Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 02:55 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book?
Xaktsaroth 11-24-06, 02:59 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book? I think your suffering from a knee-jerk reaction. I can think of many Core 20 builds that could mop the floor with anything from ToB. Spellcasters still kick everyones ass, Wizards just gave the warrior-types some love. But a Swordsage is still going to take a Arcane Thesis-Twinned-Maximized-Empowered Orb of Force to the face poorly.
Salla 11-24-06, 03:02 PM	I think your suffering from a knee-jerk reaction. I can think of many Core 20 builds that could mop the floor with anything from ToB. Spellcasters still kick everyones ass, Wizards just gave the warrior-types some love. But a Swordsage is still going to take a Arcane Thesis-Twinned-Maximized-Empowered Orb of Force to the face poorly. What he said.
Tyler Do'Urden 11-24-06, 03:04 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards?No, it's just different. Read the book.
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:05 PM	I think your suffering from a knee-jerk reaction. I can think of many Core 20 builds that could mop the floor with anything from ToB. Spellcasters still kick everyones ass, Wizards just gave the warrior-types some love. But a Swordsage is still going to take a Arcane Thesis-Twinned-Maximized-Empowered Orb of Force to the face poorly. I did tear him apart in a pit-fight with a lvl 16 barbarian, but that was a "You get mundane weapons and armor of your choice, no magic" and the barbarian had the "Roll with It" feat 3 times, but in actual combat.. This spellcaster certainly had a hard time with him, even flying and with a Bigby's Crushing Hand following the swordsage like a lost puppy he still had problems, and there were 3 other party members in case of things like Invisibility. As to that massive-power Orb spell, thats what, 180 damage? He could take that and laugh, shadow jump next to the mage and drop 16d6+320 on him.
Xaktsaroth 11-24-06, 03:12 PM	I did tear him apart in a pit-fight with a lvl 16 barbarian, but that was a "You get mundane weapons and armor of your choice, no magic" and the barbarian had the "Roll with It" feat 3 times, but in actual combat.. This spellcaster certainly had a hard time with him, even flying and with a Bigby's Crushing Hand following the swordsage like a lost puppy he still had problems, and there were 3 other party members in case of things like Invisibility. As to that massive-power Orb spell, thats what, 180 damage? He could take that and laugh, shadow jump next to the mage and drop 16d6+320 on him. First off, Bigby's spells, while useful, aren't the greatest. Secondly, if the mage didn't have a plan for when the Swordsage got close to him, he deserves to die. Most mages I play tend to invest in Greater Blink, Anticipate Teleport, Retriubutive Shield and the like. Thirdly, what kind of range does this magically shadow jump have? I'm willing to bet a smart wizard will manage to stay out of range and blast will Long Distance spells. Hell, aren't the Orb spells 100 ft + 10ft/level?
Lecen_of_Mitran 11-24-06, 03:12 PM	Yeah, we live in a world where people play with a paragon half-field half-ogre Barbarian 4/Fighter 2/Psiwarrior 2/ Exotic Weapon Master 1/ Frienzied Berseker 10... ... to hell with those pathetic Dwarves with only Fighter classes!! Thatīs just... just... too much like classic D&D... urgh... ...praise the Lord for all the prestige classes and core classes that Wizards has made! Min Max and Munchokins are the true path!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha... just kidding... Anyway, yeah, Tome of Battle... who cares for simple stuff...
Xaktsaroth 11-24-06, 03:15 PM	Yeah, we live in a world where people play with a paragon half-field half-ogre Barbarian 4/Fighter 2/Psiwarrior 2/ Exotic Weapon Master 1/ Frienzied Berseker 10... ... to hell with those pathetic Dwarves with only Fighter classes!! Thatīs just... just... too much like classic D&D... urgh... ...praise the Lord for all the prestige classes and core classes that Wizards has made! Min Max and Munchokins are the true path!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha... just kidding... Anyway, yeah, Tome of Battle... who cares for simple stuff... Actually, the 2 most powerful characters in DnD are Cleric 20 and Druid 20. That's classic DnD, isn't it?
Salla 11-24-06, 03:16 PM	Anyway, yeah, Tome of Battle... who cares for simple stuff... ... The Tome of Battle IS simple.
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:23 PM	First off, Bigby's spells, while useful, aren't the greatest. Secondly, if the mage didn't have a plan for when the Swordsage got close to him, he deserves to die. Most mages I play tend to invest in Greater Blink, Anticipate Teleport, Retriubutive Shield and the like. Thirdly, what kind of range does this magically shadow jump have? I'm willing to bet a smart wizard will manage to stay out of range and blast will Long Distance spells. Hell, aren't the Orb spells 100 ft + 10ft/level? The only reason the mage lasted as long as he did was the.. twelve-odd contingent spells that he had on him, half of which were "In case of *situation X involving melee* dimension door 60 feet". True I should have had greater blink and a couple of other things up, but I'd forgotten spell compendium. Plus, this guy was an Evoker/Red Wizard, 3 banned schools bites hard. Shadow jump is 50ft, between that and boots of fly the wizo didn't really have that much room to manouver. And true that bigby's spells aren't the be all and end all, but +40 odd on grapple checks against medium sized opponents is nothing to be sneezed at
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:25 PM	... The Tome of Battle IS simple. Yes, of course it is, thats why the book itself reccoments using reminder-cards and a filing system to keep track of what manouvers you have left :rolleyes: :P
DarkRhystar 11-24-06, 03:27 PM	Finally... Wizards has printed a book that is genuinely good for Fighters and other melee enthusiasts. The only reason the mage lasted as long as he did was the.. twelve-odd contingent spells that he had on him, half of which were "In case of *situation X involving melee* dimension door 60 feet". True I should have had greater blink and a couple of other things up, but I'd forgotten spell compendium. Plus, this guy was an Evoker/Red Wizard, 3 banned schools bites hard. Shadow jump is 50ft, between that and boots of fly the wizo didn't really have that much room to manouver. And true that bigby's spells aren't the be all and end all, but +40 odd on grapple checks against medium sized opponents is nothing to be sneezed at O... M... G. The Wizard losing to a melee-type? That's it. I'm sorry. The world is over. We're all doomed... ... ... ...or not. Also, since Wizards finally made a good melee book and the world hasn't ended, I'm almost positive this means I've lost a bet with someone.
lears_fool 11-24-06, 03:31 PM	Shadow jump is 50ft, between that and boots of fly the wizo didn't really have that much room to manouver. You should have a talk with the wizard. It's hard to imagine one not thinking 'hey, he can't fly. . . I'll just fly myself and orb, summon, and bomb him into oblivion' And then, upon noticing that the fighter type has used some strange arcane magic to fly up 150' up to meet him, remembering that he has greater dispel for a reason ;)
Salla 11-24-06, 03:31 PM	Yes, of course it is, thats why the book itself reccoments using reminder-cards and a filing system to keep track of what manouvers you have left :rolleyes: :P Which is something most players of spellcasters I've seen have been doing since 1st Edition. By the by, you and your player *are* aware that you can only use a maneuver once in a fight before you have to refresh it (which takes a full round action to do, in the case of a Swordsage), right? After the 'Sage shadowjumped over, and the wizard contingent-D-doored away, the 'Sage can't do it again until he spends a full round recovering his maneuvers (and you can't ready redundant maneuvers) ... a full round in which he gets to stand there and get blasted by the wizard.
ressurrector 11-24-06, 03:33 PM	Just FYI, the swordsage sounded like he had prepared his maneuvers known specifically to deal with a mage, whereas the mage sounds like he didn't prepare anything specifically anti-melee. In a case like this, you really shouldn't expect a different result. Next time try giving your mage AMF, de-buffs, and greater invisibility among other GOOD spells... It's also worthwile to note that fly speed with a maneuverability of good only goes upwards at half-speed.
Xaktsaroth 11-24-06, 03:33 PM	The only reason the mage lasted as long as he did was the.. twelve-odd contingent spells that he had on him, half of which were "In case of *situation X involving melee* dimension door 60 feet". True I should have had greater blink and a couple of other things up, but I'd forgotten spell compendium. Plus, this guy was an Evoker/Red Wizard, 3 banned schools bites hard. Shadow jump is 50ft, between that and boots of fly the wizo didn't really have that much room to manouver. And true that bigby's spells aren't the be all and end all, but +40 odd on grapple checks against medium sized opponents is nothing to be sneezed at Bwhahaha, I love boots of flying. The fighter types always cackle with glee, thinking they've outsmarted the wizard, till the wizard casts Dispel Magic on the boots. *SPLAT!* Sorry, bit of a tangent there. Like I said, ToB seems really powerful, and in this case, everything came together for the Swordsage and they really got to shine, however, through the course of the campaign, I can promise you that will even out. ToB gives melee characters a big boost, but what can a swordsage do when he runs into squad archers? Incorporal Creatures? A magic user behind a wall of force? A warlock? Different types of encounters will always reveal the weakness of certain characters. Lastly, if worse comes to worse, get some ToB characters to hear of the swordsages exploits and challenge him to personal combat. Or hell, have him go to a fancy ballroom party, where he needs to stealthfully get the key from around the neck of a princess with a degree of magically training. How would 16d6+320 help him then? :P
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:37 PM	By the by, you and your player *are* aware that you can only use a maneuver once in a fight before you have to refresh it (which takes a full round action to do, in the case of a Swordsage), right? After the 'Sage shadowjumped over, and the wizard contingent-D-doored away, the 'Sage can't do it again until he spends a full round recovering his maneuvers (and you can't ready redundant maneuvers) ... a full round in which he gets to stand there and get blasted by the wizard. *Nods* yeah, we are. The fight basically went: Round 1: SS - Shadow blink, wail on mage (triggering a contingent dimension door) Mage - Lob an orb or spell, hope that it's not intercepted or counterspelled by the rest of the party. Move Bigby's Crushing Hand onto the SS. Round 2: SS - Use full-round action while under the hand to regain all manouvers Mage - Lob spell, as above hope that it's not intercepted or counterspelled. Spells with saves get autopassed by concentration checks, attack roll spells have 50% chance of hitting the hand. Repeat several times over.
DarkRhystar 11-24-06, 03:40 PM	Lastly, if worse comes to worse, get some ToB characters to hear of the swordsages exploits and challenge him to personal combat. Or hell, have him go to a fancy ballroom party, where he needs to stealthfully get the key from around the neck of a princess with a degree of magically training. How would 16d6+320 help him then? :P As a side note... Swordsages do have Hide, Move Silently, Intimidate, and Knowledge (nobility and royalty) as class skills...
lears_fool 11-24-06, 03:40 PM	Oh, and as an observation. . Tome of Battle's two 'agile' classes are EXCEPTIONAL in 1:1 fights. That is their focus and expertise. Just because there's a melee class that doesn't always get wiped all over the floor by a wizard doesn't mean that it's time to panic just yet ;)
Xaktsaroth 11-24-06, 03:43 PM	As a side note... Swordsages do have Hide, Move Silently, Intimidate, and Knowledge (nobility and royalty) as class skills... Aye, but no Bluff, Dip, Sense Motive, or Sleight of Hand. :P
lears_fool 11-24-06, 03:43 PM	*Nods* yeah, we are. The fight basically went: Round 1: SS - Shadow blink, wail on mage (triggering a contingent dimension door) Mage - Lob an orb or spell, hope that it's not intercepted or counterspelled by the rest of the party. Move Bigby's Crushing Hand onto the SS. Round 2: SS - Use full-round action while under the hand to regain all manouvers Mage - Lob spell, as above hope that it's not intercepted or counterspelled. Spells with saves get autopassed by concentration checks, attack roll spells have 50% chance of hitting the hand. Repeat several times over. Yeah, I think in this case we may have a mild tactical failure on the wizard's part more than an actual class imbalance ;) At the very least the wizard should've dim doored FAR further away, should have tossed a couple of summons and such in the way, and levitated/flew up and/or used other evasive spells (improved invisibility, blur, mirror image, etc.) to avoid the fightery type (varying tactics depending on spells known) In a nutshell, he played to the swordsage's strengths
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:45 PM	ressurrector - The amge in question was an Evoker/Red Wizard of Thay. Barred schools meant no Invisibility and a few other things. Also, AMF?? WTF?? Unless you've got Extroadinary spell aim (which is just cheesy) that would have been handing the fight to the melee guy on a silver platter. Xaktsaroth - what use is a mage behind a wall of force? Wall of force blocks spell line of effect. Also, I always forget the targeting dispel magic on magic items lol. As to incorporeal creatures, I'm sure theres a stance or manouver that lets them hit them with no mischance, after all, they get a 2nd level manouver to overcome even Epic DR :P
DarkRhystar 11-24-06, 03:49 PM	Aye, but no Bluff, Dip, Sense Motive, or Sleight of Hand. :P Erm, they do have Sense Motive. Anyhow, you are missing the quaint subtlety of the old-fashioned "Give it up or I stab you in the face" approach which the latter, to be fair, is something the Swordsage is fairly good at. :P Or they could always invent a "Steal key from Princess" maneuver. Could always use one of them. :D I, personally, am still waiting for the "Golden Plunger" discipline which involves plungers, fireballs, and massive jumping damage. :)
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 03:49 PM	Yeah, I think in this case we may have a mild tactical failure on the wizard's part more than an actual class imbalance ;) At the very least the wizard should've dim doored FAR further away, should have tossed a couple of summons and such in the way, and levitated/flew up and/or used other evasive spells (improved invisibility, blur, mirror image, etc.) to avoid the fightery type (varying tactics depending on spells known) In a nutshell, he played to the swordsage's strengths Once again. Barred schools. No blur, invis, mirror image etc. As to D'Dooring far further away, you can't go all that far away and still be able to see what you're firing at. As to summons. One full round to cast? While under the guns of a Warmage and a Kineticist? Zero chance of the spell going off methinks. Quite possibly him being against an Evoker was one of the easist mage classes to beat off, but still..
Salla 11-24-06, 03:50 PM	Yeah, I think in this case we may have a mild tactical failure on the wizard's part more than an actual class imbalance ;) At the very least the wizard should've dim doored FAR further away, should have tossed a couple of summons and such in the way, and levitated/flew up and/or used other evasive spells (improved invisibility, blur, mirror image, etc.) to avoid the fightery type (varying tactics depending on spells known) In a nutshell, he played to the swordsage's strengths Precisely. Between the build and the tactics, you handed the Swordsage this guy's butt on a platter with fries and a Coke. :) You know, 99 percent of the knee-jerk reflexes I see to stuff around here occur because someone happened onto an ideal circumstance in the early goings, or the DM's style simply makes it perfect (aka if you throw nothing but melee-ing medium or small humanoids against a spiked chain tripmonkey, YES he's going to dominate).
lears_fool 11-24-06, 03:56 PM	Once again. Barred schools. No blur, invis, mirror image etc. As to D'Dooring far further away, you can't go all that far away and still be able to see what you're firing at. As to summons. One full round to cast? While under the guns of a Warmage and a Kineticist? Zero chance of the spell going off methinks. Quite possibly him being against an Evoker was one of the easist mage classes to beat off, but still.. Yes, losing out on all his illusions DOES hurt the poor Red Wizard, what was his other banned school again? I remember them having two, right? Dim Door wise, as a wizard. . if I'm doing a contingent dim door I'm DEFINITELY going to dim door pretty much as far away as possible (up if I have boots of levitation or a flying item myself). Unless I'm in a closed arena (playing to the fighter type's strengths) there's no reason to be any closer to the fighter. And even if one can't see him, there are always other preparations to make (it's far less fun for the fighter to run to where the apparently panicing wizard is only to find 5 huge air elementals waiting for him. . or worse not seeing anything because the wizzie picked invisible stalkers instead)
Neo_Leviathan 11-24-06, 04:00 PM	His banned schools were Necromancy, Illusion and Enchantment. He was designed as an optimised exploder, the guy called upon for the purposes of using Apocolypse from the Sky to remove a race/civilisation that was 'causing inconvinience'. The party stopped him, he got away, he came back the next day for revenge.
Kazeofwinds 11-24-06, 04:09 PM	So a melee fighter beat a fairly nonoptimized caster that was devoid of 3 schools worth of options. Doesn't seem like world-shattering powercreep to me. Sounds like the wizard took on the fight poorly prepared and under conditions that vastly favor the swordsage(1 on 1 duel) This guy probably could have been beaten by a well made melee combatant that didn't use ToB. Besides, ToB characters are more of an alternate type of spellcaster(or a gish) than a pure melee fighter. As for the concentration checks replacing saves, firstly those manuvers are immidate actions, meaning he can only use one per round, and secondly he'd need to recover manuvers before he could do it again. A few phantasmal killers in a row, and he'd probably die. My Bad, thats Illusion. Use Circle of death or finger or death...oh, those are necromancy, nevermind.
lears_fool 11-24-06, 04:16 PM	His banned schools were Necromancy, Illusion and Enchantment. Those are the three BEST schools to give a BBEG ;) Okay, maybe Illusion, Enchantment, and Conjuration. One thing I have discovered in the brief time ToB's been out. . Crowds and Illusion are the enemy of the 'agile' ToB classes, while mobility's the enemy of the crusader :) One thing's for sure though, with him having no illusion, that invisible stalker on his summon list is even MORE useful to him now. It's such a lovely little toy ;)
Salla 11-24-06, 04:20 PM	Those are the three BEST schools to give a BBEG ;) Yeah ... don't blame the class 'cause your bad guy had a crappy build that gave him no options. :)
tsuyoshikentsu 11-24-06, 04:23 PM	Yeah, this definitely falls under the category of "this Wizard was dead meat from day one."
lears_fool 11-24-06, 04:26 PM	Yeah, this definitely falls under the category of "this Wizard was dead meat from day one." It's amazing how useful illusion is for a BBEG and how much they miss it when it's gone. It's definitely one of those schools that's almost written for the DM.
