using as arbitrary a reason as that to ban a book (or encouraging banning it by others) is ridiculous. Nearly all classes are just tool kits to build a character's abilities anyway, they've got little or no connection to its flavour and that can be redone however you like. It's about as reasonable as having this exchange. From a supposedly "flavor" standpoint: Barbarian - Raging savage from an uncivilized land. Bard - Foppish musician and singer. Cleric - Formally trained priest of his god. Fighter - Battle hardened warrior. Rogue - Tricky, stealthy little thief. From a purely mechanical standpoint, could be reflavored as: Barbarian - Tee-drinking philosopher who has learned to explode in rage. Bard - Town politician with amazing oratory skills. Cleric - Wandering madman "called" by his god. Fighter - Complete coward. Rogue - Humble locksmith or town acrobat. Flavor seems like it's just a suggestion, really. I don't play every fighter, barbarian or cleric the same way.
Ecalsneerg 04-12-08, 05:26 PM	Barbarian - Tee-drinking philosopher who has learned to explode in rage. 8-bit Theatre reference? Tome of Battle is easy to reflavour. (Ex) maneuvers should be possible within the laws of 'physics' (of course, in-game physics past level 5 start to become superhuman, but they are physics nonetheless). (Su) maneuvers need a little work. My dragonmarked swordsage describes some of them, like the one-round invisibility one as a highly focussed use of the Mark of Passage. My Tiefling sublime ranger... well, conjuring up darkness? For a Tiefling? I don't need to reflavour.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 05:48 PM	So why not ban clerics , druids , and wizards? You will get more loopholes out of them than any other classes. I'd also like to add where are these said loopholes in TOB? I haven't seen any. Ive heard people say that stances shouldnt be on at all times , well yeah , in fact they should. Most of them only effect battle anyway , but the ones that don't are things like Sneak attack damage , extra speed , being able to float (swordsage one because they are magical-ish). Every stance is no better than a normal class feature and for most classes you can only choose one at a time. So where good sir , are there these so called "loopholes"?I have no problem with stances that give out of combat bonuses being used out of combat. 9 times out of ten a player uses the stance all the time so the can gain the benefit of it at the start of every combat encounter instead of having to activate first. You have to look at the book objectively to see them. If you love the book you some times overlook things without realizing it. For the most part the whole book could make most thing more clear so it would be less confusing to others and new players. Some if not all of the stances are very confusing. Take shifting defense. The first part of the entry says you get a 5' step on a missed attack. Then it goes on to say that you get it on any attack roll. Some say that the first part is fluff and you go by the 2nd part. Why even put the first in there if that is the opposite of how it works? I don't mind classes using martial arts. But they could have done a better job of it. All the book basically does is turn a melee class into a caster without using magic. My group and I just happen to think that if we wanted a caster type then we would go spellcaster or the like. I have never had problems from wizards/ clerics/ druids. For the most part it is the person that make the loop holes a problem not the classes. I am just really glad for my players, They choose class and concepts based on what they find fun to play and don't worry about what The VIEWS say is better or worst based on the FACTS that some people just made up and call the best.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 05:57 PM	Unless they have something else to use their Swift actions on it makes no difference whatsoever. Even if they do... how is going into a fighting stance when fighting bad? Still waiting on those alleged loopholes.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 06:13 PM	Define 'weaker' and 'stronger'. Problem here is that some classes can do things well that others cannot do at all. Do you judge them by how well they can stand up to a straight slugging match? How well they can function in a standard party? Or do you summarize how each class alone could deal with a situation? There's no weak or strong classes, just different classes which fit different tactics. When people say a class is weaker or stronger what they really mean is they aren't using the class optimally, either because they do not know how to, or because the rest of the party demands different tactics that suit them. If you judge a 20th level wizard against a 20th level fighter, for example, and start them three feet apart, no prepared spells or buffs ... thing is circumstances and context are everything.1st to the weaker/ stronger part. Main Entry: weak Pronunciation: \ˈwēk\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English weike, from Old Norse veikr; akin to Old English wīcan to yield, Greek eikein to give way, Sanskrit vijate he speeds, flees Date: 14th century 1: lacking strength: as a: deficient in physical vigor : feeble, debilitated b: not able to sustain or exert much weight, pressure, or strain c: not able to resist external force or withstand attack d: easily upset or nauseated <a weak stomach> 2 a: mentally or intellectually deficient b: not firmly decided : vacillating c: resulting from or indicating lack of judgment or discernment d: not able to withstand temptation or persuasion <the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak> 3: not factually grounded or logically presented <a weak argument> 4 a: not able to function properly <weak eyes> b (1): lacking skill or proficiency <tutoring for weaker students> (2): indicative of a lack of skill or aptitude <history was my weakest subject> c: wanting in vigor of expression or effect <a weak translation of the poem> 5 a: deficient in the usual or required ingredients : dilute <weak coffee> b: lacking normal intensity or potency <a weak radio signal> <a weak strain of virus> 6 a: not having or exerting authority or political power <weak government> b: ineffective, impotent 7: of, relating to, or constituting a verb or verb conjugation that in English forms the past tense and past participle by adding the suffix -ed or -d or -t 8 a: bearing the minimal degree of stress occurring in the language <a weak syllable> b: having little or no stress and obscured vowel sound <'d in he'd is the weak form of would> 9: tending toward a lower price or value <a weak market> <a weak dollar> 10: ionizing only slightly in solution <weak acids and bases> And Main Entry: strong Pronunciation: \ˈstrȯŋ\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): stron·ger \ˈstrȯŋ-gər also -ər\; stron·gest \ˈstrȯŋ-gəst also -əst\ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English strang; akin to Old High German strengi strong, Latin stringere to bind tight — more at strain Date: before 12th century 1: having or marked by great physical power 2: having moral or intellectual power 3: having great resources (as of wealth or talent) 4: of a specified number <an army ten thousand strong> 5 a: striking or superior of its kind <a strong resemblance> b: effective or efficient especially in a specified direction <strong on watching other people work — A. Alvarez>6: forceful, cogent <strong evidence> <strong talk> 7: not mild or weak : extreme, intense: as a: rich in some active agent <strong beer> bof a color : high in chroma c: ionizing freely in solution <strong acids and bases> d: magnifying by refracting greatly <a strong lens> 8obsolete : flagrant 9: moving with rapidity or force <a strong wind> 10: ardent, zealous <a strong supporter> 11 a: not easily injured or disturbed : solid b: not easily subdued or taken <a strong fort> 12: well established : firm <strong beliefs> 13: not easily upset or nauseated <a strong stomach> 14: having an offensive or intense odor or flavor : rank <strong breath> 15: tending to steady or higher prices <a strong market> 16: of, relating to, or being a verb that is inflected by a change in the root vowel (as strive, strove, striven) rather than by regular affixation — strong adverb — strong·ish \ˈstrȯŋ-ish\ adjective — strong·ly \ˈstrȯŋ-lē\ adverb Now if you are comparing two classes the you would have to compare them with the same type of classes. Fighter being a physical class or melee type would need to be compared to other classes of those type. Most think it is funny to take a class/build and just say it is worthless because a opt wizard or even a reg wizard puts it to shame with it's spells. Fighter is not a caster type and there for it serves no purpose to compare it to wizard and say, "Wizard is a better class because I can do things with spells he can't" Well of course you can, he doesn't use spells. If you are going to compare which classes are better are worse then use the party roles to divide up the classes and then decide the power level of the classes based off what role they would play in battle.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 06:40 PM	Unless they have something else to use their Swift actions on it makes no difference whatsoever. Even if they do... how is going into a fighting stance when fighting bad? Still waiting on those alleged loopholes.Yes it does. You can only preform a swift action on your turn. So using the stance all the time saves them from not getting the benefits of the stance till their turn. This is a rules loop hole. The book even says they can stay in the stance till they are helpless. They can ride a horse, sit in a chair, even do the hokie pokie and turn themselves around in the stance.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 06:49 PM	You didn't read my post, Ace of Time? If you tell me it isn't satisfying...Yes I read it. To the both seemed to do theirs jobs well. A few percents one way or the other doesn't seem that big of a difference. At least they are the same types.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-12-08, 06:54 PM	Yes it does. You can only preform a swift action on your turn. So using the stance all the time saves them from not getting the benefits of the stance till their turn. This is a rules loop hole. The book even says they can stay in the stance till they are helpless. They can ride a horse, sit in a chair, even do the hokie pokie and turn themselves around in the stance. That's no loophole. You're only describing the facty a fact a stance is maintained until changed. Still waiting for real loopholes.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 07:03 PM	So your fighters have a houserule granting them infinite HP? No? Oh too bad, looks like they get the limited resource stick too. See, 4 encounters expected to take 20% means the 5th is a TPK. 100% resources gone = -10 HP. Also, what party isn't sleeping in a Rope Trick or similar? And to Ace: I'm not confused at all. One attack to every opponent in reach, instead of focusing attacks means it would have been useful when you fought large numbers of weak enemies such as those kobold warrior 1s, but at this point you see a lot more of the smaller numbers of bigger, tougher enemies. This makes it considerably less useful. There was a thread about this. I forget the details, but the gist of it was 80-90% of the time you were better off not using it, at least as it took very rare circumstances for it to be worth using. As for crafting custom items (assuming that's what you're doing) if we're to delve deep into house rules, we enter onto grounds that greatly favor the caster. It would only weaken your case to do so. If not, let's see it.At 6th level my BAB is +6/+1. If I am fighting 2 big baddies I can use whirlwind strike and get +6/+6. At +1 the 2nd attack will most likely miss. The more people no matter the HP the better it is to use it. 3= +6/+6/+6 4= +6/+6/+6/+6 The only time it is not useful is if there is only one with in reach or if you have more attack for a full attack action then enemies. A 8th level fighter with whirlwind strike against 2 people using a falchion with improved critical, power attack, and if your lucky a race with powerful build would most likely be able to keep the enemies busy.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 07:08 PM	That's no loophole. You're only describing the facty a fact a stance is maintained until changed. Still waiting for real loopholes.And surprising enough they added that in the book so you could do that. Wasn't that nice.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 04-12-08, 07:11 PM	Yes I read it. To the both seemed to do theirs jobs well. A few percents one way or the other doesn't seem that big of a difference. At least they are the same types. Great!:) Now we'll start hammering some common sense in that head. At 6th level my BAB is +6/+1. If I am fighting 2 big baddies I can use whirlwind strike and get +6/+6. At +1 the 2nd attack will most likely miss. The more people no matter the HP the better it is to use it. 3= +6/+6/+6 4= +6/+6/+6/+6 The only time it is not useful is if there is only one with in reach or if you have more attack for a full attack action then enemies. A 8th level fighter with whirlwind strike against 2 people using a falchion with improved critical, power attack, and if your lucky a race with powerful build would most likely be able to keep the enemies busy. 1st step toward common sense: Whirlwind Attack is a waste of a feat. It might look good on paper, but it is too costly for the benefits.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 07:21 PM	It only looks that way from a far. Remember I go defense build on fighter so I'm already going to take dodge, mobility, and combat expertise even if I don't take whirlwind strike. I pick up spring attack to help take care of reach. So it really only cost MY build for fighter 1 feat. The rest I would use anyway. This is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You assumed that it was a waste for my build because it cost alot for most builds. It doesn't cost much for defense build. Side note:On page 5 of TOB it basically says the whole book is so melee types can cast spells. Side note2: Combat expertise add a dodge bonus to your AC. That ups my Touch AC as well. Goes great with that ghostwarded armor and shield.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 07:29 PM	Thing is 'defense builds' at least the way you're putting them are wastes of feats, as they tend to make you non threatening (CE), meaning even less stuff wants to attack you anyways in favor of mauling the wizard or someone actually posing a threat. Oh and reach often comes with trip. No Tumble? Say hi to the floor for me.
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 07:50 PM	Well Then maybe you should check again because I do have tumble thanks to the UA feat that gives me a class skill. Which also ups my Fighting defense. And again you assume. My group is only 2 other players. One goes some kind of skillmonkey and the other most goes cleric/ranger/druid. That leaves me to ether cover tank or spell caster. I go defense when she goes cleric or ranger mostly. I still deal damage above average also. Sometime we play non caster games too. Right now we are three tanks.
Sunic_Flames 04-12-08, 08:15 PM	Ok, so you're either a dwarf, or wearing lighter armor and therefore losing out on AC anyways. And if you are a dwarf, you still lose out on mobility. Define 'above average'.
Entropy_Judge 04-12-08, 09:07 PM	Also, Diamond Mind + Stone Dragon = hard style Karate. Diamond Mind + Setting Sun = Aikido ... Or something like that. There's a ToB reflavoring thread here somewhere. It's REALLY easy to draw parallels, though. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?referrerid=406019&t=846396
Ace_of_time 04-12-08, 09:35 PM	Ok, so you're either a dwarf, or wearing lighter armor and therefore losing out on AC anyways. And if you are a dwarf, you still lose out on mobility. Define 'above average'.mithral chainmail.
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 09:48 PM	Yes it does. You can only preform a swift action on your turn. So using the stance all the time saves them from not getting the benefits of the stance till their turn. This is a rules loop hole. The same way casting a buff spell with a long duration is a "loophole"? It's not a "loophole" if that's how it's intended to work. The fact that the designers came out and said in the book that it works that way means that it's intentional, and therefor not a "loophole".
Jaxgaret 04-12-08, 10:58 PM	The same way casting a buff spell with a long duration is a "loophole"? Or the same way that a character who has the Dodge feat can have their dodge bonus 24/7? No way can someone be dodging every second of every day! That's gotta be a loophole.
Cuindless 04-12-08, 11:02 PM	Or the same way that a character who has the Dodge feat can have their dodge bonus 24/7? No way can someone be dodging every second of every day! That's gotta be a loophole. Or the way a monk's Wis bonus is always applied to his AC. 24/7?! Gotta be a loophole.
King_Of_Blood 04-13-08, 12:50 AM	Can't forget the fighter carrying around his sword in his hand, ready for battle, all day.
Traya 04-13-08, 12:51 AM	And surprising enough they added that in the book so you could do that. Wasn't that nice. Wow. So adding in that a stance can be maintained till changed or when becoming helpless in the SAME book stances were created is a loophole? I guess long duration buffs and class abilities are loop holes too. Its a shame that monks AC bonus lasts all the time except for when they are immobolized or helpless. Thats such a terrible loophole. Are you seriously reading what you are typing? Or are you arguing just for argues sake? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole Ace. On the anime part , take a gander on the "TOB too anime?" thread. Perhaps that will enlighten you on how its just as much western as it is anime. The flavor in TOB also encompasses that of barbarians , monks , rogues , fighters , ninjas , etc. Guess you shouldnt play all those for flavor either. If you like spellcasters so much please stop trying to argue and go play your spellcasters. Its ok though , one day you will understand that melee should have more options and in combat abilities too. Especially since they are so much like casting spells (what with the whole different system of mechanics).
kelvinaw273 04-13-08, 07:59 AM	So your fighters have a houserule granting them infinite HP? No? Oh too bad, looks like they get the limited resource stick too. See, 4 encounters expected to take 20% means the 5th is a TPK. 100% resources gone = -10 HP. Well, assuming that casters are so powerful, and fighters so useless, he's presumably been sitting it out, sharpening his sword or whatever, so he won't be on -10 hp. Even if he gets injured, some of those party resources are healing resources (spells, potions, etc.). So by the time he rests, he's on or close to full hp. Edit: As healing resources tend to be in the form of 'adventure long' rather than 'day long' another way to make the non-caster's work is to use them to get the caster's into position. For example, consider the 'raid the BBEG's stronghold' scenario - if the BBEG becomes aware of you in his fortress, he'll track you down and elimninate you if you stop to rest - and you can't use your entryway twice, so you have to be fast. You let your fighters and rogues deal with the lion's share of the encounters, using the minimum of spells to save resources for the BBEG fight at the end. Also, what party isn't sleeping in a Rope Trick or similar? Many of them, but there are ways of attacking all of those methods. Extradimensional Spell is a metamagic feat that makes your spell effect an extradimensional space, like a rope-trick. Also, rope trick stops you taking your Bag of Holding with you ... Disliking a book ecaue of its flavour isn't wrong. And ToB has a very anime-esque flavour (I know that's a broad term, but I think we all know what I mean). So if you don't like that flavour, ToB sucks. Rules-wise, there's clearly nothing wrong with it. Except the badly written rules. Now if you are comparing two classes the you would have to compare them with the same type of classes. Fighter being a physical class or melee type would need to be compared to other classes of those type. Most think it is funny to take a class/build and just say it is worthless because a opt wizard or even a reg wizard puts it to shame with it's spells. Fighter is not a caster type and there for it serves no purpose to compare it to wizard and say, "Wizard is a better class because I can do things with spells he can't" Well of course you can, he doesn't use spells. If you are going to compare which classes are better are worse then use the party roles to divide up the classes and then decide the power level of the classes based off what role they would play in battle. I agree, and if a party works out some tactics in advance with a little foresight, almost any character has a role to play.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 08:43 AM	The same way casting a buff spell with a long duration is a "loophole"? It's not a "loophole" if that's how it's intended to work. The fact that the designers came out and said in the book that it works that way means that it's intentional, and therefor not a "loophole". Main Entry: 1loop·hole Pronunciation: \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\ Function: noun Etymology: 1loop Date: 1591 1 a: a small opening through which small arms may be fired b: a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation 2: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded They made the book so that you could get around some of the rules used in the core books. That is a Loophole. Allowing some to jump without a head start and half the DCis a loophole, Giving a person more 5' steps so they can move out of the way of attacks without being hit is a loophole, There are tons of examples in there and I don't feel the need to go through them all. 95% of the spells in the PHB are not loopholes. I haven't really come across one that would be considered one. None of the casters people before used as an example have class freatures that create loopholes. But this whole book was made to allow melee types to cast spells, Putting them inline on powerlevel in the opted view as casters.