The man they call Boxhead 11-24-06, 04:38 PM	Wait, this thread is claiming that the BoNS is unbalanced using a party fighting a lone wizard as its basis? That's the craziest thing I've ever seen. Said wizard should have had some kind of support, otherwise lone wizards lose when they get gang beats from the fighter (probably flying), the rogue (also flying and flanking) with the cleric healing and the party wizard being a very near match in solo. This wizard did not lose because the SwordSage was there. And FYI, SwordSage refreshes ONE maneuver with a Full-Round Action.
Salla 11-24-06, 04:42 PM	This wizard did not lose because the SwordSage was there. And FYI, SwordSage refreshes ONE maneuver with a Full-Round Action. HUH??!! *flipflipflipflip* I'll be damned. Well, never playin' one of those. :)
tsuyoshikentsu 11-24-06, 04:47 PM	And FYI, SwordSage refreshes ONE maneuver with a Full-Round Action. HUH??!! *flipflipflipflip* I'll be damned. Well, never playin' one of those. :)Swordsage : Adaptive Style :: Druid : Natural Spell. It really does give the SSg a significant power boost, and makes the SSg's... er, style much more adaptable. I'm 99% sure this is what this player is doing.
Kazeofwinds 11-24-06, 04:48 PM	This wizard did not lose because the SwordSage was there. And FYI, SwordSage refreshes ONE maneuver with a Full-Round Action. Well, any swordsage with a grain of sense takes adaptive style, wich along with refereshing all his manuvers, lets him change his readied ones.
Toloran 11-24-06, 04:54 PM	Well, any swordsage with a grain of sense takes adaptive style, wich along with refereshing all his manuvers, lets him change his readied ones. I think this is the main issue that causes most of the balance issues with the swordsage. Because every time i've seen one in a battle, every other player goes "ZOMG OVERPOWERED." I personally think the class is fine, but Adaptive style seems to push it a bit.
ressurrector 11-24-06, 05:02 PM	ressurrector - The amge in question was an Evoker/Red Wizard of Thay. Barred schools meant no Invisibility and a few other things. Also, AMF?? WTF?? Unless you've got Extroadinary spell aim (which is just cheesy) that would have been handing the fight to the melee guy on a silver platter. The teleportation maneuver, as well as several other good maneuvers availible to Swordsages are Supernatural, meaning they are worthless in an AMF, also his boots of flying wouldn't help. The idea would be to chuck it on him at ground level while the Wizard is in the air, thus keeping him grounded while the Wizard buffs and readies himself. Your wizard had no buffs outside of fly from the sounds of it, in other words he was glass-jawed, one or two good hits and he's down for the count. It also sounds like the rest of the party was backing up the Swordsage, in party vs. one fight, is it any wonder the mage got whaled on? In the future try at least putting the party up against a numerically even enemy, even if a couple of them are mooks.
OneWinged4ngel 11-24-06, 05:26 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book? Actually, I've found that tome of battle classes continue to take a back seat to real spellcasters, as long as said spellcasters are played intelligently. The powercreep hasn't been pushed forward, because the ToB classes cannot hope to meet the match of three core classes: The Wizard, the Cleric, and the Druid. Now that they don't *Suck*, it means they actually have a chance against casters who are badly played, as your example clearly is.
ressurrector 11-24-06, 05:56 PM	I think I've figured out the issue: Most classes have a power range dependant on how experienced the player, optomized the build, and so-forth. A mage can either be very good, or near worthless, same for clerics, psions, gishes, and druids. ToB classes are fairly hard to play badly, they're pretty much stuck at mid range on the power-meter regardless of how the player builds his character for the most part. (yes if you aim to suck it's still possible, but making a good Swordsage is fairly easy)
tsuyoshikentsu 11-24-06, 07:43 PM	Exactly right. ToB classes are great pick-up and go classes: they don't really have a complicated system to master. Spellcasters are just like magic in-game: they require long and intense study to be used effectively.
Aryxbez 11-24-06, 08:06 PM	Originally Posted by Neo_Leviathan His banned schools were Necromancy, Illusion and Enchantment. I am sorry, I don't even play spellcasters, and even I know that is bad damaging spells will not challenge a party you need utility spells to put them in their place like disenegration and holdperson and Dispel! My campaign uses alot of melee types, are martial adepts balanced according to such style compared to the other warrior types?
TarlSS 11-24-06, 08:16 PM	ZOMG, a single classed melee class beats a wizard of the same level. Doesn't that kind of reaction say something about how caster classes are overpowered, rather then TOB? I mean, you were blatantly expecting the wizard to win no holds barred because that's what you're used to; is it such a foreign concept that a primarily COMBAT class beats a wizard at COMBAT?
Aryxbez 11-24-06, 08:20 PM	Originally posted by TarlSS ZOMG, a single classed melee class beats a wizard of the same level. Doesn't that kind of reaction say something about how caster classes are overpowered, rather then TOB? I mean, you were blatantly expecting the wizard to win no holds barred because that's what you're used to; is it such a foreign concept that a primarily COMBAT class beats a wizard at COMBAT? However the wizard only lost due shoddy spell selection (SSS) Otherwise No I don't find it foreign at all I don't know if spellcasters are overpowered, I have not had enough spellcasters in my games to tell. but I can tell they are somewhat superior which is intentional
tsuyoshikentsu 11-24-06, 08:37 PM	I don't know if spellcasters are overpowered, I have not had enough spellcasters in my games to tell. but I can tell they are somewhat superiorThis is true. which is intentionalAs far as I know, this isn't.
Muspelheim 11-24-06, 08:52 PM	So, what you are saying is that a certain class is overpowered because he was able to prevail against a very poorly played caster who, besides having a pretty sucky build apparently, also decided to undertake extremely poor tactics as well. *And*, as far as I able to tell, the wizard was alone in a fight against an entire party. You are telling me the wizard DDs a mere 60' away, without any additional defences and then lobs frickin' 4th!!!!!! level spells at en equal level opponent when he's level 17?!?!?!?! :confused: He could DD out of range easily via contingency and gate in a balor instead, to start with. *Even* with his poor build he should have considerable better options than just trying to blast, especially when he seems bent on deliberately staying inside his opponents' range :rolleyes: And if he in fact was somewhat more competently put together and in an actual 1 vs 1 against a swordsage, the swordsage would have a very hard time doing anything against stuff like greater/superior invisibility and if, by some chance, the swordsage could manage to negate that through items and such, *and* outlast the wizards spellslots/items, the wizard could just teleport away and wait for a better opportunity. The only chance the swordsage has is to win initiative and kill the wizard before he gets to act - and that's most likely only if the wizard haven't got a proper contingency up. Your analysis, as presented, is extremely poor.
theotherdraxen 11-24-06, 10:13 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book? OMG! Warrior-types are better than spellcasters at combat! Let's hit ToB with Nerf Stick 'till no one will use it!:P Anyway, from what I've heard (and read in this thread), max level ToB maneuvers and stances are at most, on par with 6th level spells. ToB classes go 'supernova' with their maneuvers every battle, but they are at about 2/3 the normal effect of a caster's nova, which the classes make up for consistent fighting in each encounter. Basically, the road to spellcaster power is still paved with grunts (Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade), but the ToB classes just get to keep paving on through level 20. In the future: make sure you don't let a player use a resource with which you are not familiar, and make sure that you are well aquainted with the strengths and weaknesses of your antagonists. Oh, and don't have your BBEG try to go it alone: s/he will almost certainly fail.
BlaineTog 11-24-06, 10:28 PM	OMG! Warrior-types are better than spellcasters at combat! Let's hit ToB with Nerf Stick 'till no one will use it!:PWell, to be fair, spellcasters are overpowered, so if you whip up something as powerful as them, that might not be such a good idea. But yeah, ToB classes look pretty solidly balanced to me.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-24-06, 10:41 PM	You can't put a wizard and a warblade/swordsage in a room and say "fight", and expect them to use raw damage only. Well, you can in the case of warblade/swordsage, but not wizard. Oh no. You're forgetting why wizards kick everyone's ass twelve different ways. A 20th level wizard who just uses damage spells is a complete mororn. Keep in mind that he can negate ALL of the fighter-type's magical equipment with a single casting of Mordienkein's Disjunction. Here are some possabilities: Round1: Teleport (with the enemy) to an open field. Cast Quickened fly. Round 2: Fly straight up into the air, as far as you can. 50ft teleport? Good luck going 500ft above you, and from there launch your damage spells. Most damage spells have long range, which EASILY reaches the ground from 500ft in the air. Fire a damage spell. Round 3: Destroy the helpless warrior type. Or without teleports... Cast Etheral Jaunt. Use Transdimentional Spell to launch damage spells from your impenetremble etheral fortress. Or without plane movement... Cast Dominate Person. Give the command to not move. Cast Wall of Force three times, making a triangular prision that cannot be breached. Cast Delayed Blast Fireball as many times as you can. Cancel Wall of Force. He can't move and there's a LOT of fireballs about to go off. Run and wait for the BOOM. Or without Domination... Same thing but Hold Person. Or without Hold... Sphere of Ultimate Destruction. Meld into Stone. Wait for the scream of agony. Without high-end antimatter spells... Shapechange. Become the strongest red dragon as possable. Good luck fighting a dragon. (if this is epic, then a Hecatoncheries) Without shapechanging magic... Black Blade of Disaster (magic of faerun, might have been reprinted in Spell Compendium, I don't have the book.) and any of a lot of spells to run away. I could go on all day. 20th level wizards (or really 13th, the spells start getting nuke-ish arround level 7) just kick ass. ToB just gives fighters a reasonable chance.
Aryxbez 11-25-06, 02:57 AM	Originally posted by Aryxbez I don't know if spellcasters are overpowered, I have not had enough spellcasters in my games to tell. but I can tell they are somewhat superior which is intentional Originally posted by tsuyoshikentsu As far as I know, this isn't. Well I am not saying they should replace the fighter or anything like that just that they should be slightly better than warrior types, just only slightly Although I doubt fights at high levels would even go long if the melee types are popping out 100+ damage every round, seeing how most monsters can't take a whole lot of 100's without being almost dead
Count Arioch the 28th 11-25-06, 08:24 AM	I'm going to echo what several people said and say that direct daamge is the worst way to defeat a lone combatant, and that if the wizard had specialized in battlefield control,. he still would have won they day. Damage is good againts large groups of weaker creatures, not one powerful foe.
graymocker 11-25-06, 09:27 AM	My campaign uses alot of melee types, are martial adepts balanced according to such style compared to the other warrior types? Depends. If your fighters are played by good optimizers have access to a variety of sources, I'd say yes. Note how many qualifications I'm using though. On average, a ToB character will be more powerful than existing melee types.
Sergikins 11-25-06, 09:58 AM	hold on... A sword sage refreshs one manuver with a ful round action? i don't own the ToB, but my friend uses it on a regular basis, and it defintly seems more powerful in comparison
Seerow 11-25-06, 10:12 AM	Does Delay Teleport work against the Swordsage's shadow blink? If so, that would be something nasty to let him run into in the future. A Mage that has that up permanently, he tries to shadowblink closer and gets taken out of the fight for 3 rounds.
The White Sorcerer 11-25-06, 10:17 AM	hold on... A sword sage refreshs one manuver with a ful round action? Yes.
DarkRhystar 11-25-06, 12:04 PM	hold on... A sword sage refreshs one manuver with a ful round action? i don't own the ToB, but my friend uses it on a regular basis, and it defintly seems more powerful in comparison Unless the Swordsage has the feat Adaptive style. In which case, it can refresh and reselect all of its maneuvers in one round.
Toloran 11-25-06, 01:16 PM	i don't own the ToB, but my friend uses it on a regular basis, and it defintly seems more powerful in comparison Compared to what though? A fighter? If so then yeah, of course. But thats almost like comparing a heavy weight boxing champ to a two year old (Yes, Its a hyperbole, but its to make a point). Fighters are underpowered. You could easily say that when comparing a fighter to most classes. What the martial maneuver classes are, however, is balanced when compared to a spellcaster of an equal level. A properly played spellcaster will still probably wipe the floor with the melee type, but it will definately have a fighting chance without having to resort to relying on magical items.
narukagami 11-25-06, 01:50 PM	How dare Wizards of the Coast write a book that makes melee even remotely compairable to casters! What were they thinking! This is an outrage! I mean, sure, the caster still overshadows them, but come on! This book cut it alittle too close! There is no reason a melee character should be able to do anything but guard the casters! An outrage I say! All joking aside, people are way too quick to judge the book without even looking at it objectivly or compairing it with the core casters. It's intended to outshine the core melee'ers, because they suck. Its purpous is to give you a viable melee option that remotely compairs to the all-powerful core casters without being a boring one-trick-pony with a spiked chain. And for the 100th time, a one-on-one arena fight is not a viable way of compairing relative power levels of D&D classes.
Salla 11-25-06, 02:30 PM	And for the 1,000,000th time, a one-on-one arena fight is not a viable way of compairing relative power levels of D&D classes. Fixed that for you. :)
Lord Diggori 11-25-06, 02:47 PM	And for the 100th time, a one-on-one arena fight is not a viable way of compairing relative power levels of D&D classes. While this is generally true, when testing some class abilities the 1 on 1 scenerio works well. Before ToB was allowed in our games, we ran some tests of melee combat capability between my 6th level hobgoblin fighter and a version of the same character as a 6th level warblade. All abilites, weapons, and armor equal, they surprisingly matched up pretty well: out of ten matches fighter 4, warblade 5, with one draw. We found the right combination of feats (we use lots of non-core sources) can counter manuevers and stances often, atleast at 6th level. A standard attack with lots of damage bonus can be matched by multiple attacks without this bonus. Now I have a hobgoblin fighter6/warblade1 :D
Always-Late 11-25-06, 02:57 PM	Casters Gish Utility Fighters That's how it is. We fix this by making... Casters Gish Tome of Battle Utility Fighters I think there's a better way of fixing the system.
BlaineTog 11-25-06, 03:46 PM	@ Always-Late, Of course there is. It requires overhauling the system, such as by releasing the oft-discussed will-o'-the-wisp 4.0. Barring that, ToB works pretty well as a way of allowing viable melee characters.
theotherdraxen 11-25-06, 03:59 PM	IMO, we don't need 4.0...we need another release of third edition. Call it 3.75, or maybe just call it the Triad: third release of third edition.
BlaineTog 11-25-06, 05:02 PM	IMO, we don't need 4.0...we need another release of third edition. Call it 3.75, or maybe just call it the Triad: third release of third edition.Or we could, um, not.
tsuyoshikentsu 11-25-06, 06:12 PM	3.67!
Count Arioch the 28th 11-25-06, 06:15 PM	3E hyper fighting champion edition!
Comus 11-25-06, 06:48 PM	It will be known simply as... Thr33, and the core books will not only include all of the errata, integrated directly into the rules, they will include errata from the future, fixing suppliments that have not even been released yet! Unfortunately, the technology required to print it will result in sentient computers taking over mankind. You can't make an omlette without destroying civilization, I guess.
Neofish 11-25-06, 07:12 PM	Or we could, um, not. Why not? All that is really required is a face lift to the core rules, not a complete overhaul. I'd rather spend another 100 bucks on the 3 core books and be done with it rather than have to re-buy all the 30+ splatbooks I own now... I don't know about you dude, but having to rebuy stuff I already own with a few minor changes isn't something i'm looking foward to for a long time.
OneWinged4ngel 11-25-06, 07:20 PM	Wouldn't it have been great if they made more than just extremely minor (and sometimes bad) changes to 3.5? Yeah, that would have been great... Best thing they added was to the core system, though. Swift actions and the like are a nice addition. That's about the extent of it, though. Why not? All that is really required is a face lift to the core rules, not a complete overhaul. I'd rather spend another 100 bucks on the 3 core books and be done with it rather than have to re-buy all the 30+ splatbooks I own now... I don't know about you dude, but having to rebuy stuff I already own with a few minor changes isn't something i'm looking foward to for a long time. This isn't going to happen, for the simple reason that WotC writers aren't paid to promote balance. They're paid to *sell books*.
Toloran 11-25-06, 08:48 PM	This isn't going to happen, for the simple reason that WotC writers aren't paid to promote balance. They're paid to *sell books*. They could at least update the core books with the -extensive- errata.
narukagami 11-25-06, 08:50 PM	They could at least update the core books with the -extensive- errata. If they had a competent writing and editing staff, that errata shouldn't exist in the first place.
Toloran 11-25-06, 08:53 PM	If they had a competent writing and editing staff, that errata shouldn't exist in the first place. No, most of the errata would still exist. The easiest way to have avoided it would be to toss the book before it came out to the CO boards and let them break it. Then, modify the wording to disallow everything they do =P
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-25-06, 09:00 PM	No, most of the errata would still exist. The easiest way to have avoided it would be to toss the book before it came out to the CO boards and let them break it. Then, modify the wording to disallow everything they do =P Actualy theres nothing wrong with the CO boards, no one ever means to play pun-pun, but finding efectave interactoins of rules is part of any game with Rules and strategy, if you've used a pawn exchange to pave the way for a sacrifice in chess its just the same. As for Tome of battle I've had the book for a few days, and its nowhere near as bad as the Op would indicate. It does return front line combatant to being an atriactave prospect at high levels, but no more than that, Casters will still predomanate due to the far broader scope of actual magic compared to the sublime way.
tsuyoshikentsu 11-25-06, 11:11 PM	No, most of the errata would still exist. The easiest way to have avoided it would be to toss the book before it came out to the CO boards and let them break it. Then, modify the wording to disallow everything they do =PYou cannot have any concept how hard the CO boards lobby for this idea.
theotherdraxen 11-25-06, 11:41 PM	3rd edition isn't a bad system: it's just got a few leaks that need fixing. Asking for 4.0 is like asking for WotC to build you a whole new house, when all you need right now is to fix the roof and recarpet the basement.