Senevri 04-13-08, 08:59 AM	They made the book so that you could get around some of the rules used in the core books. That is a Loophole. Allowing some to jump without a head start and half the DCis a loophole, Giving a person more 5' steps so they can move out of the way of attacks without being hit is a loophole, There are tons of examples in there and I don't feel the need to go through them all. 95% of the spells in the PHB are not loopholes. I haven't really come across one that would be considered one. None of the casters people before used as an example have class freatures that create loopholes. But this whole book was made to allow melee types to cast spells, Putting them inline on powerlevel in the opted view as casters. Oh, for!!! You are aware that this is an exception-based game? For an example... if your hit points go below 0, you cannot act. ...Unless you have the Die Hard feat. In addition, if you try to initiate the grapple, you take an AoO, unless you have a feat that denies that. When you move, you provoke attacks of opportunity. Unless you have enough ranks in tumble to make the DC 15 check. Most PHB casters are kinda low on class features in the first place. That being said, I don't see any loopholes in the class features of ToB classes, either --- unless you're referring to maneuvers, in which case, you must include the caster's spellcasting. ...Which doesn't create any loopholes, as you define them. Srsly. Except, that you get to, oh, FLY. And you complain about giving people the ability to make longer jumps. Seriosly, you have no ground to stand on, here.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 08:59 AM	Wow. So adding in that a stance can be maintained till changed or when becoming helpless in the SAME book stances were created is a loophole? I guess long duration buffs and class abilities are loop holes too. Its a shame that monks AC bonus lasts all the time except for when they are immobolized or helpless. Thats such a terrible loophole. Are you seriously reading what you are typing? Or are you arguing just for argues sake? You are just digging yourself a bigger hole Ace. On the anime part , take a gander on the "TOB too anime?" thread. Perhaps that will enlighten you on how its just as much western as it is anime. The flavor in TOB also encompasses that of barbarians , monks , rogues , fighters , ninjas , etc. Guess you shouldnt play all those for flavor either. If you like spellcasters so much please stop trying to argue and go play your spellcasters. Its ok though , one day you will understand that melee should have more options and in combat abilities too. Especially since they are so much like casting spells (what with the whole different system of mechanics). 95% of the spells in the PHB and the spell comp have a duration. I can't think of one of the top of my head that doesn't. You even said your self. Regular spells have durations and stance just don't. Except the monk also doesn't get it if they are , AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load. They made the PHB with the other core books. They made TOB so you could use spells when you wouldn't be allowed and have of those allow you to get around some of the rules used in the core books. I already said we bann loops holes when they come up. That includes the ones we find in the core books.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 09:33 AM	Oh, for!!! You are aware that this is an exception-based game? For an example... if your hit points go below 0, you cannot act. ...Unless you have the Die Hard feat. In addition, if you try to initiate the grapple, you take an AoO, unless you have a feat that denies that. When you move, you provoke attacks of opportunity. Unless you have enough ranks in tumble to make the DC 15 check. Most PHB casters are kinda low on class features in the first place. That being said, I don't see any loopholes in the class features of ToB classes, either --- unless you're referring to maneuvers, in which case, you must include the caster's spellcasting. ...Which doesn't create any loopholes, as you define them. Srsly. Except, that you get to, oh, FLY. And you complain about giving people the ability to make longer jumps. Seriosly, you have no ground to stand on, here. Well lets look at those you posted. Die hard, thanks by the way. DIEHARD [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Endurance. Benefit: When reduced to between –1 and –9 hit points, you automatically become stable. You don’t have to roll d% to see if you lose 1 hit point each round. When reduced to negative hit points, you may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn’t your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious. When using this feat, you can take either a single move or standard action each turn, but not both, and you cannot take a full round action. You can take a move action without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other action deemed as strenuous, including some free actions, such as casting a quickened spell) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act. If you reach –10 hit points, you immediately die. Normal: A character without this feat who is reduced to between –1 and –9 hit points is unconscious and dying. All this does is let stay awake under the 0 mark. It doesn't change the rules for what you can or can't do under that mark. Just let's you stay awake if you chose to and makes you stable. You still have to follow the rules for being between -1 and -9 hp and you still die at -10 or below. AoO: Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity. As you can see an AoO is allowed when your enemy lets their guard down. All the feats do is allow the people to do those things without letting their guard down. Tumble does almost the same thing as the feat letting you move through a threating spaces without leting your guard down as long as you roll high enough. Rolling low means that you did let you guard down. I never said anything about the classes in the book. My group and I only have problems with the abilities gained in the book. Basically have problem when the ability crosses the line of fair. Which most do in that book. I find it funny because I haven't told others not to use the book. Just that my group doesn't like or use it and that in most non opted groups it can cause problems unless everyone uses it. Am I a bad person for not using a book I and my players don't agree with. Maybe I should just make them use it even if they wouldn't have fun doing it.:rolleyes:
Alyss 04-13-08, 12:04 PM	I meant very Japanese and cinematic. It's because of the names of the manoveres, and you're entirely right, it is just a matter of renaming them. The illustrations lend themselves to anime as well... I mean, the book itself mentions the crossover of Eastern and Western culture itself, on the fist page. I prefer to keep a more Russian, gothic flavour for my own games. I also don't like the ToB because I ran it for a couple of games and my players ate the **** out of everything I threw at them. And the ELs were completely appropriate, I think the players were just better at powergaming with that book.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 12:30 PM	Or the same way that a character who has the Dodge feat can have their dodge bonus 24/7? No way can someone be dodging every second of every day! That's gotta be a loophole. DODGE [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Dex 13. Benefit: During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. Also, dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most other types of bonuses. Special: A fighter may select Dodge as one of his fighter bonus feats. You only get the bonus after you choose the opponent on your turn so if he is getting the bonus 24/7 then yes it would be a loop hole and someone doesn't know the rules.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 12:42 PM	Can't forget the fighter carrying around his sword in his hand, ready for battle, all day.Only if he/she isn't or hasn't done anything. Like eating, sleeping, washing, ect... Of coarse I don't remember anything in the rules about having to put your weapon away or draw into out during combat. Not going to search with it out, rogues can't disarm traps with weapons in hand, spellcaster can't cast when their hands are full. In my game unless a players says they didn't put their weapon up when doing someing outside of combat then they have to draw before attacking. Wouldn't call it a loop hole, and wouldn't compare stances to weapon ether. The spells was the best one so far. Of coarse they do end some time.
Jaxgaret 04-13-08, 12:52 PM	You only get the bonus after you choose the opponent on your turn so if he is getting the bonus 24/7 then yes it would be a loop hole and someone doesn't know the rules. It's equivalent to a free action, so you can do it every round of every day.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 01:02 PM	It's equivalent to a free action, so you can do it every round of every day.It still has to be your turn. And it only works in combat, There are no opponent to chose. (out of battle) If you don't go first then you must wait till it is your turn to select the opponent. Then you get the AC bonus on that one person till you select a new opponent. If you defeat that opponent then then there is no reason to have the bonus, no threat. You can't select the opponent before the combat begins. It runs on initiative counts.
wraithstrike 04-13-08, 01:10 PM	.... Also, rope trick stops you taking your Bag of Holding with you ... This is an assumption based on the portable hole/bag of holding combination. There is no raw to support this.
Ecalsneerg 04-13-08, 01:14 PM	Bury it several feet from the bottom of the rope. Solves all disputes.
Senevri 04-13-08, 02:05 PM	All this does is let stay awake under the 0 mark. It doesn't change the rules for what you can or can't do under that mark. Just let's you stay awake if you chose to and makes you stable. You still have to follow the rules for being between -1 and -9 hp and you still die at -10 or below. Yeah, it just CIRCUMVENTS THE ESTABLISHED RULES. like almost EVERYTHING. *pant* .... Well, isn't this invigorating That being said, I... I'm clearly not getting what you mean by a loophole, since something that circumvents established rules apparently doesn't count. I never said anything about the classes in the book. Right. Just maneuvers. My group and I only have problems with the abilities gained in the book. Basically have problem when the ability crosses the line of fair. Which most do in that book. What is fair? or unfair in this case? Trend-wise... well, you can find precursors of many maneuvers from Spell Compendium, actually. I find it funny because I haven't told others not to use the book. Just that my group doesn't like or use it and that in most non opted groups it can cause problems unless everyone uses it. Am I a bad person for not using a book I and my players don't agree with. Maybe I should just make them use it even if they wouldn't have fun doing it.:rolleyes: No, no. Nobody can dictate a group what books to use, or to not use. There is no problem considering the use of the book, there's just an issue when you come to the boards, tell your reasoning, which, from my point of view is flawed, and then... we have an argument, basically. It has almost nothing to do with actually playing the game. Hmm. Reading your other replies, it seems you have an issue with stances being "always-on". TECHNICALLY, there's nothing preventing them from walking funny all the time, although... you must be able to move. Paralysis deactivates stances, nicely. I guess one could suppose so does Stun or Daze, too. Another thing: What is wrong with stances that isn't with spells that have duration in hours? Or with, say, aforementioned Dodge feat, which is essentially such a basic stance that it doesn't require a swift action to initiate. Or Fighting Defensively or Combat Expertise, or even Power Attack? Benefit-wise, those are effectively stances. Admittedly, higher-level stances do not have drawbacks, but neither does, oh, Cleave. Which just sucks most of the time. On the other hand, you can use it ALL THE TIME. while doing other stuff. Man, feats, those are completely broken. :P
CrimsonDeath 04-13-08, 02:24 PM	They made the PHB with the other core books. They made TOB so you could use spells when you wouldn't be allowed and have of those allow you to get around some of the rules used in the core books. Ah, so you don't use any splat-books. Because they weren't made alongside the Core books either, and every single one of them lets you do something that's not supported under the Core rules.
wraithstrike 04-13-08, 02:43 PM	95% of the spells in the PHB and the spell comp have a duration. I can't think of one of the top of my head that doesn't. You even said your self. Regular spells have durations and stance just don't. Except the monk also doesn't get it if they are , They made the PHB with the other core books. They made TOB so you could use spells when you wouldn't be allowed and have of those allow you to get around some of the rules used in the core books. I already said we bann loops holes when they come up. That includes the ones we find in the core books. There are no loopholes. Certain abilities/feats allow you to do things the rules don't normally allow. That is how characters get stronger. Just because you don't think there should be a way to get around doing something, that does not make it a loophole. If that(getting past a core rule) is the case then almost every class feature, feat, and special ability of monsters is a loophole. The stances and maneuvers are not equal to spells. Casters still own the game. For your diehard example the rule of being dead at -10 is not broken, but the part of diehard that allows someone to fight even after being reduced past -1 is broken so by your it is still a loophole.
Traya 04-13-08, 03:02 PM	Well lets look at those you posted. Die hard, thanks by the way. All this does is let stay awake under the 0 mark. It doesn't change the rules for what you can or can't do under that mark. Just let's you stay awake if you chose to and makes you stable. You still have to follow the rules for being between -1 and -9 hp and you still die at -10 or below. AoO: As you can see an AoO is allowed when your enemy lets their guard down. All the feats do is allow the people to do those things without letting their guard down. Tumble does almost the same thing as the feat letting you move through a threating spaces without leting your guard down as long as you roll high enough. Rolling low means that you did let you guard down. I never said anything about the classes in the book. My group and I only have problems with the abilities gained in the book. Basically have problem when the ability crosses the line of fair. Which most do in that book. I find it funny because I haven't told others not to use the book. Just that my group doesn't like or use it and that in most non opted groups it can cause problems unless everyone uses it. Am I a bad person for not using a book I and my players don't agree with. Maybe I should just make them use it even if they wouldn't have fun doing it.:rolleyes: Oh my god... READ Ace! READ! You say the stance that lets you jump without a start is a loophole , but having a feat that allows you to move and take actions when you normally Unconscious isnt a loophole? What kind of drugs are you on? Are you in so much hate that you are overlooking every little thing? Diehard gives you the ability to to use a move or standard action when you are normally unconscious. Tumble gives you the ability to evade a AoO when you would normally get an AoO. Uncanny dodge gives you the ability to NOT be flat footed when normally you would be flat footed. Class abilities such as evasion allow you to dodge reflex save attacks where you would normall have to take half damage if you passed. Even your beloved whirlwind attack , Ace , enables a person to attack anyone around them when the rules make it so you normally can't. Spells such as spiderclimb enable you to climb at a base speed and not fail (I get to include spells because you keep saying maneuvers are so much like spells , which minus a few used by the Swordsage are COMPLETLY different.) Spells such as teleport allows you to TELEPORT ANYWHERE in the world where you would normally would have to walk. And the raptor school stance allows you to jump AS IF you had a head start when you would normally move the head start. But its the only loophole. Open up your eyes! They are all the same thing! Thats what feats , skills , spells , class abilities , maneuvers , EVERYTHING are for : giving people the abilities to do things outside of the rules. It dosent break the rules or ignore them. They overrule them. Its a exceptional rule that allows you to do something you normally cant. That is how the game is as a whole. You can't just say one thing does it but not everything else in the game. o·ver·rule Audio Help /ˌoʊvərˈrul/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[oh-ver-rool] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -ruled, -rul·ing. 1. to rule against or disallow the arguments of (a person): The senator was overruled by the committee chairman. 2. to rule or decide against (a plea, argument, etc.); reject: to overrule an objection. 3. to prevail over so as to change the purpose or action: a delay that overruled our plans. 4. to exercise control or influence over: belief in a beneficent deity that overrules the universe. TOB does not give you spells when you normally wouldnt. In fact spells in itself wouldnt normally be spells if they werent titled as spells as it is just a mechanic to keep track and issue out abilities at certain levels. TOB gives a system of mechanics that allows melee classes to have many more options , abilities and flexibility. The TOB maneuvers and stances act NOTHING like spells save a few (which are used by swordsages). They are not spells , they do not break rules.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 05:23 PM	I posted the page number before. The book it's self says they are spells. Page 5. It wasn't me calling them spells. If that is not right you will have to talk to customer service. Uncanny Dodge (Ex): At 2nd level, a barbarian retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if he is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, he still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. If a barbarian already has uncanny dodge from a different class, he automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead It makes him keep his AC even when FF. My group never uses that class anyway. Die hard lets you be consider disabled when under -1. looking at disabled. DISABLED (0 HIT POINTS) When your current hit points drop to exactly 0, you’re disabled. You can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can you take full-round actions). You can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other strenuous action) you take 1 point of damage after the completing the act. Unless your activity increased your hit points, you are now at –1 hit points, and you’re dying. Healing that raises your hit points above 0 makes you fully functional again, just as if you’d never been reduced to 0 or fewer hit points. You can also become disabled when recovering from dying. In this case, it’s a step toward recovery, and you can have fewer than 0 hit points (see Stable Characters and Recovery, below). It ignores the unlined part but follows the rest of the rules for disabled. I don't see a problem. We don't use that spell. It should atleast let it work the regular climb speed abilities. Spiders don't even get to climb like that. Whirl wind strike: The game doesn't limit your attacks per round. Other wise haste, TWF, and the like wouldn't be able to work. Full Attack If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks. If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first. Not going to post the teleport thing but I don't believe there is a rule that says you have to walk around every where you going. Now science says it is not possible to be able to do that but no rule. I believe the one I thinking about is leaping dragon stances. Since you are counted as having a head start it auto decreases the DC by 1/2. So you don't have to take the 20' head start, it lowers the DC by half, and gives you a +10' to what you toll. which depending on the DC would lower it a bunch more. I'm going back over the stances and will post the ones I have a problem with beside the fact that the ones that only have in combat benefits being able to use them all the time.