Ongorth 11-26-06, 12:16 AM	This isn't going to happen, for the simple reason that WotC writers aren't paid to promote balance. They're paid to *sell books*. And this is a good thing. Its better that they write things that I want to buy than things that I don't want to buy but are well balanced. Balance is an afterthought for the designers. D&D has no tournement environment. The casual D&D player far outnumbers the "hardcore" player. It serves the game better to churn out lots of good ideas and let the players do what they want with it, tuning it to their desires. Its not like they could possibly set the power level to please everyone AND its not like they could make the game balanced across the variety of different houserules and playstyles that people use. "Hardcore" players buy the books anyway so they can complain, its win/win!
tsuyoshikentsu 11-26-06, 01:04 AM	I really can't disagree with that. Well thought out, my friend.
Michigan 11-26-06, 01:07 AM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you.
PiedmonSama 11-26-06, 01:29 AM	Whatever works for you, I guess. >_>
ressurrector 11-26-06, 01:32 AM	Crazy jumping is core, deal with it. Soul Calibur is pretty much people attacking eachother with swords, you don't like attacking people with swords in D&D? Final Fantasy...I can't even see that one, mabye if you were talking about Eberron (I'm guessing you hate that too) In any event, the main discussion is if the Tome of Battle is balanced or not, if you have a problem with the flavor take it elsewhere.
Comus 11-26-06, 01:33 AM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. And I like my fantasy to be a little steampunk, with airships, trains, and guns. I like industrial magic, with cat-people, sentient worms, beings made of coherent light, shapeshifters, and green lion-bunnies with gemstones in their heads. I'll take the Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha that you're not using. :P
Salla 11-26-06, 01:51 AM	I think we're thread-drifting here, folks. Just aLITTLE.
BlaineTog 11-26-06, 02:00 AM	I think we're thread-drifting here, folks. Just aLITTLE.That tends to happen when you crush the original topic's point, but the book in question is still neat-o fun to talk about.
ressurrector 11-26-06, 02:09 AM	So, anyone here want to (just for debates sake) mention something in ToB which is not balanced? I've got a few issues myself: Crusader Recovery Method as clarified by CustServ (Using the same maneuver round after round after round?) White Raven Tactics (Extra turn for a friend with a low level maneuver?) Iron Heart Surge as clarified by CustServ (really, should it be able to kill off AMFs?)
tsuyoshikentsu 11-26-06, 02:19 AM	I've got a few issues myself: Crusader Recovery Method as clarified by CustServ (Using the same maneuver round after round after round?)...is proof of the constant CO assertion that CS is, in fact, a pack of brain-dead orangutans. White Raven Tactics (Extra turn for a friend with a low level maneuver?)And what, haste and the cerelity line are any better? Iron Heart Surge as clarified by CustServ (really, should it be able to kill off AMFs?)Yes. Yes it should. Considering how much meleers need magic gear, it's not quite balanced for anyone with Extraordinary Spell Aim to be able to shut them down completely.
Comus 11-26-06, 02:26 AM	I like to think that the Crusader's recovery method is balanced because, in return for suffering the randomness of the maneuvers they're granted, they're able to consistantly use the same maneuvers over and over again after a few rounds. I like to think that. The answer is, of course, that the Crusader's recovery mechanic is poorly worded and other interpretations are probably more true to intent... but that's a debate for another time and place.
The White Sorcerer 11-26-06, 08:06 AM	Thr33 "Thr33! Thr33! Thr33!":monk: :monk: :monk: Sorry couldn't resist... Also, we need a ninja smiley.
Aegeu 11-26-06, 08:25 AM	I like to think that the Crusader's recovery method is balanced because, in return for suffering the randomness of the maneuvers they're granted, they're able to consistantly use the same maneuvers over and over again after a few rounds. I like to think that. The answer is, of course, that the Crusader's recovery mechanic is poorly worded and other interpretations are probably more true to intent... but that's a debate for another time and place. The one broken thing about WRT is when you perform an infinite loop using Divine impetus and Divine recovery. Then you end up with the infinite energizer bunny on a pogo stick that is capable of doing everything on every count of the initiative order. If you use it as intended, it works fine. The above is why I follow the alternate interpretation posted on the COp boards.
Neofish 11-26-06, 12:12 PM	The one broken thing about WRT is when you perform an infinite loop using Divine impetus and Divine recovery. Then you end up with the infinite energizer bunny on a pogo stick that is capable of doing everything on every count of the initiative order. If you use it as intended, it works fine. The above is why I follow the alternate interpretation posted on the COp boards. Yeah, but these are all Ruby Knight Vindicator problems, not WRT. You could always just decide not to allow that class (I know, I know, just because a DM can change it doesn't mean it's balanced). I don't suppose you could link the CO boards interpretation for us could you?
tsuyoshikentsu 11-26-06, 01:39 PM	Well, the RKV is limited by turn attempts -- although this isn't saying much; I managed to get 31 activations off it in one turn. Of course, two Warblades with WRT and Adaptive Style could keep each other going forever. However, they'd need other kinds of cheese (alter self into Choker with Assume Supernatural Ability, cerelity, etc.) in order to be able to do anything.
Neofish 11-26-06, 03:25 PM	Well, the RKV is limited by turn attempts -- although this isn't saying much; I managed to get 31 activations off it in one turn. Of course, two Warblades with WRT and Adaptive Style could keep each other going forever. However, they'd need other kinds of cheese (alter self into Choker with Assume Supernatural Ability, cerelity, etc.) in order to be able to do anything. :rofl:
OneWinged4ngel 11-26-06, 03:33 PM	I don't suppose you could link the CO boards interpretation for us could you? That would be nice.
RadicalTaoist 11-26-06, 04:09 PM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. Oh how limited your games must be. It's just names.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-26-06, 04:25 PM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. And here we have him, ladies and gentlemen, the most imaginitive, smartest, least prejudiced and judgemental man to ever hit the gutters of this world. /sarcasm, except for the gutters part
Archangel62 11-27-06, 12:31 PM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. Moorcock low magic...:rofl: Sorry, just had to get that out of my system. So the book didn't do it for you, that's fine, personally I'm sick of the 500th reincarnation of Tolkien, that's why I love Eberron and like it when they add things that give you some new ways to pull in different directions.
Xaktsaroth 11-27-06, 01:22 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien.
Yorath_theWolf 11-27-06, 01:41 PM	You can't put a wizard and a warblade/swordsage in a room and say "fight", and expect them to use raw damage only. Well, you can in the case of warblade/swordsage, but not wizard. Oh no. You're forgetting why wizards kick everyone's ass twelve different ways. A 20th level wizard who just uses damage spells is a complete mororn. Keep in mind that he can negate ALL of the fighter-type's magical equipment with a single casting of Mordienkein's Disjunction. Here are some possabilities: or as opposed to Mordienkein's, ya could just Chained Greater Dispell... or if memory serves, there's now a Chain Dispell spell that works great here and leaves you with 'lewt' afterwards... or I guess in the case of BBEG claiming stuff trophey's or gear for minions.
Vestigial_Thumb 11-27-06, 01:54 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien. I'm sick of him. It's nothing personal, though (really, I would not torture and kill Tolkien if I could, honest).
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-27-06, 01:57 PM	I'm sick of him. It's nothing personal, though (really, I would not torture and kill Tolkien if I could, honest). Me too, Him and Peater Jackson. (Perhaps as he wont be directing the Hobbit Dwarves will actualy get a chanse to be cool )
Archangel62 11-27-06, 01:59 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien. I don't dislike EVERYTHING Tolkien, and I will give it credit for helping to jumpstart our hobby, but yeah I don't want to go through it 5000X times in the game.
Kresalak 11-27-06, 05:26 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien. I love Tolkien. I'm sick and tired of people thinking D&D is anything like LotR, though. I say this with all seriousness-anyone who thinks D&D can support a LotR style world needs to learn to read.
Archangel62 11-27-06, 05:38 PM	I love Tolkien. I'm sick and tired of people thinking D&D is anything like LotR, though. I say this with all seriousness-anyone who thinks D&D can support a LotR style world needs to learn to read. I don't think that the world is LotR, but I do think that many DMs try to run it that way, and that most of Tolkiens work has shaped the way that the worlds in D&D were designed. There are many differences too but very often it feels like every game and gameworld is set in the same mold.
Muspelheim 11-27-06, 07:03 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien. Speaking as one who has only read LOTR and the Hobbit, I wouldn't say I *hate* Tolkien, but I strongly dislike the simplistic moral dualism present in the LOTR universe and in many other, later works of fantasy. Of course, the fact that orcs, elves, hobbits, dwarves etc. is so prevalent in most everything fantasy does not help at all, though Tolkien himself can hardly be blamed for *that* travesty. I literally hate those races, especially if they are portrayed in the archetypal way; twisting them, a la Dark Sun say, helps at bit, but I prefer settings where they are not present at all.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-27-06, 07:05 PM	More, its the Players and DMs like Michigan who refuse to let any idea that hasnt been run so far into the ground it hit dwarves by all the Tolken clones any where near there games that are the problem. I've been playing D&D since I was 10. thats 16 years, and you know what? I Like being able to chose from Ninja and Rogue, between ranager and scout, to decide if my Curious magican from far off lands should be a Wu jen or a wizard, or if my debonare reuctant hero swordsman is going to be a swashbuckler or Warblade. I like the fact my mind weaving manipulator can be A Beguiler, a sorcer, a wizard, a telepath, I like the diferences sublte as they are Between Mind Bender and a Thrallherd. Why? becase it keeps things new, it stops me playing the same charicter every campeghn when I dont have as many campeghns to play in as New charicters to try. The same with Ebberon, I Want To jump from the back of a Lightning rail as it crosses a bridge, onto the deck of a waiting Airship. Leaving the Warforged chasing me unable to do more than shake there fists. I want to peform Industrial sabotage sometimes, want worlds that are distinctave for more than the names of nations and the gods trying to drestoy the world. Ive played 'Classic' D&D, and its fun, but ive been at it awhile, give me options, give me novelty, pass me a new book full of suprised and try 'New and Improved' it may just remind you that Fantasy is meant to be Fantastic.
Salla 11-27-06, 07:20 PM	The more and more I read these boards, the more I think I'm one of the only people who truly dislikes everything Tolkien. You're not. I spent the entire first LotR movie screaming "Will someone eat those stupid little midgets" at the screen (didn't go to the theater, saw the video ... wife forced me). I have been LONG tired of Tolkien-esque gaming. Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed drew me away first, now Eberron has me so firmly I'm incapable of thinking in non-Eberron terms when I think about gameworlds or character creation. Elves use SCIMITARS, darn it!
Morrowner 11-27-06, 07:54 PM	I don't like Tolkien that much and I think his works get too much credit for influencing Dungeons and Dragons. As to Book of Nine Swords the first thing that I thought when I read it was "My God this is broken! Right before Rule 0 is Rule -1:Magic must be clearly superior to melee. Always. With this book its almost as good! Almost. No, melee must forever ride the metaphorical Dungeons and Dragons short bus."
Salla 11-27-06, 07:56 PM	I don't like Tolkien that much and I think his works get too much credit for influencing Dungeons and Dragons. You never played 1st or 2nd Edition, did you? :)
megageek 11-27-06, 07:59 PM	On rule -1 this is unfortunately true...The Wotc staff is mainly people who feel(It seems like.) That casters are the coolest and should get all the awsome abilities. And TOB classes are essentially casters. We don't need new abilities for melee types. We need a new system. Giving them all these new maneuvers makes them more powerful, but are really still doing melee?
theotherdraxen 11-27-06, 08:03 PM	I picked up ToB a fewmonths back, and set it down after reading a single page. Any RPG supplement that invokes wu xia, Soul Calibur, and Final Fantasy as insperations had better be for BESM, and not for Dungeons & Dragons if they want me to buy it. Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. Flavor-text was made to be rewritten. Be honest: if Legolas wasn't using some kind of high-powered ToB equivalent maneuver (I haven't read far enough to know if there is one or not), how could he have taken down that massive Oliphant with a single shot from his bow? RAW, there is now way, even at massively high levels, that Legolas's non-magical bow could have dealt that much damage.
theotherdraxen 11-27-06, 08:09 PM	On rule -1 this is unfortunately true...The Wotc staff is mainly people who feel(It seems like.) That casters are the coolest and should get all the awsome abilities. And TOB classes are essentially casters. We don't need new abilities for melee types. We need a new system. Giving them all these new maneuvers makes them more powerful, but are really still doing melee? A lot of the maneuvers do go over the top, but I feel that many of them, despite their spell-like formatting, are quite melee-oriented. I am upset with some maneuvers (especially the desert ones), but the Avalance of Blades maneuver from the Diamond Mind discipline was one that I thought was incredibly cool, and also incredibly melee-oriented.
megageek 11-27-06, 08:13 PM	Well, I haven't read the book very well, but what really needs to happen is casters being toned down, and melee types getting better feat trees, and possibly just plain higher weapon dmg..
ressurrector 11-27-06, 08:15 PM	Be honest: if Legolas wasn't using some kind of high-powered ToB equivalent maneuver (I haven't read far enough to know if there is one or not), how could he have taken down that massive Oliphant with a single shot from his bow? RAW, there is now way, even at massively high levels, that Legolas's non-magical bow could have dealt that much damage. Who ever said it was non-magical? In Tolkien elven-made is the same as being enchanted. It was probably a +5 vorpal bow, with a flavor difference that it hits the brain on a critical hit.
ressurrector 11-27-06, 08:18 PM	Well, I haven't read the book very well, but what really needs to happen is casters being toned down, and melee types getting better feat trees, and possibly just plain higher weapon dmg.. Possibly weapon damage based on bab? or increased based on how much you beat someones AC by? at low levels weapons are 1-hit KOs, but at higher levels a single weapon hit hardly makes a dent in most things.
RadicalTaoist 11-27-06, 08:18 PM	This has gotten so off topic... Anyways, Tolkien is an excellent storyteller, however when I wan't Tolkien I'll open up my copy of LotR. When I open up my copy of the PHB, I don't want Tolkien, I want D&D.
Wolfvyn 11-27-06, 08:44 PM	Flavor-text was made to be rewritten. Be honest: if Legolas wasn't using some kind of high-powered ToB equivalent maneuver (I haven't read far enough to know if there is one or not), how could he have taken down that massive Oliphant with a single shot from his bow? RAW, there is now way, even at massively high levels, that Legolas's non-magical bow could have dealt that much damage. Probably a called shot really. he was portrayed as an amasing archer/sniper. Now using D&d rules, he could probably force it to make a fort save to avoid dying from massive damage if he was a psionic warrior with greater psionic shot, and disolving weapon. though that save is pretty low, only a 20 if I remember correctly, but it could of rolled low, but that of course requires using pyshic power which in d&d is basically just anothre form of magic. I really enjoed reading the hobbit, but the whole ring triology was way to drawn out. He killed what ever suspense he was trying to build by having the battles always tetering back and forth. Swinging back once or twice isn;t that bad, but when you end up doing that four or five times each battle is just wrong. you want hard fought just avoiding oblivion, then instead of having new forces always arrive to bail the other side out, make it a hard fought not wave after wave after wave for both sides for all eternity. Anyway back on subject, so he killed a single BBEG who didn't or couldn;t prepare himself better. Next time you'll know and give the BBEG body guards that are only a few lvls lower or have the BBEG use the time that it takes for the enemy to reach him to prepare his field better or set up a way to cheat. bad guys always cheat, infact they almost always cheat better than the good guys. That's why only the good die young or perhpas it's that bad guys have evil armor...
Archangel62 11-27-06, 10:27 PM	I have to say that your BBEG was poorly designed tactically, if a wizard is poorly built please don't blame a good mechanic for bad tactics on your part.
ravenshrike 11-27-06, 11:12 PM	Just FYI, the swordsage sounded like he had prepared his maneuvers known specifically to deal with a mage, whereas the mage sounds like he didn't prepare anything specifically anti-melee. In a case like this, you really shouldn't expect a different result. Next time try giving your mage AMF, de-buffs, and greater invisibility among other GOOD spells... It's also worthwile to note that fly speed with a maneuverability of good only goes upwards at half-speed. Note, AMF will NOT work against a properly built anti-caster build from the ToB as if you play with your maneuvers right they will all be Ex abilities. Of course, if they're level 20 and the wizard has saayyy, 5 crafted contingent heal spells on him of incase of injury that would knock him unconcious/kill him cast after the one before in sequence has been cast the melee is ****ed unless he caught the wizard after he's burned all his spells for the day and any scrolls he had on him.
theotherdraxen 11-27-06, 11:16 PM	Who ever said it was non-magical? In Tolkien elven-made is the same as being enchanted. It was probably a +5 vorpal bow, with a flavor difference that it hits the brain on a critical hit. I betcha Legolas was built to do it with any old longbow: I don't think it was a magic item pulling it off. If that's true, I think I may loate Jackson myself. It was cool to see Legolas do it, but not cool to see his bow do it for him.
megageek 11-27-06, 11:32 PM	Lotr is not god damn dnd! There are no game mechanics that writers have to deal with!
theotherdraxen 11-28-06, 12:02 AM	Lotr is not god damn dnd! There are no game mechanics that writers have to deal with! Yeah, but it would be nice to know how we could simulate some of that stuff in D&D.
megageek 11-28-06, 12:08 AM	But sometimes certain stuff doesn't translate very well.
ressurrector 11-28-06, 12:12 AM	Note, AMF will NOT work against a properly built anti-caster build from the ToB as if you play with your maneuvers right they will all be Ex abilities. Of course, if they're level 20 and the wizard has saayyy, 5 crafted contingent heal spells on him of incase of injury that would knock him unconcious/kill him cast after the one before in sequence has been cast the melee is ****ed unless he caught the wizard after he's burned all his spells for the day and any scrolls he had on him. The teleportation spells that the OP had such a problem with are all SU. Pretty much all of the maneuvers that are closer to magical effects than melee techniques are SU. This includers most of the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools.