Senevri 04-13-08, 05:55 PM	The book it's self says they are spells. Nitpick: it states that they are like spells in that it is a specific, one shot effect that the martial adept initiates. It makes him keep his AC even when FF. My group never uses that class anyway. What, Barbarian? It ignores the unlined part but follows the rest of the rules for disabled. I don't see a problem. So you have no problem if some ability ignores part of the rules, but you take issue if... some ability ignores part of the rules? We don't use that spell. It should atleast let it work the regular climb speed abilities. Spiders don't even get to climb like that. Yes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiderClimb.htm) they do (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm). You just assumed, didn't you? Whirl wind strike: The game doesn't limit your attacks per round. Other wise haste, TWF, and the like wouldn't be able to work. Well, then at least Steel Wind and Mongooses, as well as Avalanche of Blades are A-OK, right? I believe the one I thinking about is leaping dragon stances. Since you are counted as having a head start it auto decreases the DC by 1/2. So you don't have to take the 20' head start, it lowers the DC by half, and gives you a +10' to what you toll. which depending on the DC would lower it a bunch more. So? It just ignores the part of the text where you need a running start to use the better jumping table. And ignoring part of the rules is okay, right?
CrimsonDeath 04-13-08, 05:57 PM	I posted the page number before. The book it's self says they are spells. Page 5. It wasn't me calling them spells. If that is not right you will have to talk to customer service. In my copy, it says that maneuvers are "functionally similar to spells". It makes not claims that they are identical to spells, however, and goes on to elaborate on the similarities and differences. It makes him keep his AC even when FF. My group never uses that class anyway. I suppose you don't use rogues either? Must make traps inconvenient. To me, it looks like you're being kind of arbitrary about what should be allowed to work and what shouldn't. Since I can't understand your reasoning, I'm just going to stop arguing with you.
Cuindless 04-13-08, 06:05 PM	In my copy, it says that maneuvers are "functionally similar to spells". It makes not claims that they are identical to spells, however, and goes on to elaborate on the similarities and differences. I suppose you don't use rogues either? Must make traps inconvenient. To me, it looks like you're being kind of arbitrary about what should be allowed to work and what shouldn't. Since I can't understand your reasoning, I'm just going to stop arguing with you. He is being arbitrary. He arbitrarily dislikes ToB and that's it. It doesn't matter that, in any circumstance that the monk gets an AC bonus that a martial adept can use a stance. It doesn't matter that they are functionally the same thing. Same with dodge bonus and everything else. None of that matters. Ace of Time has determined that only casters should be able to do cool stuff, and that's that.
Sunic_Flames 04-13-08, 06:15 PM	He is being arbitrary. He arbitrarily dislikes ToB and that's it. It doesn't matter that, in any circumstance that the monk gets an AC bonus that a martial adept can use a stance. It doesn't matter that they are functionally the same thing. Same with dodge bonus and everything else. None of that matters. Ace of Time has determined that only casters should be able to do cool stuff, and that's that. Indeed. Logic simply fails on him. Now to find a suitable graphical representation to illustrate... Here we are. Ace, the level of fail expressed by your arguments cannot be represented in any singular form. Therefore... http://www.shipmentoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/multiplecarfail.jpg And I am divided between wanting to know just what he does allow, and being too scared to ask. I had better put up that ward to protect against Int damage.
wraithstrike 04-13-08, 06:45 PM	If anyone, other than Ace, who has no legit reason to ban the book other than the fact that he dislikes it, has banned the book I would like to know your reasons.
StruckingFuggle 04-13-08, 06:52 PM	Small nitpick: I'm not sure that, given Rule 0, "legitimate" is the right word ... How about "a considered, reasoned, and reasonable cause that persists beyond a knee-jerk initial reaction"?
Sunic_Flames 04-13-08, 06:54 PM	Small nitpick: I'm not sure that, given Rule 0, "legitimate" is the right word ... How about "a considered, reasoned, and reasonable cause that persists beyond a knee-jerk initial reaction"? Works for me. *listens to cricket chirps*
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 06:54 PM	Ok, the spiders thing. This is for the posted spider entry. Skills Monstrous spiders have a +4 racial bonus on Hide and Spot checks and a +8 racial bonus on Climb checks. A monstrous spider can always choose to take 10 on Climb checks, even if rushed or threatened. Monstrous spiders use either their Strength or Dexterity modifier for Climb checks, whichever is higher. So they can take a 10 on climb checks but still have to use the check. The spell, it need not make Climb checks to traverse a vertical or horizontal surface (even upside down). You don't even have to make the check. We don't use the spell because we always pick some other spell at that level not because it is banned. Here a list of things that I think take it to far. Holocaust cloak, Thicket of blades, Shifting defense, Aura of prefect order, Immortal fortitude, Arua of Chaos. Now that was just stances. I don't look at the rest. All of the entries can also be confusing as they say one thing in the first part and then give the stats of what happens in the 2nd. It could have sperated it. Now in my copy my friend gave my for christmas it say " spells" just like that right under A QUICK PRIMER OF THE SUBLIME WAY. I could have an older book but I thought TOB was a 3.5 only book. Could be wrong though. There were some that were questionable but not to far the rest were ok. Assuming I'm looking at a 3.5 book. AGAIN with the he thing. It was my whole group that banned it. We all agreed on it. It wasn't just me sitting them down and telling them what i was banning. We all agree to bann something or we don't bann it. Now if others want to allow it good for them. I have no problems with that. As long as everyone is having fun then that is fine. I find it sad to think that people would go this far just because I don't use that book. Why not tell some reasons it shouldn't be banned instead of demeaning my character? This was not to everyone.
Sunic_Flames 04-13-08, 07:04 PM	Let's see... Holocaust Cloak: Very weak ability, waste of a stance slot. Desert Wind is crap like that, and therefore not used. Thicket of Blades: So... the tank classes can actually tank by keeping the enemies close to him! So broken! :rolleyes: Shifting Defense: So you avoid an attack, and step away. This is completely unrealistic. :rolleyes: Aura of Perfect Order: And what's wrong with deciding to put forth average effort? Immortal Fortitude: Can't... give up... must... fight on... So he's a stubborn bastard. Aura of Chaos: Add a little luck to your attacks... *shrugs*
deathbane 04-13-08, 07:14 PM	Ok, the spiders thing. This is for the posted spider entry. So they can take a 10 on climb checks but still have to use the check. The spell, You don't even have to make the check. We don't use the spell because we always pick some other spell at that level not because it is banned. Here a list of things that I think take it to far. Holocaust cloak, Thicket of blades, Shifting defense, Aura of prefect order, Immortal fortitude, Arua of Chaos. Now that was just stances. I don't look at the rest. All of the entries can also be confusing as they say one thing in the first part and then give the stats of what happens in the 2nd. It could have sperated it. Now in my copy my friend gave my for christmas it say " spells" just like that right under A QUICK PRIMER OF THE SUBLIME WAY. I could have an older book but I thought TOB was a 3.5 only book. Could be wrong though. There were some that were questionable but not to far the rest were ok. Assuming I'm looking at a 3.5 book. AGAIN with the he thing. It was my whole group that banned it. We all agreed on it. It wasn't just me sitting them down and telling them what i was banning. We all agree to bann something or we don't bann it. Now if others want to allow it good for them. I have no problems with that. As long as everyone is having fun then that is fine. I find it sad to think that people would go this far just because I don't use that book. Why not tell some reasons it should be banned instead of demeaning my character? This was not to everyone. The problem is your excuse was using "loopholes" that are not loopholes, to ban the books. Just because the spell is call spiderclimb that does not mean it has to have a spider's restrictions. You not liking something does not make it a loophole. All you had to say was it goes beyond what you think should be possible by a martial character in D&D, but to call something a loophole, and then have people go to sources that invalidate your reasons removes any ground you might have been standing on.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:15 PM	He is being arbitrary. He arbitrarily dislikes ToB and that's it. It doesn't matter that, in any circumstance that the monk gets an AC bonus that a martial adept can use a stance. It doesn't matter that they are functionally the same thing. Same with dodge bonus and everything else. None of that matters. Ace of Time has determined that only casters should be able to do cool stuff, and that's that. So with out this book it is impossable for a fighter to be good. This one book is the holy grail of all fighters. Didn't i just get done saying I play fighter types 75% of the time. Why wouldn't I want them to do cool things. But to me giving them something like Immortal fortitude that lets you not go under 1 HP 24/7 just crosses the line. Or Or thicket of blades that doesn't let your opponent use with draw action and gives you an AoO on 5' step. Or being able to keep fire cloak around you 24/7 and damage any enemy with out reach or range when they attack you. There are two stances in there that let you cheat on dices rolls. and not just adding 1d6 or 1d8 when spend action points ether. You think that just because I didn't post what I don't like I don't have any reasons. How about posting some on your side. I haven't heard any reason why it should be allowed other then in a opted veiw fighter types blow. Or people who don't like the book don't want fighters to be cool. They have plenty of options without the book. Power is one of the only reasons for using it.