Xaktsaroth 11-28-06, 01:05 PM	More, its the Players and DMs like Michigan who refuse to let any idea that hasnt been run so far into the ground it hit dwarves by all the Tolken clones any where near there games that are the problem. I've been playing D&D since I was 10. thats 16 years, and you know what? I Like being able to chose from Ninja and Rogue, between ranager and scout, to decide if my Curious magican from far off lands should be a Wu jen or a wizard, or if my debonare reuctant hero swordsman is going to be a swashbuckler or Warblade. I like the fact my mind weaving manipulator can be A Beguiler, a sorcer, a wizard, a telepath, I like the diferences sublte as they are Between Mind Bender and a Thrallherd. Why? becase it keeps things new, it stops me playing the same charicter every campeghn when I dont have as many campeghns to play in as New charicters to try. The same with Ebberon, I Want To jump from the back of a Lightning rail as it crosses a bridge, onto the deck of a waiting Airship. Leaving the Warforged chasing me unable to do more than shake there fists. I want to peform Industrial sabotage sometimes, want worlds that are distinctave for more than the names of nations and the gods trying to drestoy the world. Ive played 'Classic' D&D, and its fun, but ive been at it awhile, give me options, give me novelty, pass me a new book full of suprised and try 'New and Improved' it may just remind you that Fantasy is meant to be Fantastic. I feel exactly the same way. On another note, have you read through Magic of Incarnum yet? It's a book along the same vein. It's quite different and refreshing, I don't think I've put the thing down since I got it when it first came out. :P
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 11-28-06, 02:39 PM	Incarnum, Tome of battle, Tome of magic, and Ive loved every one of them. Add in the fact that I spend half my time on the CO bords as well and if I weren't our groups main DM Id be his nightmare.
Deep Blue 9000 11-28-06, 03:19 PM	The teleportation spells that the OP had such a problem with are all SU. Pretty much all of the maneuvers that are closer to magical effects than melee techniques are SU. This includers most of the Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools. Actually, Shadow Jaunt, Stride, and Step are all extraordinary. Although they do have the teleportation descriptor.
blinks 11-28-06, 03:42 PM	While I don't think it's overpowered (at least without having a little more time with the book), anyone playing in Eberron might want to check out a Warforged Swordsage/Human Artificer party as a test case. One of my DM friends and I played through a lvl 1 adventure to take a look at this combo and never even took damage.
PhaedrusXY 11-28-06, 03:53 PM	I didn't bother reading all of this thread (about 1/2 the first page), nor do I intend to because it seems pointless. It sounds like a lone mage with almost no defensive spells lost to a full party that was prepared to fight him. So why is this surprizing? Oh, because there are now melee classes that can actually do something against high level spellcasters? Boo freakin' hoo.
theotherdraxen 11-28-06, 04:42 PM	But sometimes certain stuff doesn't translate very well. Still, I'd like there to be a book that lets warrior-types pull off the same sort of stuff. Legolas wasn't outclassed in battle by any damn spellcaster, that's for sure, and our own warrior characters wouldn't be either if WotC would let them do the same stuff that the heroes in books and legends did. ToB does this, of course, but some of the maneuvers weren't so warrior-like, but more gish like. Others are great, though.
BlaineTog 11-28-06, 05:03 PM	Legolas wasn't outclassed in battle by any damn spellcaster, that's for sure, and our own warrior characters wouldn't be either if WotC would let them do the same stuff that the heroes in books and legends did.Legs wasn't outclassed in battle by spellcasters due in very large part to the simple fact that there were no spellcasters in his battles. Could he have competeted with Meteor Swarms, Storm of Vengeance, Cloudkill, or even Fireball?
theotherdraxen 11-28-06, 06:00 PM	Legs wasn't outclassed in battle by spellcasters due in very large part to the simple fact that there were no spellcasters in his battles. Could he have competeted with Meteor Swarms, Storm of Vengeance, Cloudkill, or even Fireball? We-e-elll, there is that. A friend and I concluded once that Gandalf would have been best represented in D&D by a Bard. Plus, all those spells would have dealt severe damage to the Oliphant, but only Legolas (or other LOTR warrior types) could have killed it in one shot.
Neofish 11-28-06, 07:22 PM	Pft, it's obvious that the Oliphant was helpless and that Legolas performed a Coup de Grace against him...
BlaineTog 11-28-06, 08:13 PM	We-e-elll, there is that. A friend and I concluded once that Gandalf would have been best represented in D&D by a Bard.Well, he's an angel, so he'd really be some form of supernatural beaing with a bunch of levels in Outsider, most likely. Plus, all those spells would have dealt severe damage to the Oliphant, but only Legolas (or other LOTR warrior types) could have killed it in one shot.Phantasmal Killer? Finger of Death? Implosion? Polymorph Any Object? Or, better, Dominate Monster?
theotherdraxen 11-28-06, 09:21 PM	Well, he's an angel, so he'd really be some form of supernatural beaing with a bunch of levels in Outsider, most likely. Phantasmal Killer? Finger of Death? Implosion? Polymorph Any Object? Or, better, Dominate Monster? You got me on Dominate Monster, but don't the rest allow a fortitiude save, which would be massively high in such a creature?
robertliguori 11-29-06, 12:16 AM	We-e-elll, there is that. A friend and I concluded once that Gandalf would have been best represented in D&D by a Bard. Interestingly enough, the To9S class Jade Phoenix Mage can be restructured into Istari with very few changes. The movie Gandalf could be made as a high-Wis sorceror/martial adept that also took Arcane Disciple a few times. He also apparently had the ability to wild-empathy magical beasts, and also seemed to Turn the ringwraiths on their fell beasts at one point. Also, Gandalf (and the rest of the Istari) were explicitly clothed in mortal flesh. You might get away with making them native outsiders (and using the aaismar), but Gandalf the Grey/White was a distinctly different entity than the Maia Olorin. If I had the option, I'd take the armorless variant swordsage, and change the disclipline access to White Raven, Iron Heart, Devoted Spirit, Desert Wind, and Iron Heart. Also, I'd rule that Gandalf was effectively making unarmed strikes with his staff, and let him apply the variant-swordsage improved unarmed damage to those blows. Sorceror4/Swordsage6/Jade Phoenix Mage10 seems a workable build. Gandalf did effectively solo an advanced balor, remember. He should have a CR of many.
tsuyoshikentsu 11-29-06, 02:22 AM	Elves use SCIMITARS, darn it!Minor point: I've always felt that they should. Most elves in my game are desert-dwellers.
BlaineTog 11-29-06, 02:47 AM	You got me on Dominate Monster, but don't the rest allow a fortitiude save, which would be massively high in such a creature?That's true, although I really wouldn't put it past a well-built high-level caster to have a really amazing save DC. And really, Dominate Monster is the best weapon to use anyway.
Sines 11-29-06, 04:08 PM	Armorless Swordsage? Where and what is that?
A_Wizard_for_Breakfast 11-30-06, 10:16 PM	Legolas didn't get outclassed because Legolas has the power of plot behind him.
Archangel62 11-30-06, 10:17 PM	Legolas didn't get outclassed because Legolas has the power of plot behind him. Sorta like how Conan keeps beating those mages.
theotherdraxen 11-30-06, 10:29 PM	Legolas didn't get outclassed because Legolas has the power of plot behind him. Fighters get a permanent anti-suck bonus to all attacks and armor class...best fix for them.
Thanatos-Omega 11-30-06, 10:30 PM	Honestly I don't have any problems with TOB. why? well I'm a more martial type guy as was most of my team. You gotta look at the big picture here not just zooming in on smaller details. In the close frame it seems too powerful, i stared slackjawed at many of the 9th lvl maneuvers myself until i saw em used in game and realized arcanists, divine casters and even well built Psionics totally outclassed the fighter on nearly a handful of levels. TOB was refreshing in that it gave people reasons, flavorful reasons to decide to play melee typed PC's again. granted i lothed to buy a book for something that was as pathetic as this. I say that because the core fighter should have been flavorful and powerful enough to not need a TOB to give people excuses to play a martial type PC. but thats just me. Carry On Gamers T-O:D
Archangel62 11-30-06, 11:09 PM	Honestly I don't have any problems with TOB. why? well I'm a more martial type guy as was most of my team. You gotta look at the big picture here not just zooming in on smaller details. In the close frame it seems too powerful, i stared slackjawed at many of the 9th lvl maneuvers myself until i saw em used in game and realized arcanists, divine casters and even well built Psionics totally outclassed the fighter on nearly a handful of levels. TOB was refreshing in that it gave people reasons, flavorful reasons to decide to play melee typed PC's again. granted i lothed to buy a book for something that was as pathetic as this. I say that because the core fighter should have been flavorful and powerful enough to not need a TOB to give people excuses to play a martial type PC. but thats just me. Carry On Gamers T-O:D To be honest you and I are on a similar page, the truth was that a friend and I had been trying to make a dragon themed martial character that had abilities similar to manuevers but were unsure how to balance them. Each attempt seemed to create new issues, but with this stuff we now have working and capable designs that work well. However the Manuevers are a bit harder to balance since these styles are native only to this class The Warders Wing The Ravagers Claw The Watchers Eye
aotrscommander 12-04-06, 07:09 PM	Of course the real reason Legolas and co did so well was because they use Rolemaster, not D&D, on Middle Earth... (How else do you think Merry and Eowyn took out my hero Angmar? That was clearly a Rolemaster open-ended high roll from both of them, culminating in an 'E' crit! Lousy dice rolls... He was robbed!!!)
Malacoda8 12-05-06, 12:27 AM	Where does it say that the Adaptive Style feat lets a swordsage get new maneuvers if he swaps old ones? The feat says the crusader can do this, and doesn't mention the othe martial classes as getting this extra benefit.
ressurrector 12-05-06, 12:38 AM	Where does it say that the Adaptive Style feat lets a swordsage get new maneuvers if he swaps old ones? The feat says the crusader can do this, and doesn't mention the othe martial classes as getting this extra benefit. Adaptive style works thusly: New readied maneuvers are chosen (you can choose the same maneuvers as before) The new maneuvers are all readied (even if you just used one of them last round) Crusaders are then granted some as though they had just entered a battle.
DarknessEternal 12-05-06, 10:02 AM	(How else do you think Merry and Eowyn took out my hero Angmar? He's from Angmar. It isn't his name.
aotrscommander 12-05-06, 10:21 AM	He's from Angmar. It isn't his name. Yes, I know that! I was shortening for brevity/out of laziness. (Yeesh, the only time, like, ever, I don't call him the Witch-King/Witch-King of Angmar, and I get called on it...serves me right, I suppose...)
Conlan 12-05-06, 11:51 AM	The only reason the mage lasted as long as he did was the.. twelve-odd contingent spells that he had on him, half of which were "In case of *situation X involving melee* dimension door 60 feet". True I should have had greater blink and a couple of other things up, but I'd forgotten spell compendium. Plus, this guy was an Evoker/Red Wizard, 3 banned schools bites hard. Shadow jump is 50ft, between that and boots of fly the wizo didn't really have that much room to manouver. And true that bigby's spells aren't the be all and end all, but +40 odd on grapple checks against medium sized opponents is nothing to be sneezed at Shadow jump *is* 50 ft., but it has to be through shadows, the Ss can't just shadow jump through a well lit arena or open field. If the fight was going on in the dark, then a darkvision spell would give the wizard the upperhand. What kind of wizards stands next to a wall during a duel, anyway, unless he was planning on using Shadowform or the like?
Conlan 12-05-06, 11:59 AM	This reply has been omitted as I've seen that the point has already been brought up. I'm going to have to look at Adaptive Style now. Thanks. :D
VirgilCaine 12-05-06, 05:42 PM	Legs wasn't outclassed in battle by spellcasters due in very large part to the simple fact that there were no spellcasters in his battles. Could he have competeted with Meteor Swarms, Storm of Vengeance, Cloudkill, or even Fireball? Of course. And Conan never had any stat-boosting magic items either, unlike D&D characters--he didn't need them. He was already stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, more perceptive, and more charismatic than most people. Complaining that D&D isn't like one specific source that contributed to it out of dozens of others is a ridiculous thing to do.
FeceMan 12-05-06, 06:21 PM	Zug-zug. Gandalf: Cleric with the spell, knowledge, and magic domains. If there had actually been a mage on the side of the Fellowship who had been willing to cut loose and use magic freely, Mordor wouldn't have stood a chance.
BlaineTog 12-05-06, 08:51 PM	Of course. And Conan never had any stat-boosting magic items either, unlike D&D characters--he didn't need them. He was already stronger, faster, tougher, smarter, more perceptive, and more charismatic than most people.Non sequitur much? Complaining that D&D isn't like one specific source that contributed to it out of dozens of others is a ridiculous thing to do.Oh I'm not complaining, just pointing out.
Nitan 12-05-06, 10:48 PM	More, its the Players and DMs like Michigan who refuse to let any idea that hasnt been run so far into the ground it hit dwarves by all the Tolken clones any where near there games that are the problem. I've been playing D&D since I was 10. thats 16 years, and you know what? I Like being able to chose from Ninja and Rogue, between ranager and scout, to decide if my Curious magican from far off lands should be a Wu jen or a wizard, or if my debonare reuctant hero swordsman is going to be a swashbuckler or Warblade. I like the fact my mind weaving manipulator can be A Beguiler, a sorcer, a wizard, a telepath, I like the diferences sublte as they are Between Mind Bender and a Thrallherd. Why? becase it keeps things new, it stops me playing the same charicter every campeghn when I dont have as many campeghns to play in as New charicters to try. The same with Ebberon, I Want To jump from the back of a Lightning rail as it crosses a bridge, onto the deck of a waiting Airship. Leaving the Warforged chasing me unable to do more than shake there fists. I want to peform Industrial sabotage sometimes, want worlds that are distinctave for more than the names of nations and the gods trying to drestoy the world. Ive played 'Classic' D&D, and its fun, but ive been at it awhile, give me options, give me novelty, pass me a new book full of suprised and try 'New and Improved' it may just remind you that Fantasy is meant to be Fantastic. This is an excellent post. I totally agree.
VirgilCaine 12-05-06, 10:54 PM	Non sequitur much? Damn, that doesn't make much sense now that I read it again. :embarrass: I was trying to use a similar example--taking what happens in a single inspiratory source out of a huge number and complaining the game doesn't match the "source material".
ravenshrike 12-06-06, 02:16 PM	Shadow jump *is* 50 ft., but it has to be through shadows, the Ss can't just shadow jump through a well lit arena or open field. If the fight was going on in the dark, then a darkvision spell would give the wizard the upperhand. What kind of wizards stands next to a wall during a duel, anyway, unless he was planning on using Shadowform or the like? ? Darkvision doesn't eliminate shadows, it's just that as long as they are nonmagical, you can see through them. So if it was pitch black he could SJ right next to you.
MatteBlack 06-05-07, 05:48 PM	I haven't read the book as of yet but, players for whom I have a very good respect of their rules knowledge say it really raises the power levels. Does it merely even fighter types and casters at high levels or does it boost warriors at lower and mid levels where they are already quite good?
OneWinged4ngel 06-05-07, 05:52 PM	I haven't read the book as of yet but, players for whom I have a very good respect of their rules knowledge say it really raises the power levels. Does it merely even fighter types and casters at high levels or does it boost warriors at lower and mid levels where they are already quite good? It doesn't raise the power levels of anything but melee, who were underpowered to begin with past low level. And yes, it might make them a little better at low level, but not really. Also, they still don't do more damage or do "one trick" things better than core melee can already, it just gives them the versatility to actually make a worthwhile contribution and be fun to play. For example, see CharOp boards discussion of Stormguard Warrior vs Shock Trooper Charger
ravenshrike 06-05-07, 06:04 PM	Yeah, I think in this case we may have a mild tactical failure on the wizard's part more than an actual class imbalance ;) At the very least the wizard should've dim doored FAR further away, should have tossed a couple of summons and such in the way, and levitated/flew up and/or used other evasive spells (improved invisibility, blur, mirror image, etc.) to avoid the fightery type (varying tactics depending on spells known) In a nutshell, he played to the swordsage's strengths Ding! In fact, any wizard worth his salt will have his contingent DD punt him 200-800 feet straight up if outside while also contingently casting fly, or with a featherfall token. This will give him plenty of time to set up some fun times for said melee *****.
ravenshrike 06-05-07, 06:19 PM	Yeah ... don't blame the class 'cause your bad guy had a crappy build that gave him no options. :) He still had options. For instance, DDing up 400 ft. and then launching a series of fireballs or lightning bolts would have done the job well enough eventually. Hell, a forcecage with summon swarm(bats) and dimensional anchor would have worked well enough. In fact, that combo will make mincemeat out of any single melee combatant. You have line of sight inside the cage, so you summon the swarm inside the cage.
ravenshrike 06-05-07, 06:32 PM	Some of us like our Tolkien fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. No, you like your LotR fantasy world. Most of tolkeinian lore was placed on an epic scale power level, with the abilities except for those from Shadow Hand and Desert Fire as being perfectly viable fighter types of things to do.
Archangel62 06-05-07, 07:21 PM	To add a bit more to the thread necromancy, what ToB did that makes it so great is that it actually made a lot of martial types and styles feasible WITHOUT having to take levels in 2-3 classes and however many prestige classes to get the job done. A warblade can actually be a swashbuckler, knight, samurai, beserker, weaponmaster, or anything else. The crusaders can be the traditional knights of old, devoted warriors of the faith, or any possible number of other martial archetypes.