StruckingFuggle 04-13-08, 07:26 PM	Now in my copy my friend gave my for christmas it say " spells" just like that right under A QUICK PRIMER OF THE SUBLIME WAY. I could have an older book but I thought TOB was a 3.5 only book. Could be wrong though. What's important is not the presence or absence of the word 'spells', but how the word / idea of 'spells' is used. I find it sad to think that people would go this far just because I don't use that book. Why not tell some reasons it should be banned instead of demeaning my character? This was not to everyone. It seems like people don't take issue with your character so much as your questionably sound use of reason. As for the underlined bit, I don't know why we'd be giving you more reasons to ban it (we generally can't think of any good ones); and if you mean "reasons it should be allowed", well, that's been done.
StruckingFuggle 04-13-08, 07:27 PM	Now in my copy my friend gave my for christmas it say " spells" just like that right under A QUICK PRIMER OF THE SUBLIME WAY. I could have an older book but I thought TOB was a 3.5 only book. Could be wrong though. What's important is not the presence or absence of the word 'spells', but rather how the word / idea of 'spells' is used. I find it sad to think that people would go this far just because I don't use that book. Why not tell some reasons it should be banned instead of demeaning my character? This was not to everyone. It seems like people don't take issue with your character so much as your questionably sound use of reason. As for the underlined bit, I don't know why we'd be giving you more reasons to ban it (we generally can't think of any good ones); and if you mean "reasons it should be allowed", well, that'
iserith 04-13-08, 07:28 PM	If anyone, other than Ace, who has no legit reason to ban the book other than the fact that he dislikes it, has banned the book I would like to know your reasons. I banned it because as a busy DM, I don't want to buy or read any additional books and I don't trust my players to interpret rules fairly when it comes to their own characters. Plus, I have a general standing rule that my players can use whatever they want for character creation as long as it is in a book I own. If I do not own it, they are welcome to buy it for me. That usually ends the discussion right there. How does that rank with you guys for a reason? I think you guys could have saved a lot of time and frustration by just telling the original poster he can ban whatever book he wants because he's the DM. This shouldn't have been a discussion about the merits of this book or a comparison of D&D's imbalanced classes. That's for every other thread you same guys start or comment on in these forums. We get it, okay? If I would have had to listen to this argument in real life at my gaming table, I would have thrown the lot of you out and gotten a new gaming group. Group hug.
Sunic_Flames 04-13-08, 07:29 PM	You need to relook at the limitations of those stances, particularly Immortal Fortitude. Hint: DC 30ish (or higher) Fortitude saves aren't routinely made, even by optimized characters. Fail save = die anyways. Edit: That is a decent albeit lazy reason. However it is critically flawed in that you are choosing to willingly associate with people you cannot trust. I'd say that is enough to render it invalid on the grounds it should never even come up that way.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:32 PM	The problem is your excuse was using "loopholes" that are not loopholes, to ban the books. Just because the spell is call spiderclimb that does not mean it has to have a spider's restrictions. You not liking something does not make it a loophole. All you had to say was it goes beyond what you think should be possible by a martial character in D&D, but to call something a loophole, and then have people go to sources that invalidate your reasons removes any ground you might have been standing on. I did. Assuming you were typing to me. Reading it just seemed like most (not all) was just bending the rules alittle far. Stances (to me) should be limited to in combat unless the effect has an out of combat effect, like the terrain one or the like. Don't see someone walking around in the stances all day like a wizard with mage armor does. It just feels overpowering to me and I talking it over with my player and they read it and agreed. That how I most handle whether to use a book or not. Of course if the other 2 are (bad types) power gamers like most have said limiting one book isn't fixing the problem. Later I made the comment that My players and me banned it because we considered it a loop hole book. To us a loop hole is using an ability to bend the rules in a way that crosses the line of what is fair to us in our games. I even use TWF being use during a flurry as an example. All they can say is ether nobody wants the fighter to be cool or those abilities aren't used so that invalidates your post. They used the loop hole thing to make me look like I didn't no what I'm talking about instead of gioving reasons why it should be allowed.
StruckingFuggle 04-13-08, 07:39 PM	I banned it because as a busy DM, I don't want to buy or read any additional books and I don't trust my players to interpret rules fairly when it comes to their own characters. Plus, I have a general standing rule that my players can use whatever they want for character creation as long as it is in a book I own. If I do not own it, they are welcome to buy it for me. That usually ends the discussion right there. How does that rank with you guys for a reason? See, that's a pretty good and reasonable one. It's unfortunate, especially the bit about not being able to trust your players, and you are missing out, but it's grounded and sound. Exemplary! I think you guys could have saved a lot of time and frustration by just telling the original poster he can ban whatever book he wants because he's the DM. But does that even need to be said? That's how it goes, every DM should know that; and besides ... that's not what the OP asked. It was "should I?", or more seemingly "why shouldn't I?", rather than "can I?" ... So seriously ... This shouldn't have been a discussion about the merits of this book or a comparison of D&D's imbalanced classes. ...Why not? Especially when that's what the OP was (seemingly) asking about? If I would have had to listen to this argument in real life at my gaming table, I would have thrown the lot of you out and gotten a new gaming group. And we would have been happy-ish to go an nominate from our number a new DM, and everyone has fun. :P
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:39 PM	You need to relook at the limitations of those stances, particularly Immortal Fortitude. Hint: DC 30ish (or higher) Fortitude saves aren't routinely made, even by optimized characters. Fail save = die anyways. Edit: That is a decent albeit lazy reason. However it is critically flawed in that you are choosing to willingly associate with people you cannot trust. I'd say that is enough to render it invalid on the grounds it should never even come up that way.I did. Your DC is your negative Hit point total. If you save you stay at 1 HP. You can save 3 times before having to reset the ability. Of coarse you will have healed before then. It would also allow the person to stay at 1 HP all day if you did get into a random encounter and if you did you would never go below 1 HP. Fighter gets +12 without opted help with the base save. An opted PC could easily up it to +20. without a sweat.
iserith 04-13-08, 07:44 PM	Edit: That is a decent albeit lazy reason. However it is critically flawed in that you are choosing to willingly associate with people you cannot trust. I'd say that is enough to render it invalid on the grounds it should never even come up that way. I agree it's lazy. Then again, I've never been one to hold myself to someone else's standards because no two D&D groups or games are exactly alike. I know my group has fun and that's all that matters, Tome of Argument: Book of Nine-Hundred Posts or no. I would like to further qualify that it's not that I suppose my players cheat, but they have been known to get things wrong and without any inclination to check their homework, broken or gimpy gimp characters may result. I'm looking out for them as much as myself. Where I draw the line is argumentative players who feel that they have some inalienable right to use every book under the sun as if James Madison himself penned it into the Bill of Rights. That's just not the case. You have a right to play in my game if I invite you to do so and you have the right to refuse. And in my game, I choose which books are available and which aren't based on what I own and what kind of game I intend to run. And if the player doesn't like that, they're welcome to run their own game - and if I play in it, I'll promise not to create a swordsage just on principle. :D
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:45 PM	I banned it because as a busy DM, I don't want to buy or read any additional books and I don't trust my players to interpret rules fairly when it comes to their own characters. Plus, I have a general standing rule that my players can use whatever they want for character creation as long as it is in a book I own. If I do not own it, they are welcome to buy it for me. That usually ends the discussion right there. How does that rank with you guys for a reason? I think you guys could have saved a lot of time and frustration by just telling the original poster he can ban whatever book he wants because he's the DM. This shouldn't have been a discussion about the merits of this book or a comparison of D&D's imbalanced classes. That's for every other thread you same guys start or comment on in these forums. We get it, okay? If I would have had to listen to this argument in real life at my gaming table, I would have thrown the lot of you out and gotten a new gaming group. Group hug.Just a note but I thought someone had said that although I couldn't tell you which page. If they buy a book I don't have I tell them if they leave it with me I'll read it and see what I think about it, then we talk about it as a group before allowing it.
StruckingFuggle 04-13-08, 07:48 PM	I did. Your DC is your negative Hit point total. If you save you stay at 1 HP. You can save 3 times before having to reset the ability. Of coarse you will have healed before then. It would also allow the person to stay at 1 HP all day if you did get into a random encounter and if you did you would never go below 1 HP. Fighter gets +12 without opted help with the base save. An opted PC could easily up it to +20. without a sweat. Hey, this should be fun. How about making a new thread over in Eq. And Combat with all of the maneuvers and stances you have a problem with, and what your problem is? I'd love to contribute to this discussion; I just don't think it belongs here, y'know?
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:48 PM	I agree it's lazy. Then again, I've never been one to hold myself to someone else's standards because no two D&D groups or games are exactly alike. I know my group has fun and that's all that matters, Tome of Argument: Book of Nine-Hundred Posts or no. I would like to further qualify that it's not that I suppose my players cheat, but they have been known to get things wrong and without any inclination to check their homework, broken or gimpy gimp characters may result. I'm looking out for them as much as myself. Where I draw the line is argumentative players who feel that they have some inalienable right to use every book under the sun as if James Madison himself penned it into the Bill of Rights. That's just not the case. You have a right to play in my game if I invite you to do so and you have the right to refuse. And in my game, I choose which books are available and which aren't based on what I own and what kind of game I intend to run. And if the player doesn't like that, they're welcome to run their own game - and if I play in it, I'll promise not to create a swordsage just on principle. :DAmen! :rofl: :rofl: :clap:
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 07:50 PM	Hey, this should be fun. How about making a new thread over in Eq. And Combat with all of the maneuvers and stances you have a problem with, and what your problem is? I'd love to contribute to this discussion; I just don't think it belongs here, y'know?They asked. I was just happy with My group banned it. I would love to hear any contributions. But I have a few threads I'm working on. Although feel free.
Senevri 04-13-08, 08:14 PM	Ok, the spiders thing. This is for the posted spider entry. So they can take a 10 on climb checks but still have to use the check. The spell, You don't even have to make the check. We don't use the spell because we always pick some other spell at that level not because it is banned. Interesting. Still, Spider Climb is weak, anyway. Here a list of things that I think take it to far. And here's my analysis. By the way, what do you mean "takes too far?" Holocaust cloak; This one I had to look up. It's like a super-weak version of elemental shield, without resistance. A very weak reciprocal shield doing the most-commonly resisted elemental damage. I'm not seeing it. Thicket of blades; Is very good. Works similarily as defensive sweep. Fighters get this by default in 4e, BTW. Dunno, maybe your group hasn't been using the "I take a 5ft step back and then cast/fire bow" routine? This is a powerful ability, but again, no different from, say, Combat Reflexes or Diehard. Shifting defense; I'm not seeing it. Ability to take a 5ft step is a loophole, now? Aura of perfect order; This one allows you once per round take 11 on any d20 roll. Definitely a powerful ability. How does it differ from the ability to, say, once per day being able to reroll a 20-sided die? Immortal fortitude; requires a fort save, and automatically deactivates after being used three times. Meaning, you have 1 HP remaining and you get hit four times in a round, you're down. It's no different from many spells, actually. Aura of Chaos; Outside of 1d2 crusader, this is a rather marginal damage booster. This modifies damage done using a rather curious mechanic. this one doesn't even touch the rules in any way. Out of all of these, only thicket of blades and shifting defense interact with rules in any way - Immortal fortitude is a defensive effect, no different than a contingent spell or having damage reduction. Auras straight-forwardly just modify die results - no different from having +1 to hit, essentially. Holocaust cloak is actually an attribute I think you can find from monster manual already. Certainly, some of these are nice, entertaining or powerful effects. None of those are anything that interacts with the rules in any way. Now, Thicket of Blades forces an AoO out of 5-ft steps which normally don't cause those. It also raises the question, can one still try to Tumble out of the effect (I think custserv said "yes".) This is an exception to the rules, definitely, and one which helps meleeists greatly. However, it's no different, again, from Spring Attack in effect - it changes how movement interacts with attacks of opportunity -there are a plenty of precedents. Shifting Defense is horribly edited - do you get a step when the opponent misses, or when they hit? and when is this resolved? and how do these 5ft steps interact with thicket of blades? The intention seems to be, that when an opponent attacks, after the attack is resolved, you get to make a 5ft. step, which uses up an attack of opportunity. Thus, this is a mildly improved version of Evasive Reflexes, really - as well as an alternative for AoOs. Normally, you only get Attacks of Opportunity outside your turn, so this Exception ( it is an exception-based game, again ) adds an additional option for you to do outside your turn. Are there precedents? Some. There are feats which give you new options when you're being charged at. Out-of-order actions are a relatively new thing in DnD, and most of those are immediate actions, even, like casting Featherfall. On the other hand, we can look at this as a continuous-duration effect - not unlike Repulsion, for an example. All of the entries can also be confusing as they say one thing in the first part and then give the stats of what happens in the 2nd. It could have sperated it. That, I give you. The editing is sloppy; not terribly so, but sloppy never-the-less. Srsly, WotC needs proofreaders. T_T Now in my copy my friend gave my for christmas it say " spells" just like that right under A QUICK PRIMER OF THE SUBLIME WAY. I could have an older book but I thought TOB was a 3.5 only book. Could be wrong though. Yes, the word "spells" exists in the book. What is the context? There were some that were questionable but not to far the rest were ok. Assuming I'm looking at a 3.5 book. AGAIN with the he thing. It was my whole group that banned it. We all agreed on it. It wasn't just me sitting them down and telling them what i was banning. We all agree to bann something or we don't bann it. Now if others want to allow it good for them. I have no problems with that. As long as everyone is having fun then that is fine. Since you didn't quote anything, I have little understanding what you're talking of. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. However... I find it sad to think that people would go this far just because I don't use that book. Why not tell some reasons it should be banned instead of demeaning my character? This was not to everyone. The problem isn't that you're not using the book. That is your call. What annoys us is that your justifications for not using the book are poor, in our opinion. Maybe it's a linguistic thing. Clearly by "loophole" you mean something completely different than the rest of us. Maybe we feel that your understanding of the contents of the book is substandard ( IE "ZOMG Warlock is borken!" reaction ) which begs the question, what is "standard?". I don't know. ToB was created to give martial characters better options in the battlefield. It is a remarkably well-balanced book, very hard to break ( and trust me, people have tried ), that makes encounters much more dynamic with it's counters and boosts, as well as reducing the importance of full-round attacks. It heavily expands on the use of swift and immediate actions over core, and makes games, in my opinion, just all around more fun.
wraithstrike 04-13-08, 08:14 PM	I banned it because as a busy DM, I don't want to buy or read any additional books and I don't trust my players to interpret rules fairly when it comes to their own characters. Plus, I have a general standing rule that my players can use whatever they want for character creation as long as it is in a book I own. If I do not own it, they are welcome to buy it for me. That usually ends the discussion right there. How does that rank with you guys for a reason? It makes you sound lazy to me, and if you don't trust your players to interpret rules it is insinuating they are either stupid or liars, two types of people most people would rather not game with anyway. I think you guys could have saved a lot of time and frustration by just telling the original poster he can ban whatever book he wants because he's the DM. This shouldn't have been a discussion about the merits of this book or a comparison of D&D's imbalanced classes. That's for every other thread you same guys start or comment on in these forums. We get it, okay? Everyone already knows they are the DM and can make rules as the please so that would solve nothing. By allowing the OP to see various veiwpoints he gets a wider perspective on things without having to go through them first-hand like a lot of us had to. If I would have had to listen to this argument in real life at my gaming table, I would have thrown the lot of you out and gotten a new gaming group. Group hug. What argument in particular do you mean, and if you had an option of having a new group you would not be playing with a bunch of people that can't understand the rules, and whose character sheets you have to comb over for mistakes, and since we are in this group hug I will whisper in your ear that you can borrow the book from your players until you have a firm understanding of it instead of being making an excuse for them to buy you a book, and then being lazy and not allowing it anyway, unless that is just your way of saying no. If they wont let your borrow it that is their own problem The fact that your players dont have any reason to buy a book unless you have it is also terrible, but I guess you have to deal with what you have. res
CrimsonDeath 04-13-08, 08:15 PM	Later I made the comment that My players and me banned it because we considered it a loop hole book. To us a loop hole is using an ability to bend the rules in a way that crosses the line of what is fair to us in our games. Oh, I see! You're using your own definition of the word "loophole".
wraithstrike 04-13-08, 08:23 PM	I agree it's lazy. Then again, I've never been one to hold myself to someone else's standards because no two D&D groups or games are exactly alike. I know my group has fun and that's all that matters, Tome of Argument: Book of Nine-Hundred Posts or no. I would like to further qualify that it's not that I suppose my players cheat, but they have been known to get things wrong and without any inclination to check their homework, broken or gimpy gimp characters may result. I'm looking out for them as much as myself. Where I draw the line is argumentative players who feel that they have some inalienable right to use every book under the sun as if James Madison himself penned it into the Bill of Rights. That's just not the case. You have a right to play in my game if I invite you to do so and you have the right to refuse. And in my game, I choose which books are available and which aren't based on what I own and what kind of game I intend to run. And if the player doesn't like that, they're welcome to run their own game - and if I play in it, I'll promise not to create a swordsage just on principle. :D This sounds reasonable, but to reduce your workload you should explain to them what mistakes they are making, and if you just are not getting through then I guess you have to do what you have to do, especially if they are making constant mistakes.
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 10:06 PM	What's important is not the presence or absence of the word 'spells', but how the word / idea of 'spells' is used. It seems like people don't take issue with your character so much as your questionably sound use of reason. As for the underlined bit, I don't know why we'd be giving you more reasons to ban it (we generally can't think of any good ones); and if you mean "reasons it should be allowed", well, that's been done. I fixed it thanks.
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-13-08, 10:37 PM	:uh-huh: I took 8 points of Int drain from reading Ace's contributions to this thread, and all I got was this lousy post. Is there a sublime way maneuver that mimics Greater Restoration?
Ace_of_time 04-13-08, 10:46 PM	:D I'm watching TV with my wife. I'll post back tommorow, sorry.
Traya 04-13-08, 11:00 PM	Ace I'd like to point out that not a single person is agreeing with you here. Its you and your group( two other people ) against the thread. And we arent arguing on you using the book , were arguing about your reasons and acquisitions on the book that are untrue. We have been arguing on how it does not provide loopsholes and it does not give melee combatansts spells. Id also like to point out that the Immortal fortitude stance is gained at atleast level 15 and you need to use a feat to be able to aquire it (its a crusader stance and crusaders get there last stance at level 14). Around that area of power that isnt that powerful , especially since monsters are going to be hitting you for around 25-30+ damage. Thats a pretty high DC. At level 15 a crusader would have a +9 fortitude save. Lets say the crusader started with a 18 constitution , and thats generous. He uses all three attibute points from leveling into con giving him 21 , or a +5 bonus. That right there is a 14 meaning that to survive a 25 damage hit while using that stance he has to roll a 11 on the die to suceed not dieing. Thats less than 50% and if he has three people hitting him in that round , chances ar ehes dead anyway. Say he has the fortitude feat giving him a +2 to his saves and possibly some constitution bonus gear(lets say giving him an extra +3 bonus) bringing it up +19. He now has to roll atleast a 6 to survive the hit which is a little bit more than 25% but if that monster hits for 30 or higher its back to the more than 50% chance that he will die. That hardly takes it too far. That seems pretty balanced to me. Max out your fortitude save all you want, its probably not going to give you a high chacne to live from the big attacks out there. For a group of people that use cleric/ranger/druid and suprised you dont even know what your other member plays is kind of baffling on how you say you dont allow books that bend the rules to the point it goes too far. That cleric and druid goes much much farther than anything TOB has to offer.