Ferol, Debtor of Torm 06-05-07, 09:28 PM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book? After reading the book I retired it to the bookshelf permanently. It's simply too much.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-05-07, 09:30 PM	After reading the book I retired it to the bookshelf permanently. It's simply too much. Meaning that it's too powerful? Because you know, there is mathematical evidence that disproves that notion.
narukagami 06-05-07, 09:38 PM	After reading the book I retired it to the bookshelf permanently. It's simply too much. Knee jerk FTW! (really, FTL)
SokenzanMarauder 06-05-07, 10:17 PM	I still can't be sure if this thread is for the win or for the loose...[/offtopic] On the other hand, I love the BoNS. It's about damn time the fighters get some lovin' that's not in the form of a spiffy new magic item that the casters can just nullify. -Gene
Halflingtoes 06-05-07, 10:38 PM	About The Hobbit and cool dwarves: Since what I recall of the book was, dwarves get captured, Bilbo saves them; repeat.. I wouldn't count on it much. About Adaptive Style: As written in the book, it reads like you can just change your manuvers with a full round action. Cust Serv said it also refreshes them (so, depending on how you view cust serv answers, house rule or not accordingly). I also found the crusader refresh method pretty clear as written in the book, but cust serv seems to be determined to make a mess of it. About BoNS: I find it refreshing to see people actually playing melee characters (and enjoying it) in our games again.
Nephlite 06-05-07, 10:50 PM	Some of us like our Morcock/Tolkien/Lewis/Weis & Hickman/Vance fantasy worlds. I like mine medival, low-to-light magic, with Elves, Dwarves, and fur-footed, fat and homebody Halflings. So not how the DMG recommends/has as guidelines (wealth per level based on average magic not low) Keep your Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha out of my fantasy, thank you. Psionics is better balanced than magic in PHB... and they fit fantasy better than "fire and forget" like Wizards... so you want them if you are going for fantasy feeling... Sword-saints are in the Complete Warrior: also known as Kensai so I guess you don't have CW. Mecha is what Dragonmech? Nice series, I like the Mech Jockeys: they make great swashbucklers (better than the CW one) is you want a boat riding dude (just adapt the mech boost abilit to boat boost).
Crimson_Concerto 06-05-07, 10:56 PM	Okay, if nobody else is going to say it, I will: If you think the Tome of Battle is overpowered, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are having a knee-jerk reaction to melee characters actually being semi-useful and fun to play for a change, and you need to get over it and just take the time to actually try things out before jumping to insane conclusions that have been mathematically proven to be incorrect. Remember the Duskblade being overpowered? Remember the Warlock being overpowered? Remember Psionics being overpowered? All were quickly disproven, and the Tome of Battle is no different. I swear, we need a "Myth: The ToB is Overpowered" topic to sticky somewhere just like they have for the XPH. Maybe if ToB gets its own board...
Jenrock 06-05-07, 11:07 PM	I'll tell you exactly what they've done. They've made melee fun again. No longer is it just charge, then full attack. It is an easy to use system that allows for wonderful flavor and truly epic battles. No longer is a warrior sitting in the back of the party letting the buffed-up cleric/druid demolish everything in sight, and the core wizards killing everything that moves (and much that doesn't) with save-or-die spells. Tome of Battle doesn't turn warriors into the ultimate killing machines- core wizards and clerics will still wipe the floor with them, but now the warriors can actually be active in battle again. Thank you WotC for making melee fun and easy again.
BelainDefenderofJerusalem 07-25-07, 02:42 PM	I'll tell you exactly what they've done. They've made melee fun again. No longer is it just charge, then full attack. It is an easy to use system that allows for wonderful flavor and truly epic battles. No longer is a warrior sitting in the back of the party letting the buffed-up cleric/druid demolish everything in sight, and the core wizards killing everything that moves (and much that doesn't) with save-or-die spells. Tome of Battle doesn't turn warriors into the ultimate killing machines- core wizards and clerics will still wipe the floor with them, but now the warriors can actually be active in battle again. Thank you WotC for making melee fun and easy again. well said!
Garandene_Lyrandar 11-08-07, 04:17 AM	What! You think the Swordsage is over powered, what about the Warblade? He has a barbarian's hit dice, full base attack progression bonus feats which rival a fighters and pretty much a Barbarian's class features. This is over powered even before you count Stances and Maneuvers which can be used near indefinatly thanks to the way Warblades recharge their redied Maneuvers! Oh course I am not complaining as I have used this knowlege for evil rather than good and am now playing a Warblade PC!
Sunic_Flames 11-08-07, 09:13 AM	Without reading anything beyond the first few posts... *smacks the OP hard with an oversized fish* How in the Nine Hells do you manage to screw up a wizard with 9th level spells against a martial class? *resumes flurry of blows fishslaps*
rodball 02-06-08, 02:31 PM	I know this is an older thread but I just recently stumbled accross this post and I'm left with a couple of questions. How on earth does a swordsage get 16 attacks a round at +20 dmg? I'm assuming this was an exaggeration... but to what extent? Any one have a good example on some good feat/maneuver/class combos that would support this claim? Also, what did the original poster mean by: "Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??" Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't see a maneuver like this in the ToB. Ty in advance for any help with my questions.
Reyemile 02-06-08, 03:20 PM	This thread has been dead for THREE MONTHS. There was no need to necro it. Ask questions like that in a new thread, or better yet in the "Ask a simple question" thread.
JSorenson1979 02-07-08, 01:09 AM	And I like my fantasy to be a little steampunk, with airships, trains, and guns. I like industrial magic, with cat-people, sentient worms, beings made of coherent light, shapeshifters, and green lion-bunnies with gemstones in their heads. I'll take the Psions, Sword-Saints, and Mecha that you're not using. :P How about 90lb. teenagers with spiky technicolor hair that wield swords the size of SUV's? And if there are cat-people, then it stands to reason that there should be dog-people as well, and if we're going to include Dog-people, we might as well make room for the entire animal/man kingdom; Bear-people, Beaver-people, Rhinocerous-people, Turkey-people, Bat-people, three-toed-sloth-people, Tapeworm-people, Abyssal Tapeworm-people. But seriously, I've seen the debate over what elements from the entropic fictional/mythological goulash most influence D&D, when in actuality I think that it works the other way now, that is D&D is the main influence that informs most popular fantasy, at least over the last couple of decades or so. Anyway, eventually Tolkien would have written about Airships, magical creatures that are captured and imprisoned in little balls to be summoned later on, and caucasians who inexplicably have Japanese names. I heard somewhere, that originally he planned for frodo to be consumed by the one ring, after which point Samwise would have had to chase him down on a sleek, tricked out sportbike, with a laser-bazooka, shouting "TET...ERRR...FROOOODOOOOOO!!!!!" At least that's what I heard.
calronmoonflower 02-07-08, 02:23 AM	How on earth does a swordsage get 16 attacks a round at +20 dmg? I'm assuming this was an exaggeration... but to what extent? Any one have a good example on some good feat/maneuver/class combos that would support this claim? Well lets see. The two-weapon fighting chain, snap kick, time stands still, and burning blade. :confused: That's 14 attacks with +20 +1d6. I guess if you have two claw attacks and used the monk unarmed strike variant instead of snap kick you could get 16.
runestar 02-07-08, 06:57 AM	How on earth does a swordsage get 16 attacks a round at +20 dmg? I'm assuming this was an exaggeration... but to what extent? Any one have a good example on some good feat/maneuver/class combos that would support this claim? Activate time stands still 3 attacks with bab+15 3 off-hand attacks with TWFing tree 1 from haste 4 from raging mongoose 1 from snap kick 12 attacks Then for second round, repeat but replace raging mongoose with dancing mongoose (unless you can access it a 2nd time) for 10 attacks, giving you 22 attacks. However, I would like to point out that between the swordsage's 3/4 bab, the even crappier attack rolls you will be making your iterative attacks with, and all the attack penalties you are taking from TWFing and snap kick, you really have 14 attacks that have a moderate chance of hitting at best. So while you get a ton of attacks, your overall damage output still won't be that uber. Not to mention that dr applies to all your myriad of attacks...:weep: "Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??" Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't see a maneuver like this in the ToB. He should be referring to the swooping dragon strike maneuver, which lets you stun your foe if he fails a fort save = your jump check. Don't see what is so game breaking about that. Especially when he didn't even mention the white raven maneuver which auto-stuns without any save...:confused:
FarmerGiles 02-07-08, 08:12 AM	The 9 swords book was a silly thing to bring out! I've seen people with barely any levels in crusader and swordsage just own things because of those insanely powerful maneuvers and stances. I'm now having to start a 2nd level campaign with an Orc Paragon/Warblade.........I can only see that ending in tears for me as that combination will mess up the challenge ratings for the encounters now! "You see a large mummy in front of you, normally a very hard foe........." "I hit it and do the usual damage and effects using a silly combo of maneuvers that don't cost me anything" "Well that mummy was short lived......." :P
Eldritch_Lord 02-07-08, 08:23 AM	Activate time stands still 3 attacks with bab+15 3 off-hand attacks with TWFing tree 1 from haste 4 from raging mongoose 1 from snap kick 12 attacks Then for second round, repeat but replace raging mongoose with dancing mongoose (unless you can access it a 2nd time) for 10 attacks, giving you 22 attacks. Actually, Time Stands Still is two whole full attacks, so it would be 3 BAB 3 TWF 3 BAB 3 TWF 1 haste 1 Snap Kick 4 Raging Mongoose 18 attacks --------------------- And I'm going to have to chime in on the side of those who say that if you think the ToB is overpowered, you either have never crunched the numbers, never seen it in play, or can't handle reasonably optimized players. If you're not happy with ToB but allow full casters in your game, that's hypocrisy right there.
FarmerGiles 02-07-08, 08:40 AM	Full casters at least require some knowledge of spell combos to be used effectively as well as good survival skills due to HP. Its hardly a pick up and play class. Reasonably optimized players! Pah the game shouldn't be about optimization all the time!
Nephlite 02-07-08, 08:43 AM	What! You think the Swordsage is over powered, what about the Warblade? He has a barbarian's hit dice, full base attack progression bonus feats which rival a fighters and pretty much a Barbarian's class features. This is over powered even before you count Stances and Maneuvers which can be used near indefinatly thanks to the way Warblades recharge their redied Maneuvers! Oh course I am not complaining as I have used this knowlege for evil rather than good and am now playing a Warblade PC! I think you should reread the Warblade. He doesn't get Bonus feats like the Fighters: he gets bonus feats like the Scout or the Knight (a chose of a some feats). Yes, a Warblade does fit a Barbarian well. Very similar (armor, HD, etc).
Priere 02-07-08, 10:30 AM	When I first read the Tome of Battle I too thought "holy crap that's way overpowered!" But when I thought about that I was comparing them to Fighter types which, as has been previously noted time and time again, are exceptionally underpowered (moderately underpowered if optimized well) when compared to a caster I came to realize that no, they're not crazy overpowered. They just bring melee back to where it should have been in the first place. Yeah, your Swordsage can hit the opponent for 6d6 fire damage on a melee attack. But the caster of same level can just outright kill him. Actually, Time Stands Still is two whole full attacks, so it would be 3 BAB 3 TWF 3 BAB 3 TWF 1 haste 1 Snap Kick 4 Raging Mongoose 18 attacks --------------------- And I'm going to have to chime in on the side of those who say that if you think the ToB is overpowered, you either have never crunched the numbers, never seen it in play, or can't handle reasonably optimized players. If you're not happy with ToB but allow full casters in your game, that's hypocrisy right there. I also wanted to comment on this. The thing about getting the two full round actions with a Swordsage isn't really that big of a deal considering when you actually get the maneuver. It's ninth level which means it's high level. Unless you're in a low magic setting you're going up against enemies with easily 30+ AC; good luck actually hitting anything with your last few attack iterations at 3/4 attack bonus. Something to contrast to that would be the Dervish from Complete Warrior. With the two weapon fighting tree that allows you to not only get 16 attacks (with good attack bonuses) but you can also move at your normal speed while doing so. With an even half decent feat selection you can have an incredibly dangerous melee character.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-07-08, 11:50 AM	How dare Wizards of the Coast write a book that makes melee even remotely compairable to casters! What were they thinking! This is an outrage! I mean, sure, the caster still overshadows them, but come on! This book cut it alittle too close! There is no reason a melee character should be able to do anything but guard the casters! An outrage I say!Is it sad that I actually agree with what you said in sarcasm? It's the 2e Wizard in me. All joking aside, people are way too quick to judge the book without even looking at it objectivly or compairing it with the core casters. It's intended to outshine the core melee'ers, because they suck. Its purpous is to give you a viable melee option that remotely compairs to the all-powerful core casters without being a boring one-trick-pony with a spiked chain. My personal beef is the Warblade. I HATE any and all classes that can change their feats or class features, ie Warblade and Chameleon, and to a much lesser degree Factotem. Fighter is one of my loved classes, so the idea of their ONLY class advantage (Weapon Spec chain) being not only accessible to this other VASTLY more powerful class, but the class being able to essentially switch it's feats to whatever weapon it wants effectively at will incenses me.
Sinfire Titan 02-07-08, 12:13 PM	My personal beef is the Warblade. I HATE any and all classes that can change their feats or class features, ie Warblade and Chameleon, and to a much lesser degree Factotem. Fighter is one of my loved classes, so the idea of their ONLY class advantage (Weapon Spec chain) being not only accessible to this other VASTLY more powerful class, but the class being able to essentially switch it's feats to whatever weapon it wants effectively at will incenses me. What? And what about classes that change spells on a daily basis, like any freaking prepared caster? It is no different from this, it is called picking the right tools for the job. I have a Warforged Warblade built around this entire concept, using a sub-par Exotic weapon Proficiency and Shapesand from Sandstorm. The whole point of the character is that he is able to have any and every tool needed for any given job within a few moments notice, and is capable of incredible flexibility. And you claim a beef with that entire concept? I would hate to ask what you think of the PH2's Retraining rules. Do you arbitrarily deny your players their flexibility? Like when your party Wizard prepares spells for the day, do you go out of your way to make sure none of them are effective? If you do, then you are a horrible person. Your gripe is with a single class feature that imitates the Vanican style of casting: Preparing. Do you disallow a Sorcerer to swap spells at the appropriate levels? And what about the ability to swap out maneuvers? Fedlxibility is what makes the Book of Nine Swords amazing. That was the problem with Fighter in the first place. Once you picked a weapon, if a better one came up later in play, you had to use another feat to make it worth it. And Fighter has only so many feats to choose from, barring Abyssal retraining loops with Elder Evils. Your gripe is that a PC should be set in stone, when in fact things are meant to change over time. You have a problem with flexible classes being able to do things you don't want them to from what it sounds like.
narack 02-07-08, 12:59 PM	I made up a a character level 18 from that book this week and tried to compare. With 1 critical my max damage is using dual stance and feats is : 2064 (non-masterwork weapon) My brother come up with 3400 something. So personally this book is ban from my games.
Sinfire Titan 02-07-08, 01:06 PM	I made up a a character level 18 from that book this week and tried to compare. With 1 critical my max damage is using dual stance and feats is : 2064 (non-masterwork weapon) My brother come up with 3400 something. So personally this book is ban from my games. Do you know what the record for a Crit is? Far higher. What did you use, a Scythe? Did you remember that none of the extra damage from a Strike gets Critted if it is damage dice? Because that makes a huge difference.
Zombie_Babies 02-07-08, 01:16 PM	I made up a a character level 18 from that book this week and tried to compare. With 1 critical my max damage is using dual stance and feats is : 2064 (non-masterwork weapon) My brother come up with 3400 something. So personally this book is ban from my games. How well-versed were you with the book? Have you actually used it or did you just pick it up once or twice and come up with this example? How did you arrive at this damage total? What Str score, weapon, race, feats and maneuvers did you use? As you can see, there are plenty of places to make a mistake. Please post the specifics and we can then understand your problem better.
Avatar of Kokusho 02-07-08, 01:19 PM	Gahhhhhhhhh..will people please stop comparing ToB classes to fighters, for the love of Cthulhu? So ToB classes have flexibility. So do casters, any but sorcerers, that is. Then again, who stays in sorcerer very long? A cleric has access to any spell printed in any book listed as a cleric spell, at any given time. They don't have to sleep to gain spells. Any of the martial classes have limited number of maneuvers known, not to mention readied- barring Adaptive Style. Plus, remember folks- these only work on successful melee attacks, for the most part. You have to be able to HIT. In melee. Ranged weapons? Warblades aren't even proficient. Swordsages have crap for BAB, for a warrior class. Crusaders are random in what they are granted in any given encounter, barring feats that give extra granted maneuvers. Warlocks get their abilities at will, just as a binder does. Arcane casters can pull off any number of cheesy tricks involving well-known spell combos. Divine casters can blast the crap out of anything with Holy Word/etc, using only a few magic itmes to pretty much incapacitate anything, with no save. Druids...do I even need to go there? Martial adepts are limited to what happens to be printed in the ToB- they don't have fifteen zillion books from which to pick and choose their abilities. Sure, some of those abilities are really good. So are spells. So is the infinite-tripping spiked chain fighter. As for the poster that hates Weapon Aptitude, I guess you'd hate fighters in my game, because it's now on the list of fighter bonus feats.
Eldritch_Lord 02-07-08, 01:19 PM	Full casters at least require some knowledge of spell combos to be used effectively as well as good survival skills due to HP. Its hardly a pick up and play class. Reasonably optimized players! Pah the game shouldn't be about optimization all the time! Not really. Say you're a 9th level warblade. You have access to Elder Mountain Hammer, for example, which deals an extra 6d6 damage on a hit and overcomes DR. A 9th level wizard has access to an empowered fireball, which deals 13d6 damage and ignores DR. Do you consider taking Empower Spell and learning fireball to be "all about optimization"? How about a 9th level cleric's slay living which deals at least 3d6+9 on a successful save and outright kills you otherwise? You don't need spell combos to be effective; single spells are overpowering enough. They are easily pick-up-and-play classes. You're making a 9th level warblade for the first time. You have to deal with maneuver prerequisites, maneuver swapping, and how they work well together. You have to choose between using boosts or switching stances, full-round strikes or move and strike, and so on. If you make bad choices, you're stuck for at least 2 levels. Now you're making a 9th level cleric. You see slay living on your spell list. You look at the description, like it, and prepare it. It doesn't work out? Fine. Swap it out tomorrow. Finally, you don't need good survival skills due to HP as a caster; first, you have many ways to increase AC or add other defenses; second, you have many ways to increase HP, either through Con boosts, temporary HP, or healing; third, you have many ways to get away from melee-ers; fourth, you can boost your saves against other casters. Casters aren't all glass cannons.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-07-08, 06:10 PM	What? And what about classes that change spells on a daily basis, like any freaking prepared caster? It is no different from this, it is called picking the right tools for the job. I have a Warforged Warblade built around this entire concept, using a sub-par Exotic weapon Proficiency and Shapesand from Sandstorm. The whole point of the character is that he is able to have any and every tool needed for any given job within a few moments notice, and is capable of incredible flexibility. And you claim a beef with that entire concept? I would hate to ask what you think of the PH2's Retraining rules. Retraining rules is part of the sad and pathetic "MMOization" of D&D, much like the Magic Item Compendium's sockets. "Oh, undead today? Let me put on my undead killing gems. DR 15/Obscure? No problem, I got an Obscure DR piercing gem, so I don't have to take the normal penalties associated with wielding a Obscure metal weapon." That's not what it's about. All these new players to D&D, who've come in the last 4 years especially wouldn't last 5 minutes in a 2e game. Yes, I agree that 3e is better than 2e, and 3.5 and I'm even cautiously optimistic about 4e. You know why though? It's because 4e will be written FROM THE BEGINNING with these rules in mind. I object to supplement books that obsolete core classes. I actually don't think most of these addtional core classes should even really exist. Some of them replace complete builds or PrCs (Duskblade? Goodbye Bladesinger). I don't like that. I also hate that the fighter, a class which has possibly the MOST flexible class features in the game gets the shaft everytime a new melee class comes out. Look more reasons not to take more than 2-4 levels in the class! I mean, I recently was told to roll up a L15 character. I decided to go Blade of Orion, and the only reason I took 4 fighter levels was for extra feats, and the 2 addtional Weapon spec damage. And let's be clear here. Spell prep is NOTHING like changing your feats. Can ANY class other than the Warblade or Chameleon change their feats? No. Do you even think about it coneceptually? "I, Fighter, have spent 20 levels and 100 long elven years mastering this weapon. I can control every inch of it to be a deadly tool against my foes." "Hi, I'm a L20 Human Warblade. Wow, your elven courtblade sure is neat. Lot better than my greatsword. Oh, cool, now I'm as good as you with it, guy who dedicated his life to it's mastery, and suddenly, I suck at greatswords." See, it doesn't even make sense. However, spell prep has ALWAYS existed in D&D. Don't even compare feat changing and spell prep. The 'equivalent' to spell prep for melee's is carrying multiple weapons. Do you arbitrarily deny your players their flexibility? Like when your party Wizard prepares spells for the day, do you go out of your way to make sure none of them are effective? If you do, then you are a horrible person.I like how attacks on my DMing style come out of nowhere. It makes your internet arguement stronger. For the record, no, I run status quo games, meaning I don't alter them after I design them unless neccessary. If the party does their research, they may stroll through a dungeon bypassing danger after danger with well placed spell or item. Or if they kick in the door, they may meet a horrible, messy death. Your gripe is with a single class feature that imitates the Vanican style of casting: Preparing. Do you disallow a Sorcerer to swap spells at the appropriate levels? And what about the ability to swap out maneuvers? Fedlxibility is what makes the Book of Nine Swords amazing.Honestly, I don't think Sorcerers SHOULD get to swap spells. They didn't in 3.0 because it didn't make a lot of sense for them. It still doesn't make a lot of sense flavor wise, because if they can just forget spells at level up and replace them, why not at any time? I understand the MECHANICAL reasons why sorcerers get spell swap. Not taking Dispel Magic for your 3rd level spells because you don't want to have a wasted spell when you get to Greater Dispel does suck for them. I let them do the spell switch because it's in the core book, not as some supplemental rule in a Complete or other splat book. That was the problem with Fighter in the first place. Once you picked a weapon, if a better one came up later in play, you had to use another feat to make it worth it. And Fighter has only so many feats to choose from, barring Abyssal retraining loops with Elder Evils. Your gripe is that a PC should be set in stone, when in fact things are meant to change over time. You have a problem with flexible classes being able to do things you don't want them to from what it sounds like. Man, and that's just it. I don't think the PC should toss aside his grandfather's masterwork longsword given to him by his father when he turned L2 because he found a +2 longsword in a rusty box somewhere. I love Weapons of Legacy, because I think that characters should have certain 'iconic' pieces of their equipment, that they are famous for. There are some good examples like Khelban Blackstaff, Drizzit, or Wrothgar (sp?), who all have very famous weapons or items that people identify with them on sight. If you're a longsword fighter, 1) your DM should put in longsword upgrades for you, not deny you the opportunity to get better versions of your weapon 2) If upgrades can't be found, trade in the other weapons to an artificer and get him to enchant your weapon to be better.
Khan2000 02-07-08, 06:29 PM	My rakshasa BBEG can take a swordsage.:D I'm one of those DMs that make NPCs uberpowerful for PCs that try to be uberpowerful. Can we say: "For the rest of your life, beeeeeeeeotch!"
runestar 02-07-08, 06:58 PM	The warblade is perhaps the closest thing to ideal class design if there ever was one, IMO. It is nigh impossible to screw up, unless you really go out of your way to create an unplayable PC. Yes, it is that idiot proof. There are very few maneuvers that outright suck, and even if you have taken crap feats like toughness and endurance, you still have your maneuvers to save the day. Unlike the fighter, with its blank slate and tons of bonus feats, which makes it all too easy to go haywire with your build if you so much as stray from your path and accidentally take a wrong feat. It is even harder to optimize. Meaning that you still need a very clear grasp of the rules before you can even try to min/max. You can't just slap a few feats together and get a god-like PC. And to this day, even the purportedly "best" ToB builds I have seen are just strong, they still aren't anywhere near the spellcasters in terms of power lv. They do have a ton of options at their disposal though, meaning that they are no less fun to play. Which is the way I feel the game should always have been. The learning curve should not be so high that newcomers are disadvantaged, but at the same time, more experienced players should be able to have an edge in terms of character design. This is an example (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=974454&highlight=warblade+swordsage+monk+master ) of a fully-fleshed-out ToB centric build which I feel best proves my point. Be it singe-class or multiclassing, everything just comes together so well. The synergy is so great that it just brings tears to my eyes...:P
Alpha_Moose 02-07-08, 07:01 PM	Anyway, eventually Tolkien would have written about Airships I don't think anyone has ever read the Simarillion. But they took Vingilot, and hallowed it, and bore it away though Valinor to the uttermost rim of the world; and there it passed though the Door of Night and was lifted up even into the oceans of heaven. Vingilot is Erandil's ship. That's right. Middle Earth had space ships.
Sinfire Titan 02-07-08, 08:09 PM	Retraining rules is part of the sad and pathetic "MMOization" of D&D, much like the Magic Item Compendium's sockets. "Oh, undead today? Let me put on my undead killing gems. DR 15/Obscure? No problem, I got an Obscure DR piercing gem, so I don't have to take the normal penalties associated with wielding a Obscure metal weapon." That's not what it's about. All these new players to D&D, who've come in the last 4 years especially wouldn't last 5 minutes in a 2e game. Yes, I agree that 3e is better than 2e, and 3.5 and I'm even cautiously optimistic about 4e. You know why though? It's because 4e will be written FROM THE BEGINNING with these rules in mind. I object to supplement books that obsolete core classes. I actually don't think most of these addtional core classes should even really exist. Some of them replace complete builds or PrCs (Duskblade? Goodbye Bladesinger). I don't like that. I also hate that the fighter, a class which has possibly the MOST flexible class features in the game gets the shaft everytime a new melee class comes out. Look more reasons not to take more than 2-4 levels in the class! I mean, I recently was told to roll up a L15 character. I decided to go Blade of Orion, and the only reason I took 4 fighter levels was for extra feats, and the 2 addtional Weapon spec damage. I will retain my stance on the subject, and say that flexibility is dependent on the ability to improvise. This is something that suffocates the Fighter. Everyone on the CO boards will tell you that an optimized Fighter is feat-starved. And everyone of them will tell you that it is very difficult to change anything about the build without changing the whole build itself. Fighter gets shafted because it can't adapt to new situations without someone else's help. In DnD, self-reliance is equally important to PC synergy. This fact is glaringly obvious to anyone who has experienced a Solo encounter that gives even a slight challenge. Without that adaptability, the Fighter can only barely scrape by. It takes a specific build to kill an optimized caster, and that build is so dependent on a single static point that a simple miscalculation will be lethal. I have never seen a Fighter build capable of soloing an Optimized Druid, solely because such a thing is nigh unto impossible to do. Planar Shepard says game over to the Fighter. Hell, 1st level is a headache for them, if only due to the Companion. As to new supplements rendering old classes obsolete, it happens. But even then, sometimes new material offers nothing that you couldn't all ready do. Take the Samurai for instance. Completely useless, and needs to be re-vamped from the ground, up. Things change. Do you still use MS-DOS, which isn't compatible with most forms of Dial-Up? Unless your financial restraints force it upon you, I would hope not, or I would question your sanity. And let's be clear here. Spell prep is NOTHING like changing your feats. Can ANY class other than the Warblade or Chameleon change their feats? No. Do you even think about it coneceptually? "I, Fighter, have spent 20 levels and 100 long elven years mastering this weapon. I can control every inch of it to be a deadly tool against my foes." "Hi, I'm a L20 Human Warblade. Wow, your elven courtblade sure is neat. Lot better than my greatsword. Oh, cool, now I'm as good as you with it, guy who dedicated his life to it's mastery, and suddenly, I suck at greatswords." See, it doesn't even make sense. However, spell prep has ALWAYS existed in D&D. Don't even compare feat changing and spell prep. The 'equivalent' to spell prep for melee's is carrying multiple weapons. Yes, it is. And yes, there are those who can. Psion, Wizard, Cleric, Erudite, the Archivist, and even PsiWar. Why? Because of spells. Have you ever seen the Abyssal Retraining trick? Or looked at the Spell Compendium spell Heroics? What about Psychic Reformation? Every one of those classes is capable of changing feats with a little time, and even a little cash. And it does make sense, it is called focusing on a new task. Adapting is something that makes sense, because if you can't adapt, you will surely die. No, that is called common sense. Everyone who fights with a weapon needs a back-up or three. And every melee character needs a Ranged weapon to back them up. Casters? They don't. One spell shuts down a Fighter, and it is 1st level. Swapping Spells/Day is no different than changing a feat out, as you are forgetting something you once were capable of and learning something new in its place. I like how attacks on my DMing style come out of nowhere. It makes your internet arguement stronger. For the record, no, I run status quo games, meaning I don't alter them after I design them unless neccessary. If the party does their research, they may stroll through a dungeon bypassing danger after danger with well placed spell or item. Or if they kick in the door, they may meet a horrible, messy death. So you railroad them? Is this what you call being prepared for the worst? If something happened in my game that I wasn't prepared for (and I never prepare for anything, I am completely capable of Improvisation), then I would be able to figure something out that would allow it to work. Even Pun-Pun. I would find a way for a PC to make such a being, and even play him for a time. Why? Because I can do the same thing he did. I can make anything my PCs make, and do it without ECL restrictions, solely because I am able to as a DM. Do I? Not often. I play by the RAW unless absolutely needed. But when I change something mid-game, it is always to serve for the sake of entertaining my PCs. Can I deal with a Planar Shepard? Sure. Do I have to? If one of my PCs can present a good argument for it to happen, then I will allow it. There are games that I run where I will tighten my grip a little, for the sake of maintaining fairness between the classes. And even then, if they find a loop to exploit mid-game, I will run with it until I see the need to step in and stop it myself. Online, I have only done such intervention once during the actual game play, and it was for the sake of progressing the game. Honestly, I don't think Sorcerers SHOULD get to swap spells. They didn't in 3.0 because it didn't make a lot of sense for them. It still doesn't make a lot of sense flavor wise, because if they can just forget spells at level up and replace them, why not at any time? I understand the MECHANICAL reasons why sorcerers get spell swap. Not taking Dispel Magic for your 3rd level spells because you don't want to have a wasted spell when you get to Greater Dispel does suck for them. I let them do the spell switch because it's in the core book, not as some supplemental rule in a Complete or other splat book. And mechanics can be justified in game in many ways, you just need to get creative with it. Man, and that's just it. I don't think the PC should toss aside his grandfather's masterwork longsword given to him by his father when he turned L2 because he found a +2 longsword in a rusty box somewhere. I love Weapons of Legacy, because I think that characters should have certain 'iconic' pieces of their equipment, that they are famous for. There are some good examples like Khelban Blackstaff, Drizzit, or Wrothgar (sp?), who all have very famous weapons or items that people identify with them on sight. If you're a longsword fighter, 1) your DM should put in longsword upgrades for you, not deny you the opportunity to get better versions of your weapon 2) If upgrades can't be found, trade in the other weapons to an artificer and get him to enchant your weapon to be better. And you can justify an Optimizer keeping said weapon? Yes, PCs do need Iconic Items to use, but being forced to use a sub-par item because it makes sense actually is railroading your players into weakness. I can find an IC reason for a player to swap weapons, just as much as you can find a reason for them not too. The game should mold around the players, and not what the DM's will is, but die rolls are die rolls, and sometimes villian concept takes priority. I ask you, would Drizz't keep using Icingdeath if he found a better scimitar somewhere in his adventures? No. He is smarter than that. What connection he has to the sword is going to make him keep a hold of the item for the sake of memory, but it won't force him to use it. Now I pose another question to you: What the Nine Hells is a Fighter doing with an MWK weapon when he has the ECL to attain a +2 Longsword from a treasure horde? Unless something happened to his primary weapon, this should never happen to a PC. If it did, most, if not all, PCs would jump at the chance for a magic weapon of this power. Keep using the old sword? Only in dire emergencies. Or as a distraction to a Rust Monster.
Avatar of Kokusho 02-07-08, 08:31 PM	Sinfire Titan, I wanna play in YOUR games. :)
Eldritch_Lord 02-07-08, 09:22 PM	My rakshasa BBEG can take a swordsage.:D I'm one of those DMs that make NPCs uberpowerful for PCs that try to be uberpowerful. Can we say: "For the rest of your life, beeeeeeeeotch!" Likewise. My motto is "Anything you can do, I can do quickened and empowered. Twice." :devil: <post of greatness> You, my friend, have a good head on your shoulders. It's nice to see someone who thinks the way I do. "Great minds think alike; greater minds think like me." :D
CryoSilver 02-07-08, 09:43 PM	I like ToB. It's fun, easy and not as powerful as some might think. My two favorite classes are rogue and cleric, and ToB is way closer to rogue than cleric in terms of power.
TheMonk 02-08-08, 11:55 AM	Does anyone else think that the Book of Nine Twinks has sent the power creep *way* too far forwards? One of the players in my game has just come in with a SwordSage at lvl 16, and gods! He had my lvl 17 Archmage on the back foot from the word go. * Teleporting 50ft as a swift action * Concentration checks instead of saving throws * Saves vs stunning with the DC set by SKILL CHECKS!! (WTF were they smoking when they made this one? Sure the Bard has a similar thing, thats nullified by threatening situations, but come on! DC 55-60 saves vs stunning??) * 16 attacks per round at +20 damage * Single attacks for automatic Quadruple damage And this is one of the *least* broken builds/classes out of that book? No offense, but I think that anyone who allows wizards/clerics/druids into their campaign, but think ToB is over powered, has been smoking something. ToB characters are not more powerful than casters, but they do have a chance if they play their class well (and thank god for that) :)
CryoSilver 02-08-08, 04:06 PM	My personal experience (playing a warblade from level 4 up through level 9 (warblade 6, fighter 2,crusader 1) game still in progress) is that I initially way outpaced the other meleers, but now, if i'm not using regular full attacks or Mithral Tornado, I lag behind in taking down multiple enemies. The main source of damage formy warblade is NOT his manuevers, but rather, his use of Karmic Strike (and soon to be many other AOO generaters). By level 21, he'll just about match what a very poorly played cleric could do. It can't be helped that the fighter and paladin are A: not powergamers like me, and B: playing classes that are not as good in most (not all! I've seen plenty of badas fighters) circumstances. That said, the warblade has a lot more RP potential, in my opinion (and any assertion regarding RP is an opinion anyways), especially in the area of being a good leader, thanks to White Raven.
Urithair 02-08-08, 04:33 PM	Me: Sweet, a new thread on ToB, this should be fun! It looks like a troll but I'm sure there is some good discussion going on. *clicks link* DM (God): Ok, make a will save. Me: What? Uh.... is this a spell or spell like ability? DM: No. Me: Ok ok. *rolls* hmm, does a 21 get it? DM: No, you have failed to overcome TLDR. You must now skip ahead to the end of the thread and post something out of touch or unrelated. Me: Crap! :(
TheMonk 02-08-08, 04:49 PM	Well ok, I'll ad my experiences with my warblade character (will multiclass a bit though). At low levels, the warblade is pure gold. With the right maneuvers, he really kicks butt. I used stone bones to great effect and that maneuver is the only reason why our group survived. Punishing stance does wonders with steel wind to kill opponents in 1 hit at level 1, which is what helped us most. Currently level 2 and loving it, nothing over powered about it, but the damage is great, I have tons of HP, and decent AC (using a greatsword, my AC is 16 with a chain shirt and 15 dex, soon to be 17 at level 4 when my dex increases to 16). The warblade is powerful indeed.