Cuindless 04-13-08, 11:12 PM	Good reasons to ban ToB:Bo9S. 1. "I'm already using too many splatbooks to keep track of and/or can't afford another one." 2. "I've already houseruled melee combat to make fighters more effective, and the way I've done so would be interfered with by including the ToB rules." 3. "In my world, casters are supposed to be inherently more powerful than melee characters and I like it that way." 4. "I have no logical reason, I just want to. I'm the DM." Granted, that last one might not be a "good" reason, but it is an acceptable reason according to logic and DM's prerogative.
runestar 04-14-08, 12:47 AM	:uh-huh: I took 8 points of Int drain from reading Ace's contributions to this thread, and all I got was this lousy post. Is there a sublime way maneuver that mimics Greater Restoration? Iron heart surge?;) Too bad even it can't purge this thread...:P
Sunic_Flames 04-14-08, 07:06 AM	Iron heart surge?;) Too bad even it can't purge this thread...:P I have something that can. Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven. :devil:
Ace_of_time 04-14-08, 08:03 AM	Interesting. Still, Spider Climb is weak, anyway. And here's my analysis. By the way, what do you mean "takes too far?" Holocaust cloak; This one I had to look up. It's like a super-weak version of elemental shield, without resistance. A very weak reciprocal shield doing the most-commonly resisted elemental damage. I'm not seeing it. Thicket of blades; Is very good. Works similarily as defensive sweep. Fighters get this by default in 4e, BTW. Dunno, maybe your group hasn't been using the "I take a 5ft step back and then cast/fire bow" routine? This is a powerful ability, but again, no different from, say, Combat Reflexes or Diehard. Shifting defense; I'm not seeing it. Ability to take a 5ft step is a loophole, now? Aura of perfect order; This one allows you once per round take 11 on any d20 roll. Definitely a powerful ability. How does it differ from the ability to, say, once per day being able to reroll a 20-sided die? Immortal fortitude; requires a fort save, and automatically deactivates after being used three times. Meaning, you have 1 HP remaining and you get hit four times in a round, you're down. It's no different from many spells, actually. Aura of Chaos; Outside of 1d2 crusader, this is a rather marginal damage booster. This modifies damage done using a rather curious mechanic. this one doesn't even touch the rules in any way. Out of all of these, only thicket of blades and shifting defense interact with rules in any way - Immortal fortitude is a defensive effect, no different than a contingent spell or having damage reduction. Auras straight-forwardly just modify die results - no different from having +1 to hit, essentially. Holocaust cloak is actually an attribute I think you can find from monster manual already. Certainly, some of these are nice, entertaining or powerful effects. None of those are anything that interacts with the rules in any way. Now, Thicket of Blades forces an AoO out of 5-ft steps which normally don't cause those. It also raises the question, can one still try to Tumble out of the effect (I think custserv said "yes".) This is an exception to the rules, definitely, and one which helps meleeists greatly. However, it's no different, again, from Spring Attack in effect - it changes how movement interacts with attacks of opportunity -there are a plenty of precedents. Shifting Defense is horribly edited - do you get a step when the opponent misses, or when they hit? and when is this resolved? and how do these 5ft steps interact with thicket of blades? The intention seems to be, that when an opponent attacks, after the attack is resolved, you get to make a 5ft. step, which uses up an attack of opportunity. Thus, this is a mildly improved version of Evasive Reflexes, really - as well as an alternative for AoOs. Normally, you only get Attacks of Opportunity outside your turn, so this Exception ( it is an exception-based game, again ) adds an additional option for you to do outside your turn. Are there precedents? Some. There are feats which give you new options when you're being charged at. Out-of-order actions are a relatively new thing in DnD, and most of those are immediate actions, even, like casting Featherfall. On the other hand, we can look at this as a continuous-duration effect - not unlike Repulsion, for an example. That, I give you. The editing is sloppy; not terribly so, but sloppy never-the-less. Srsly, WotC needs proofreaders. T_T Yes, the word "spells" exists in the book. What is the context? Since you didn't quote anything, I have little understanding what you're talking of. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. However... The problem isn't that you're not using the book. That is your call. What annoys us is that your justifications for not using the book are poor, in our opinion. Maybe it's a linguistic thing. Clearly by "loophole" you mean something completely different than the rest of us. Maybe we feel that your understanding of the contents of the book is substandard ( IE "ZOMG Warlock is borken!" reaction ) which begs the question, what is "standard?". I don't know. ToB was created to give martial characters better options in the battlefield. It is a remarkably well-balanced book, very hard to break ( and trust me, people have tried ), that makes encounters much more dynamic with it's counters and boosts, as well as reducing the importance of full-round attacks. It heavily expands on the use of swift and immediate actions over core, and makes games, in my opinion, just all around more fun. WOW, explain althose in a way that they don't look bad, nice. Holocaust cloak; This one I had to look up. It's like a super-weak version of elemental shield, without resistance. A very weak reciprocal shield doing the most-commonly resisted elemental damage. I'm not seeing it. Your right it is weaker type of the spell. Except the spell last 1 round per level and you could keep it and 24/7. Thicket of blades; Is very good. Works similarly as defensive sweep. Fighters get this by default in 4e, BTW. Dunno, maybe your group hasn't been using the "I take a 5ft step back and then cast/fire bow" routine? This is a powerful ability, but again, no different from, say, Combat Reflexes or Diehard. So the fighter should get a move that changes all those 5'steps to AoOs. Any sort of movement provokes a AoO. It takes away the withdraw action as well. And to say it is the same as those to things when the power level of the three are no where near the same. That is funny. Oh and spring attack surprises the opponent it is used on but your movement still provokes AoO from everyone else. If it were no different then Spring Attack then then no one would get them against you. Of coarse you were referring the rules change and I'm referring to the crossing the line. Shifting defense; I'm not seeing it. Ability to take a 5ft step is a loophole, now? Even letting you do that after each attack is resolve, which is not how the ability is being use by most getting the step before the attack, still crosses the line of fair. You get a 5'step when ever you are attack and it doesn't say one way or the other on how it really works. I would most likely rule the way you did if I did allow it. Aura of perfect order; This one allows you once per round take 11 on any d20 roll. Definitely a powerful ability. How does it differ from the ability to, say, once per day being able to reroll a 20-sided die? This one is the funnest one. How does rerolling once per day = completely changing any roll each round to 11 and lets you do it on attacks and saves. Why not just let them take a 10 on one attack and be done with it.:rolleyes: Immortal fortitude; requires a fort save, and automatically deactivates after being used three times. Meaning, you have 1 HP remaining and you get hit four times in a round, you're down. It's no different from many spells, actually. I believe some else said something about getting it at 15th. smart move as it drops the save down. But most opted PC's go more then a few class. Ok now adding reg classes will not work as you won't increase enough to allow the move but the book says that you pro classes are level for level when it comes to determining how high of a level you can use. But I will not go there and let someone else do those figures, but will say if they built around getting this move they would figure the best way to get a high fort save. Taking two level in just one pro class would give a +3 instead of a +1 every other level. But for now let assume straight 15th build in that class. +9 i believe it was but I'll give you that the start wouldn't be over 14 reg unless race bonus so I'll say 16 to start and move two points up from levels. then amulet of health +6 giving you a 24 con. 9BAB+7con+2Great fort+5 vest of resistance=23 Now that is just from my side of builds. Two or three pro class placed right would give you another +6 to that putting your base somewhere around 15. Now this doesn't include the millions of ways to heal ones self even one another turn nor that at that level they are going to have some kind of damage reducing ability from somewhere. Aura of Chaos; Outside of 1d2 crusader, this is a rather marginal damage booster. This modifies damage done using a rather curious mechanic. this one doesn't even touch the rules in any way. It lets you reroll the max result of any dice damage you roll. There is no max limit to this and each new roll adds to the damage. Although the likely hood of this happening more then twice is very unlikely. Still crosses the line for me. The spells thing. page 5. I was first told it wasn't in there. Then I was taking it out of context. While if they didn't mean it that way then they should have taken it out. Now it does say they aren't magical. But still "spells" for fighter types. Ether way most of them wouldn't work in a Antimagic field if they were Supernatural abilities. I never said the book or anything in it was broken. My group described the book as a "LOOPHOLE" book so that how I said it on here. Being as how I already posted my problems with the book before posting that comment I don't see the problem. Everyone being against me is mostly saying I'm wrong and they are right. A loophole, baned books, and the like would be up to the DM of the game. My post were referring to My game and how My player see the book and The problems I see most people having. Haven't said anything about other people's games or the book being broke. It could be allot more clear then it is but that not a big problem unless you are a new player. Pros can weed out the mistakes most of the time.