Zombie_Babies 02-08-08, 04:53 PM	Anyone that thinks ToB characters are overpowered, especially at high levels, has obviously never had a spellcaster toss out a Twinned Gate spell. Man that pwnt.
navar100 02-08-08, 05:39 PM	The funness of Tome of Battle is not the damage. Martial adepts can dish it out, and that is fun, but not the funness of the book. The funness comes from allowing melee characters to do interesting things even if they move more than 5ft. Barbarians use their rage. Fighters stack their feats for two or three different options - say archery, AoOs abuse, and charging. Paladins have a Mount, might as well use it with Spirited Charge. Rangers are archers or two-weapon warriors. However, what they have in common is either they need to full attack or use a full round action to charge to get the uberness. Fighters can do some tricks like disarming, bull rushing, and tripping because they have the feats to spare. Martial adepts can move normally and make one attack that deals the same damage had they done a normal full attack. They can move and get more than one attack anyway. They can attack, hurt their enemy, and also have some other effect happen - can't move, can't take an action, get a penalty, heal someone, etc. Martial adepts also get to use swift and immediate actions for cool stuff - to buff themselves, buff another, or counter an attack of some kind, even magical. The core meleers get very little use of swift and immediate actions. For the martial adepts, it's the act of using those actions, for whatever effect, that's the fun. You feel it that you are doing more in a round. You're active. The fun of a game is deciding among different options. That is what Tome of Battle brings to melee fighting. For pure damage output, it is no different in degree to what the Core warriors bring. A 1st level barbarian with ST 16 wielding a greatsword, raging, and Power Attacking for one deals 2d6+9 damage, avg. 16. The martial adepts just do it in a different way. A 1st level warblade with St 16 wielding a greatsword Power Attacking for one in Punishing Stance deals 3d6+6, avg 16.
Sinfire Titan 02-08-08, 05:50 PM	Sinfire Titan, I wanna play in YOUR games. :) Join up. I'm still recruiting for one of them, and I'm even thinking on starting two more. Likewise. My motto is "Anything you can do, I can do quickened and empowered. Twice." :devil: You, my friend, have a good head on your shoulders. It's nice to see someone who thinks the way I do. "Great minds think alike; greater minds think like me." :D Thanks! Hard to find people who think this way, as too many people have bad reactions to good things.
VulcanStormwrath 02-08-08, 09:24 PM	Join up. I'm still recruiting for one of them, and I'm even thinking on starting two more. Thanks! Hard to find people who think this way, as too many people have bad reactions to good things. One member of my last group had a Half Dragon Warblade who used a Goliath Greathammer with the Impact enhancement, that the party Frostmage (don't get me started on him) cast Mighty Wallop on every day. They walked around breaking encounters left and right. Then one day I used my first ever NPC from BO9S. A human Crusader of Bane with a Talisman of undying fortitude. TPK.......Against a 6 person party. Well all except the rogue who Crouching Tigered off the side of a mountain to get away. Good times.
Arcane-surge 02-09-08, 12:45 AM	I'd think that the Goliath is more of a combination of Greathammer and Greater Mighty Wallop than anything ToB added to the mix (Except maybe Blood in the Water). As for the other, I don't know what a talisman of undying fortitude is. I can't imagine it TPKing a 6 person group though, not without knowing more.
Nephlite 02-09-08, 09:25 AM	I'd think that the Goliath is more of a combination of Greathammer and Greater Mighty Wallop than anything ToB added to the mix (Except maybe Blood in the Water). As for the other, I don't know what a talisman of undying fortitude is. I can't imagine it TPKing a 6 person group though, not without knowing more. 2/day (Dur 3 rounds each), Gain undead immunities, stuff like immunity to Stun and Criticals.
Eldritch_Lord 02-10-08, 05:04 PM	TPK.......Against a 6 person party. Well all except the rogue who Crouching Tigered off the side of a mountain to get away. Good times. Crouching Tiger-ed? Not Tiger Claw-ed? If he'd done the latter he might have had a chance to beat the other guy.
VulcanStormwrath 02-10-08, 06:21 PM	Crouching Tiger-ed? Not Tiger Claw-ed? If he'd done the latter he might have had a chance to beat the other guy. As in dove off the mountainside, feather falling away to safety.
Eldritch_Lord 02-10-08, 06:29 PM	As in dove off the mountainside, feather falling away to safety. I was thinking more Wolf Climbs the Mountain, 6th level Tiger Claw strike, but I guess that works too. ;)
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-10-08, 06:46 PM	I will retain my stance on the subject, and say that flexibility is dependent on the ability to improvise. This is something that suffocates the Fighter. Everyone on the CO boards will tell you that an optimized Fighter is feat-starved. And everyone of them will tell you that it is very difficult to change anything about the build without changing the whole build itself. Fighter gets shafted because it can't adapt to new situations without someone else's help. In DnD, self-reliance is equally important to PC synergy. This fact is glaringly obvious to anyone who has experienced a Solo encounter that gives even a slight challenge. Without that adaptability, the Fighter can only barely scrape by. It takes a specific build to kill an optimized caster, and that build is so dependent on a single static point that a simple miscalculation will be lethal. I have never seen a Fighter build capable of soloing an Optimized Druid, solely because such a thing is nigh unto impossible to do. Planar Shepard says game over to the Fighter. Hell, 1st level is a headache for them, if only due to the Companion.First, I think that's just something that's always been and always should be for martial classes. You know why you're a martial class? Cause you weren't smart enough for caster school. You get to enjoy L1-5 gleefully cutting things while the Wizard carefully waits for the perfect moment to cast sleep. And personally, I've never really had a trouble building a fighter to be good enough generalist. Sure, I might not WTFBBQpown any one particular character type or class, but I've never felt "Might as well sit down, I'm not contributing here." Admittedly, highest level fighter I've played was a Fighter 4/Rogue2/Blade of Orion 9 who monkey-gripped a adamantite greatsword, but still. As to new supplements rendering old classes obsolete, it happens. But even then, sometimes new material offers nothing that you couldn't all ready do. Take the Samurai for instance. Completely useless, and needs to be re-vamped from the ground, up. Things change. Do you still use MS-DOS, which isn't compatible with most forms of Dial-Up? Unless your financial restraints force it upon you, I would hope not, or I would question your sanity. BUt not all upgrades are good either. Windows Vista, anyone? Yes, it is. And yes, there are those who can. Psion, Wizard, Cleric, Erudite, the Archivist, and even PsiWar. Why? Because of spells. Have you ever seen the Abyssal Retraining trick? Or looked at the Spell Compendium spell Heroics? What about Psychic Reformation? Every one of those classes is capable of changing feats with a little time, and even a little cash. And it does make sense, it is called focusing on a new task. Adapting is something that makes sense, because if you can't adapt, you will surely die. No, that is called common sense. Everyone who fights with a weapon needs a back-up or three. And every melee character needs a Ranged weapon to back them up. Casters? They don't. One spell shuts down a Fighter, and it is 1st level. Swapping Spells/Day is no different than changing a feat out, as you are forgetting something you once were capable of and learning something new in its place. No, it isn't. Spellcasters have always had the ability to change their spells, since editions most ancient. Now, I'm not familar with psionics, don't like them because their just some kind of SPUM. Short of Wish or Miracle (which I do consider valid ways to reshuffle feats), how can a cleric or wizard do so? And they even still certainly cannot do so 1/day with an hour of effort. Also, Abyssal retraining and that ******** with the cradle of rebirth is simply 'respecing', a grossly out of place mechanic in a fantasy world. Regarding weapons, fighters get full martial proficency SO THAT THEY CAN USE WEAPONS. To me, a fighter swapping weapons is like a wizard changing spells. A wizard's spells ARE his weapons, in some cases literally. So you railroad them? Is this what you call being prepared for the worst? If something happened in my game that I wasn't prepared for (and I never prepare for anything, I am completely capable of Improvisation), then I would be able to figure something out that would allow it to work. Even Pun-Pun. I would find a way for a PC to make such a being, and even play him for a time. Why? Because I can do the same thing he did. I can make anything my PCs make, and do it without ECL restrictions, solely because I am able to as a DM. Do I? Not often. I play by the RAW unless absolutely needed. But when I change something mid-game, it is always to serve for the sake of entertaining my PCs. Can I deal with a Planar Shepard? Sure. Do I have to? If one of my PCs can present a good argument for it to happen, then I will allow it. There are games that I run where I will tighten my grip a little, for the sake of maintaining fairness between the classes. And even then, if they find a loop to exploit mid-game, I will run with it until I see the need to step in and stop it myself. Online, I have only done such intervention once during the actual game play, and it was for the sake of progressing the game. Ah, I see. You're one of those DMs who thinks players should be able to be half dragon half elemental half fiend half celestial half golem vampire lich paragon drow, or other equally unlikely combinations of races, classes, and templates. I guess that's a personal preference issue. I'd rather just save the whole exercise of "okay, you brought this optimized build to my table, now I'm throwing it back at you" and just say "use some common sense guys" And mechanics can be justified in game in many ways, you just need to get creative with it. Creative explanations for mechanics are also called bad explanations for game balance reasoning. They make for a worse story and disrupt suspension of disbelief. And you can justify an Optimizer keeping said weapon? Yes, PCs do need Iconic Items to use, but being forced to use a sub-par item because it makes sense actually is railroading your players into weakness. I can find an IC reason for a player to swap weapons, just as much as you can find a reason for them not too. The game should mold around the players, and not what the DM's will is, but die rolls are die rolls, and sometimes villian concept takes priority.I find it really interesting that you don't care about the story holes that some of these mechanics generate but you care about the villains build concept. I ask you, would Drizz't keep using Icingdeath if he found a better scimitar somewhere in his adventures? No. He is smarter than that. What connection he has to the sword is going to make him keep a hold of the item for the sake of memory, but it won't force him to use it.But why not just sell it and use the money to ugprade Icingdeath? Now, whether or not he can actually do that in 2e when he was first written in... Now I pose another question to you: What the Nine Hells is a Fighter doing with an MWK weapon when he has the ECL to attain a +2 Longsword from a treasure horde? Unless something happened to his primary weapon, this should never happen to a PC. If it did, most, if not all, PCs would jump at the chance for a magic weapon of this power. Keep using the old sword? Only in dire emergencies. Or as a distraction to a Rust Monster. It was entirely an example. But the example could apply just as much to a +1 sword.
Etarnon 02-10-08, 09:12 PM	*reads thread, stumbles off to be ill, surrounded by 1e books*
Sinfire Titan 02-11-08, 02:11 AM	First, I think that's just something that's always been and always should be for martial classes. You know why you're a martial class? Cause you weren't smart enough for caster school. You get to enjoy L1-5 gleefully cutting things while the Wizard carefully waits for the perfect moment to cast sleep. And personally, I've never really had a trouble building a fighter to be good enough generalist. Sure, I might not WTFBBQpown any one particular character type or class, but I've never felt "Might as well sit down, I'm not contributing here." Admittedly, highest level fighter I've played was a Fighter 4/Rogue2/Blade of Orion 9 who monkey-gripped a adamantite greatsword, but still. Now now, don't insult the PC because someone doesn't understand how to bend reality over a F*** it up the backside with a chainsaw. It is derogitory comments like this that make the CO boards ell at noobs asking to break a campaign. BUt not all upgrades are good either. Windows Vista, anyone? Touche. No, it isn't. Spellcasters have always had the ability to change their spells, since editions most ancient. Now, I'm not familar with psionics, don't like them because their just some kind of SPUM. Short of Wish or Miracle (which I do consider valid ways to reshuffle feats), how can a cleric or wizard do so? And they even still certainly cannot do so 1/day with an hour of effort. Also, Abyssal retraining and that ******** with the cradle of rebirth is simply 'respecing', a grossly out of place mechanic in a fantasy world. Heroics, Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos. And they can even get Infinite feats with that last one and the Elder Evils book, if they know what they are doing. They don't need an hour, they need the casting time of the spells in question. Think of Spells like Uber feats, and really every time a prepared caster prepares spells it is them changing out feats. Regarding weapons, fighters get full martial proficency SO THAT THEY CAN USE WEAPONS. To me, a fighter swapping weapons is like a wizard changing spells. A wizard's spells ARE his weapons, in some cases literally. And this is the flawed ideal that was the Fighter class. WotC made the mistake of thinking that Damage was the way to be broken in DnD, when it was actually casters who were broken. Ah, I see. You're one of those DMs who thinks players should be able to be half dragon half elemental half fiend half celestial half golem vampire lich paragon drow, or other equally unlikely combinations of races, classes, and templates. I guess that's a personal preference issue. I'd rather just save the whole exercise of "okay, you brought this optimized build to my table, now I'm throwing it back at you" and just say "use some common sense guys" Oh please. I may be an optimizer, but I use logic with both my PCs and my characters/villians. I do throw things at my PCs that look wierd, and I use their tricks against them just as often. Common Sense aside, such a creature would be horribly underpowered at that ECL, and little more than fluffy stuff with a freaky face. I use common sense in my games, I just recently did so with a player who wanted to build Supermount (think Epic-power Dragon at ECL 17), and I use logic to change his mind about the who deal. Creative explanations for mechanics are also called bad explanations for game balance reasoning. They make for a worse story and disrupt suspension of disbelief. If it works, then so be it. As for the story being disrupted, hardly. Such things can become a story of their own. I find it really interesting that you don't care about the story holes that some of these mechanics generate but you care about the villains build concept. I let my players decide the story of their characters, and make the story of my vilians work against this idea, like a good DM should. But why not just sell it and use the money to ugprade Icingdeath? Now, whether or not he can actually do that in 2e when he was first written in... Yes, this is a viable option. But it involves a DM letting him find someone to do so. It was entirely an example. But the example could apply just as much to a +1 sword. And my answer was a logical response to said example. Just as yours was an explanation of your reasoning.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-11-08, 02:47 AM	Now now, don't insult the PC because someone doesn't understand how to bend reality over a F*** it up the backside with a chainsaw. It is derogitory comments like this that make the CO boards ell at noobs asking to break a campaign.My apologies. I am elitist wizard player who struggled through a VERY long 2e campaign from 1-20, and it shapes my attitudes to a signifigant degree when discussing martial versus caster classes (I miss druids and clerics being confined to major and minor spheres, on that note). Heroics, Embrace the Dark Chaos/Shun the Dark Chaos. And they can even get Infinite feats with that last one and the Elder Evils book, if they know what they are doing. They don't need an hour, they need the casting time of the spells in question. Think of Spells like Uber feats, and really every time a prepared caster prepares spells it is them changing out feats. I'm not familar with the Heroics spell, but I am with Embrace/Shun. Now, I don't have the Elder Evils book because I stopped buying 3.5 products when 4e was announced, so I'm not sure what trick that is. Either way, my players don't generally draw upon materials from the Fiendish Codexs. Now, if I'm understanding your strategy here: Embrace the Dark Chaos - choose feats to be removed, replace with AByssal Heritage. Shun the Dark Chaos - Remove Heritage, replace with new feats? I'd probably just say "no, you get your old feats back." in that case, if I thought a player was trying to use the spells to change feats. And this is the flawed ideal that was the Fighter class. WotC made the mistake of thinking that Damage was the way to be broken in DnD, when it was actually casters who were broken.Actually, I think a lot of the balance issues come from trying to carry over 2e high level magic, which was mostly not really for players to use. In 2e, a PWK would USUALLY kill a L20 fighter at full HP, or even a slight to moderately damaged Great Wrym... which could easily be arranged via time stop, if the dragon didn't do it to you first. Either way, I'll agree its the near infinite variety of options that makes casters better than martials, and Vancians more powerful than spontaneous. Oh please. I may be an optimizer, but I use logic with both my PCs and my characters/villians. I do throw things at my PCs that look wierd, and I use their tricks against them just as often. Common Sense aside, such a creature would be horribly underpowered at that ECL, and little more than fluffy stuff with a freaky face. I use common sense in my games, I just recently did so with a player who wanted to build Supermount (think Epic-power Dragon at ECL 17), and I use logic to change his mind about the who deal. You understand the point though, ne? I personally feel that players should stick to core, or campaign core (shifters, kalashatar, changelings, and warforged in Eberron etc), unless they really have a good concept or story of reason why not to. Why? Because if everyone is a CG Drow Ranger fighting to show the world that not all our drow, it really kind of takes away from the whole concept. There must be 'normal' for exceptional to mean anything. Same reason I use 25 point buy on almost all games. When I then say "32 point buy" they're like "Woo we're awesome". As opposed to rolling where you get that guy with nothing under 14 and the guy with nothing over 12. Also noting that I run politically-heavy Eberron games, bizzare races have difficulty participating. If it works, then so be it. As for the story being disrupted, hardly. Such things can become a story of their own. Here's how it sounds to me. Let's use the Cradle of Rebirth, which for arguements sake, works on the same principle as a series of wish spells used to reshape the character (though whether wish even can do that is entirely at DM discretion). I am playing an elf wizard. Regular core elf, not a sun elf or any other +Int version. That +2 dex was pretty helpful at L1-5, but now I'd really rather have more feats and skill points, which at L20, will be more important than a minor boost to Dex, especially if I can negate that Con penalty at the same time. And into the cradle I hop... oh suddenly, I'm more optimized for my level. Now i'm a L20 human wizard with a feat selection that never required me to take any feats except ones that are useful at 20. Seems like pure 'twink' to me. I let my players decide the story of their characters, and make the story of my vilians work against this idea, like a good DM should.From the way your saying this, it sounds like your implying I don't. Yes, this is a viable option. But it involves a DM letting him find someone to do so.Noting that I play a Eberron game with a 'multiverse cosmology' (Essentially, each campaign setting cosmology is like a solar system, and if you can reach the Astral plane you can travel between cosmology's. Also, Sigil. Because Union sucks), the players can get House Cannith to upgrade their gear for most of their adventure and when they get high enough level that they need casters more powerful than exist in Eberron (or at least more powerful than any that are likely to do commission work), they can hit up Sigil, where you can find anything. And my answer was a logical response to said example. Just as yours was an explanation of your reasoning.Okay, so what exactly is your point then? Why is the fighter using a MW sword at the ECL to have a +1 sword? Cause it's his grandfathers sword. Doesn't matter if you said "here, have a +5 vorpal sword" he should say "No thanks, I'd rather use mine"
Alpha_Moose 02-11-08, 06:16 PM	Okay, so what exactly is your point then? Why is the fighter using a MW sword at the ECL to have a +1 sword? Cause it's his grandfathers sword. Doesn't matter if you said "here, have a +5 vorpal sword" he should say "No thanks, I'd rather use mine" No, he should use the weapon that doesn't let him die and gives him an edge in his job. He certainly could keep his grandfather's sword as an heirloom, but when he gets a better weapon he should use it. Otherwise he's being stupid and risking his friend's lives. Not for nothing, but hasn't this thread gotten off track after being dead for months?