Sunic_Flames 04-14-08, 08:13 AM	That long post is too hard to read. But loopholes are objectively proven facts. Might as well argue logic is subjective... :rolleyes:
Shaggy_Shaggs 04-14-08, 08:42 AM	That long post is too hard to read. But loopholes are objectively proven facts. Might as well argue logic is subjective... :rolleyes:I've already been rendered legally stupid by these posts, I might as well try to translate now that I can see things from his point of view. WOW, explain althose in a way that they don't look bad, nice.It's impressive how you've taken such horrible things and made them sound inoffensive.Your right it is weaker type of the spell. Except the spell last 1 round per level and you could keep it and 24/7.Always-on abilities are much more powerful than short-duration abilities, a whole day of an effect is 14,400 rounds of it. I don't understand that this only applies to always-on abilities with cumulative effects, such as healing over time, and don't realize that always-on retributive damage is only worth 14,400 rounds of retributive damage if I'm being attacked 14,400 rounds a day, which has never happened and will never come close to happening.So the fighter should get a move that changes all those 5'steps to AoOs. Any sort of movement provokes a AoO. It takes away the withdraw action as well. And to say it is the same as those to things when the power level of the three are no where near the same. That is funny.Thicket of Blades makes it possible for non-spiked-chain melee units to threaten an area effectively, denying shooters and casters the ability to 5' step back and laugh in their face as they unload a spell or full attack. It's better than the core fighter, so it's unfair.Oh and spring attack surprises the opponent it is used on but your movement still provokes AoO from everyone else. If it were no different then Spring Attack then then no one would get them against you. Of coarse you were referring the rules change and I'm referring to the crossing the line.Spring Attack only denies your target AoOs, this ability denies them to everyone. It's slightly better than a core feat, so it's unfair.Even letting you do that after each attack is resolve, which is not how the ability is being use by most getting the step before the attack, still crosses the line of fair. You get a 5'step when ever you are attack and it doesn't say one way or the other on how it really works. I would most likely rule the way you did if I did allow it.An ability to avoid attacks that can successfully avoid an attack rather than let the big attack land and then break a full attack sequence off, crosses the line. Also, I don't understand that attacks of opportunity are a limited resource even with Combat Reflexes.This one is the funnest one. How does rerolling once per day = completely changing any roll each round to 11 and lets you do it on attacks and saves. Why not just let them take a 10 on one attack and be done with it.:rolleyes: I almost had a point here until I let my elitist sarcasm get in the way and make me look like an asshat again. Essentially taking ten on one roll per round is significantly better than a one per day reroll on anything.I believe some else said something about getting it at 15th. smart move as it drops the save down. But most opted PC's go more then a few class.Optimizers multiclass a lot.Ok now adding reg classes will not work as you won't increase enough to allow the move but the book says that you pro classes are level for level when it comes to determining how high of a level you can use.Multiclassing base classes won't help due to half initiator level progression, but multiclassing prestige classes should give full initiator level progression and still make this easy.But I will not go there and let someone else do those figures, but will say if they built around getting this move they would figure the best way to get a high fort save. Taking two level in just one pro class would give a +3 instead of a +1 every other level. But for now let assume straight 15th build in that class. +9 i believe it was but I'll give you that the start wouldn't be over 14 reg unless race bonus so I'll say 16 to start and move two points up from levels. then amulet of health +6 giving you a 24 con.I'm too lazy to do my own math, but I'm going to pull figures out of my athin air and pretend they make a point anyway. Look how easy it is to get a high enough Fort save to completely break the game.9BAB+7con+2Great fort+5 vest of resistance=23 Now that is just from my side of builds. Two or three pro class placed right would give you another +6 to that putting your base somewhere around 15. Now this doesn't include the millions of ways to heal ones self even one another turn nor that at that level they are going to have some kind of damage reducing ability from somewhere.I mix up base attack bonuses, base saves, and still assume my math works out right. Also I think there are an unlimited number of full initiator prestige classes to dip for base save bumps, and think there are millions of ways to for a character to self-heal on someone else's turn, as well as have damage reduction that matters at high levels.It lets you reroll the max result of any dice damage you roll. There is no max limit to this and each new roll adds to the damage. Although the likely hood of this happening more then twice is very unlikely. Still crosses the line for me.It's hypothetically possible you could chain rerolls for a NI result if you're luckier than God. That's too rich for my blood, it's unfair.The spells thing. page 5. I was first told it wasn't in there. Then I was taking it out of context. While if they didn't mean it that way then they should have taken it out. Now it does say they aren't magical. But still "spells" for fighter types. Ether way most of them wouldn't work in a Antimagic field if they were Supernatural abilities.I'm nitpicking semantics about whether the word "spells" is in the text, whether it means these characters get spells, and whether they should. I'm also assuming most sublime way maneuvers are supernatural and don't work in antimagic fields (nevermind that many of them are extraordinary) so I can call them spells even if someone points out again that they're not. Fighters don't get to have nice things regardless of the semantics.I never said the book or anything in it was broken. My group described the book as a "LOOPHOLE" book so that how I said it on here.I'm now calling my failure to use words correctly as regional slang. Don't judge me!Being as how I already posted my problems with the book before posting that comment I don't see the problem. Everyone being against me is mostly saying I'm wrong and they are right. A loophole, baned books, and the like would be up to the DM of the game. My post were referring to My game and how My player see the book and The problems I see most people having. Haven't said anything about other people's games or the book being broke. It could be allot more clear then it is but that not a big problem unless you are a new player. Pros can weed out the mistakes most of the time.I still don't understand why people are jumping down my throat for my dangerously flawed reasoning process. I said what my group does and why, even though it makes no sense whatsoever, in a thread asking what another DM should do. I thought this was just an opinion poll, I'm entitled to my opinion even if it is akin to advising someone in all seriousness to jump off a cliff. I've been preaching for pages now, but yeah, I'm gonna just stick to the It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong defense. I was never actually giving any advise despite this being a thread asking for it. In conclusion, if you disagree with me you're a n00b, and Rule 0 is the one ring to rule them all.
Sunic_Flames 04-14-08, 09:07 AM	*snip* :OMG! :bow: :cookie: You sir have just won the thread. http://ui29.gamespot.com/156/mythwalrus_2.jpg
Half_Dragon_Infernal 04-14-08, 09:14 AM	Shaggy, *sniff*, You are Brilliant! :weep: :bow:. For this, you get a :cookie: Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven Mahoia Bonaven. :devil:
Senevri 04-14-08, 09:18 AM	Your right it is weaker type of the spell. Except the spell last 1 round per level and you could keep it and 24/7. Because it's weaker, it lasts longer. This is roughly equal to a 1st level warlock invocation. I much prefer the stance tied to Tumble which eventually gives you fire immunity. So the fighter should get a move that changes all those 5'steps to AoOs. Any sort of movement provokes a AoO. It takes away the withdraw action as well. And to say it is the same as those to things when the power level of the three are no where near the same. The ONLY difference is power level. So there's no rules issue here. That being said, even this is foiled by Tumble, apparently :( Why can't fighters ( role, not class ) have nice things? That is funny. Oh and spring attack surprises the opponent it is used on but your movement still provokes AoO from everyone else. If it were no different then Spring Attack then then no one would get them against you. Of coarse you were referring the rules change and I'm referring to the crossing the line. I'm not quite getting where the line is located. But, to summarize, you have an issue with power level, not with actual rules interactions. Besides, Spring Attack is always available. This one you need to activate. ...You are aware you can only have one stance active at any given time, right? So if it's this, you're not using Holocaust Cloak. Even letting you do that after each attack is resolve, which is not how the ability is being use by most getting the step before the attack, still crosses the line of fair. You get a 5'step when ever you are attack and it doesn't say one way or the other on how it really works. I would most likely rule the way you did if I did allow it. As has been pointed out, this uses a rare, precious resource. Remember, a full-attacker can also take a 5ft. step at any time, so you need to spend a minimum of TWO to get away from reach. But, you're correct, it's resolved BEFORE the attack is. Thanks for pointing that out. This is an amazingly flavorful stance. This one is the funnest one. How does rerolling once per day = completely changing any roll each round to 11 and lets you do it on attacks and saves. Why not just let them take a 10 on one attack and be done with it.:rolleyes: It is a similar ability, rules-wise, just much more powerful. Do notice you cannot use this against any truly difficult opponents, though. Compare this to Action Points, by the way. I believe some else said something about getting it at 15th. smart move as it drops the save down. But most opted PC's go more then a few class. Ok now adding reg classes will not work as ... <snip> Now this doesn't include the millions of ways to heal ones self even one another turn nor that at that level they are going to have some kind of damage reducing ability from somewhere. For an argument's sake, let's say you auto-succeed in this always. With the exception of an Eternal Blade, you get hit four times in a row, you're dead. Eternal blades are dead a bit later. It lets you reroll the max result of any dice damage you roll. There is no max limit to this and each new roll adds to the damage. Although the likely hood of this happening more then twice is very unlikely. Still crosses the line for me. *sigh* This is a knee-jerk reaction. Look, try it out; Grab some D4s and see how often it happens. Remember, the bigger the damage die, the more unlikely this result is. The spells thing. page 5. I was first told it wasn't in there. Then I was taking it out of context. While if they didn't mean it that way then they should have taken it out. Now it does say they aren't magical. But still "spells" for fighter types. Ether way most of them wouldn't work in a Antimagic field if they were Supernatural abilities. Most of them aren't. I think only Shadow Hand and Desert Wind have SU abilities. Maybe some in Devoted Spirit. That being said, they are presented in same way, and function in a similar way as spells, so this opinion is easy to have. Of course, then you must agree that Mysteries, Soulmelds and Incantations are also spells. Everyone being against me is mostly saying I'm wrong and they are right. That is the consensus. Personally, I have a difficult time keeping track of what you're arguing here, exactly. Right now it seems like your issue is just that the abilities in the book are too powerful.
ORC_Kovacs 04-14-08, 03:04 PM	Please do remember to post on topic, and steer clear of personal issues.
Ace_of_time 04-15-08, 07:48 AM	I would like to say sorry about the spelling and grammer thing/s. I have that switching letters handcap and most of the time don't even no when I have spell/ used a word that is not right. Double vowel sounds are the worst for me, like io, ie and the like. I can read the post a 100 times and not catch it till the 101 time. 2. The TOB book says that the class in a multi class PC doesn't matter if it was if the is a martial adept class or not. You take you level in the adept class, I assume the highest one it is again not clear, and 1/2 all other class. It then goes on to say that pro classes work different and for the most part a pro class adds level for level for you Initiator level. I assumed that meant all pro classes. Please let me know if this is wrong. 3. I was refering to all types of damage reducing abilities not just DR. Example would be energy resistance, miss chance item and spells, or the like. Basic any ability that would allow you to reduce or not take the damage altogether. My thinking was that someone of 15 level would have at least one of these abilities as a regular PC. Didn't mean to be so general. Now so far we stand like so. reasons for banning the book. (trying to add in all that have been said not just my) 1. The book is often unclear about something and can be confusing for some players till figure out. 2. Some DM's find certain abilities to power for there games. (low to normal powered games mostly except me of coarse, The one odd ball) 3. Doesn't fit the general theme of the DM's world. A group may even use the book in other campaign worlds. The DM might just not like the way it fits in this one world and so banns it for just this one. 4. Dm's not allowing books they don't have or the player who uses the book or abilities must have the book at the time of play. 5. The book needs more clarification in some areas. This also goes to number one. 6. Not understanding at all how the rules works or how the book works and not willing to make the effort to learn. 7. Doesn't want fighter types to be cool. 8. Not being used by all player can sometimes creat problems. Reasons for allowing the book 1. Allows fighter types to gain some of the gap that caster have in power over them and makes them feel usefull. 2. A better unstanding would stop missunderstands. Don't just bann based on what you hear. 3. So fighter types can be cool. 4. DM should be considerate of what all of his players want from the game. It is their game too. I think that is about it. If I missed something please let me no. No I didn't add in the "loophole" thing so as to not start the fight up again over a missunderstanding. Is there any other reasons that the other side thinks that the book shouldn't be banned. Also the OP wanted to know if it was ok to do what he did. From a DM's stand point. Maybe some ideas on how he could allow the book for the player without the outlining problem of overbalanced pc.