Enigmis 02-11-08, 09:08 PM	You understand the point though, ne? I personally feel that players should stick to core, or campaign core (shifters, kalashatar, changelings, and warforged in Eberron etc), unless they really have a good concept or story of reason why not to. Why? It's not like the other books somehow clash with the core and campaign core books, and if they somehow do you can disallow that class/feat/whatever. Why? Because if everyone is a CG Drow Ranger fighting to show the world that not all our drow, it really kind of takes away from the whole concept. There must be 'normal' for exceptional to mean anything. Same reason I use 25 point buy on almost all games. When I then say "32 point buy" they're like "Woo we're awesome". As opposed to rolling where you get that guy with nothing under 14 and the guy with nothing over 12. Power is relative. If you have buffed out pcs using their abilities to the best of their advantage then have the enemies do the same. Doing more damage doesn't change the game if the enemies can take the extra damage and do the same. The same goes for stats except that having lower stats can completely lock out options available to the player and hinder gameplay. I am playing an elf wizard. Regular core elf, not a sun elf or any other +Int version. That +2 dex was pretty helpful at L1-5, but now I'd really rather have more feats and skill points, which at L20, will be more important than a minor boost to Dex, especially if I can negate that Con penalty at the same time. And into the cradle I hop... oh suddenly, I'm more optimized for my level. Now i'm a L20 human wizard with a feat selection that never required me to take any feats except ones that are useful at 20. Seems like pure 'twink' to me. Wait...What??? You're saying that the character will be better overall if you pick feats and skills that will help you more. No duh, apparently making smart choices makes you a twink now.
CryoSilver 02-11-08, 09:55 PM	I think some people are just in the mindset that core is balanced, and therefore, anything that shakes up the traditional "wizards are better than fighters" paradigm is "broken." I'm playing a warblade now, and I can tell ya that it's almost an even trade-off between getting those extra feats and snagging all the cool powers. Warblade IS marginally "better" than fighter in some ways (more and better skills especially) but overall, neither compares to what I can do with a cleric. ToB isn't broken. It's fun. Powergaming isn't bad, as long as you can also RP, whih has little to do with how good you are at manipulating numbers. My character is pretty well tweaked, but I also RP the crap out of him, and the reason he is so good at killing stuff is because, well, that's his JOB. Characters should be good at what they do, so optimizing themisn't "bad," it's good.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-12-08, 02:24 AM	Why? It's not like the other books somehow clash with the core and campaign core books, and if they somehow do you can disallow that class/feat/whatever.And that's what I do. I don't like... let's see, raptorans (sp?), goliaths, illumians, or any other misc Races of races because they all feel incredibly tacked on whenever placed in a game world. Actually, let me expand that. Pretty much any book that adds a new race for players to play, other than campaign specific ones. They're fine for homebrew or Greyhawk, but a lot of them just don't have a proper place in a campaign setting, without altering the story to accomodate them. Oddly enough, Eberron, which has a whole continent for just tacking things on (Xen'drik), gets this feel even more so for me. As I mentioned I run a politicall oriented campaign so if a player were to come to me and say "I want to play this raptoran sorcerer", I would say "Well, okay, but as a raptoran would most likely be found in Xen'drik... why do you care about the politics of the Five Nations outside of Xen'drik?" If your running a certain type of game, and you tell your players "This is this kind of game. Roll appropriate characters" you shouldn't have to deal classes or race that are hard to fit into the game. For example, an argonessan barbarian/dragon shaman with the inability to speak common (a player chosen flaw as a concept) got rejected just cause it didn't fit the storyline, and would have been just a hindrance to the party. Of course, the party's approaching planar travel, so once they hit Sigil all bets are off. Power is relative. If you have buffed out pcs using their abilities to the best of their advantage then have the enemies do the same. Doing more damage doesn't change the game if the enemies can take the extra damage and do the same. The same goes for stats except that having lower stats can completely lock out options available to the player and hinder gameplay.If a build isn't viable in 25 point buy, it's not actually viable, since 25 point buy is the official 'standard point buy' Wait...What??? You're saying that the character will be better overall if you pick feats and skills that will help you more. No duh, apparently making smart choices makes you a twink now.No, a twink is someone who makes a race choice at L1, plays it to L20, then changes his race via cradle of rebirth to a race thats more advantageous at 20.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-12-08, 02:29 AM	No, he should use the weapon that doesn't let him die and gives him an edge in his job. He certainly could keep his grandfather's sword as an heirloom, but when he gets a better weapon he should use it. Otherwise he's being stupid and risking his friend's lives.Again, I think he'd prefer to enchant and enhance his existing heirloom sword in preference to using random dungeon trash. And though not all DMs do this, I do use Weapon of Legacy rules, so it's not unlikely that sometime around 5th level he can do a legacy founding and have a customized weapon that levels with him. Why? It's not like the other books somehow clash with the core and campaign core books, and if they somehow do you can disallow that class/feat/whatever.And that's what I do. I don't like... let's see, raptorans (sp?), goliaths, illumians, or any other misc Races of races because they all feel incredibly tacked on whenever placed in a game world. Actually, let me expand that. Pretty much any book that adds a new race for players to play, other than campaign specific ones. They're fine for homebrew or Greyhawk, but a lot of them just don't have a proper place in a campaign setting, without altering the story to accomodate them. Oddly enough, Eberron, which has a whole continent for just tacking things on (Xen'drik), gets this feel even more so for me. As I mentioned I run a politicall oriented campaign so if a player were to come to me and say "I want to play this raptoran sorcerer", I would say "Well, okay, but as a raptoran would most likely be found in Xen'drik... why do you care about the politics of the Five Nations outside of Xen'drik?" If your running a certain type of game, and you tell your players "This is this kind of game. Roll appropriate characters" you shouldn't have to deal classes or race that are hard to fit into the game. For example, an argonessan barbarian/dragon shaman with the inability to speak common (a player chosen flaw as a concept) got rejected just cause it didn't fit the storyline, and would have been just a hindrance to the party. Of course, the party's approaching planar travel, so once they hit Sigil all bets are off. Power is relative. If you have buffed out pcs using their abilities to the best of their advantage then have the enemies do the same. Doing more damage doesn't change the game if the enemies can take the extra damage and do the same. The same goes for stats except that having lower stats can completely lock out options available to the player and hinder gameplay.If a build isn't viable in 25 point buy, it's not actually viable, since 25 point buy is the official 'standard point buy' Wait...What??? You're saying that the character will be better overall if you pick feats and skills that will help you more. No duh, apparently making smart choices makes you a twink now.No, a twink is someone who makes a race choice at L1, plays it to L20, then changes his race via cradle of rebirth to a race thats more advantageous at 20.
SokenzanMarauder 02-12-08, 08:02 AM	Then one day I used my first ever NPC from BO9S. A human Crusader of Bane with a Talisman of undying fortitude. TPK.......Against a 6 person party. Well all except the rogue who Crouching Tigered off the side of a mountain to get away. Good times.This. Right here! Is what I think some DMs forget. PCs giving you trouble with their ToB characters? Throw one right back at 'em and show them the meaning of pain by melee; it tends to be a sobering experience.
Sunic_Flames 02-12-08, 08:10 AM	The whole 'grandfather's sword' concept isn't viable in D&D. Part of learning the game is learning what works, and what seems to work but doesn't (aka newbie traps). Unless of course your DM realizes this, and does something like letting you switch bonuses of similar weapons without crafting feats for 10% of the cost it'd take to create it. For example the whole grandfather's sword thing. MW sword, then you kill something and take its stuff, getting a +1 sword. So instead of just scrapping the grandfather's sword concept, or being stupid for sticking with it (and moreso at higher levels when better stuff becomes available) he could use that, pay 200 GP and 8 XP, and he now has a +1 grandfather's sword, and a MW random loot sword. If later on he finds a +2 random loot sword, he does it again, paying a total of 1,000 GP and 40 XP, and now has a +2 grandfather's sword and a +1 random loot sword. I haven't paid too much attention to Weapons of Legacy, mostly because all the ones I've seen aren't worth it, because the penalties make them garbage. Also, +5 vorpal is hideously suboptimal. 25 PB: By that logic, just about every non caster is not viable as they tends towards heavy MAD which requires 32 PB just to be functional. Whereas the full casters are sitting on 2 14s and a 17, which is all they need. Anything more is practically flavor text. To whoever said adventurers should not be good at killing things and taking their stuff: If you were a soldier in Iraq, or some other such combat situation would you go on the front lines armed only with a knife, a pistol, or would you take the full array of standard soldier gear? (starting with an assault rifle) I would hope the answer is the last one, because it is simple common sense to ensure you have the right tools for the job, and as your life is on the line you really can't afford to screw up. Soldiers do not use inferior equipment if given a choice. Now, adventurers are soldiers in a sense, even if not actually in the military. They are fighting things after all, and said things tend to resent this. Since good roleplaying is treating your characters as if they actually existed, and have desires accordingly that an actual person would have, it is bad roleplaying to intentionally use inferior equipment as no sane person would do so.
runestar 02-12-08, 08:18 AM	PCs giving you trouble with their ToB characters? Throw one right back at 'em and show them the meaning of pain by melee; it tends to be a sobering experience. All other things equal, a ToB PC should be stronger than its npc counterpart, unless you can tinker with its cr effectively (since npcs tend to be screwed over by their poorer wealth limits), and really know how to build one such that it can effectively contend with 4 PCs/round. I am really interested to see what your definition of a ToB npc who can properly challenge a party entails.:)
Nephlite 02-12-08, 08:24 AM	Why? Because if everyone is a CG Drow Ranger fighting to show the world that not all our drow, it really kind of takes away from the whole concept. There must be 'normal' for exceptional to mean anything. Same reason I use 25 point buy on almost all games. When I then say "32 point buy" they're like "Woo we're awesome". As opposed to rolling where you get that guy with nothing under 14 and the guy with nothing over 12. Maybe you fail at logic, but that is a core concept: Drow are in MM, Ranger and alignments are in PHB. Plus, unless your female Drow suck fior their LA.
SokenzanMarauder 02-12-08, 08:40 AM	All other things equal, a ToB PC should be stronger than its npc counterpart, unless you can tinker with its cr effectively (since npcs tend to be screwed over by their poorer wealth limits), and really know how to build one such that it can effectively contend with 4 PCs/round. I am really interested to see what your definition of a ToB npc who can properly challenge a party entails.:)I'm not saying that you necessarily have to destroy the party with them. Just show them that "hey, we're not the only 'uber swordsmen' in sea" so to speak. Nor am I saying that it only has to be a single ToB NPC. :D Hell, two or three third level Warblades or Swordsages against a 5th level party used to fighting Fighters and Warriors will definitely notice a difference in the tide of combat. Especially once things like Stone Bones and whatnot start flying around and half of their enemies now have damage reduction (not too much, mind you, but enough to be of some help). Not to mention if you throw a caster in with them. A third level cleric with a duo of similarly leveled Swordsages would likely be quite a nasty battle.
runestar 02-12-08, 08:55 AM	Well, to be fair, initiator lv does interact oddly with racial HD, because monsters tend to have an obscene amount of HD for their cr, which in turn can translate to higher than expected IL, which may allow them access to higher-lv maneuvers than their cr would normally suggest. For example, a stone elemental has 24 racial HD for cr11, which already gives it an IL of 12. Throw in say, 5 lvs of warblade and it can access 9th lv maneuvers as a cr16 foe. This coupled with its excellent physical stats, can make it a fairly potent foe. Likewise, a choker crusader looks like it may give a lv5-6 party fits, since its maneuvers refresh automatically every 3 rounds, which allows it plenty of room to maneuver-spam like crazy. A steady diet of stone bones and healing strikes in tandem with martial spirit and stone power gives you a very regenerative foe that can easily tank a party.:D This means that existing cr guidelines may not necessarily work properly with them.
SokenzanMarauder 02-12-08, 09:05 AM	Well, to be fair, initiator lv does interact oddly with racial HD, because monsters tend to have an obscene amount of HD for their cr, which in turn can translate to higher than expected IL, which may allow them access to higher-lv maneuvers than their cr would normally suggest. For example, a stone elemental has 24 racial HD for cr11, which already gives it an IL of 12. Throw in say, 5 lvs of warblade and it can access 9th lv maneuvers as a cr16 foe. This coupled with its excellent physical stats, can make it a fairly potent foe. Likewise, a choker crusader looks like it may give a lv5-6 party fits, since its maneuvers refresh automatically every 3 rounds, which allows it plenty of room to maneuver-spam like crazy. A steady diet of stone bones and healing strikes in tandem with martial spirit and stone power gives you a very regenerative foe that can easily tank a party.:D This means that existing cr guidelines may not necessarily work properly with them.You make a good point; I'd actually never noticed that before. That is kinda silly in my opinion but whatever floats the designer's boat I suppose. Anyways; when I was referring to throwing them up against a party I was just talking generic humans or anything without LA or racial HD for that matter. I don't usually throw class levels on 'monsters' unless it's going to be a fairly epic battle (BBEG type deal) as I generally just increase their HD instead. But I'll definitely have to remember that as I've become quite fond of throwing ToB classed NPCs up against my PCs and something like that choker crusader would likely destroy them.
aotrscommander 02-12-08, 09:46 AM	And that's what I do. I don't like... let's see, raptorans (sp?), goliaths, illumians, or any other misc Races of races because they all feel incredibly tacked on whenever placed in a game world. Actually, let me expand that. Pretty much any book that adds a new race for players to play, other than campaign specific ones. They're fine for homebrew or Greyhawk, but a lot of them just don't have a proper place in a campaign setting, without altering the story to accomodate them. Oddly enough, Eberron, which has a whole continent for just tacking things on (Xen'drik), gets this feel even more so for me. As I mentioned I run a politicall oriented campaign so if a player were to come to me and say "I want to play this raptoran sorcerer", I would say "Well, okay, but as a raptoran would most likely be found in Xen'drik... why do you care about the politics of the Five Nations outside of Xen'drik?" If your running a certain type of game, and you tell your players "This is this kind of game. Roll appropriate characters" you shouldn't have to deal classes or race that are hard to fit into the game. For example, an argonessan barbarian/dragon shaman with the inability to speak common (a player chosen flaw as a concept) got rejected just cause it didn't fit the storyline, and would have been just a hindrance to the party. I hear ya, at least on the races issue (classes, not so worried; PrCs get a good kicking over though, at least in my games). Hell, I find half-orcs and gnomes fall into that category...
Sinfire Titan 02-12-08, 11:54 AM	My apologies. I am elitist wizard player who struggled through a VERY long 2e campaign from 1-20, and it shapes my attitudes to a signifigant degree when discussing martial versus caster classes (I miss druids and clerics being confined to major and minor spheres, on that note). While I accept the appology, that comment was more of a joke than me making an argument. If you reread it, the context of PC can either mean Player or Character, so it was more of a swipe at people who play Wizards with a higher Int than that of the player (I deal with that every day with my little brother, so I couldn't resist poking a little fun). I'm not familar with the Heroics spell, but I am with Embrace/Shun. Now, I don't have the Elder Evils book because I stopped buying 3.5 products when 4e was announced, so I'm not sure what trick that is. Either way, my players don't generally draw upon materials from the Fiendish Codexs. Now, if I'm understanding your strategy here: Embrace the Dark Chaos - choose feats to be removed, replace with AByssal Heritage. Shun the Dark Chaos - Remove Heritage, replace with new feats? I'd probably just say "no, you get your old feats back." in that case, if I thought a player was trying to use the spells to change feats. I take full credit for this loop: 1: Devote the character to an Elder Evil, thus gaining 5 free bonus Vile feats. 2: Embrace the Dark Chaos to swap them for Abyssal Heirator feats. 3: Change Alignments and cease devotion to the Elder Evils (Game RUles check to see what Vile feats are to be lost, feats are no longer there, nothing happens, PC retains feats.) 4: Shun the Dark Chaos to gain a new feat. If you are no longer Evil, your little ruling of them getting back the Vile feats won't work, as they no longer qualify (no longer Evil aligned, a requirement for every Vile feat). 5: Shift alignment again, and repeat from Step 1. Bam, infinite feats legal by RAW and without Pun-Pun loop. Attainable from a 1st level Warforged Wizard who can make the Knowledge (Religion) DC for calling Pazuzu and Wishing for a Staff of Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos.Every day, use this loop and re-summon Pazuzu to charge the staff again with another Wish. He will answer because you are no longer CE when you summon him. Now look at the wording in Shun the Dark Chaos. It lets you select a NEW feat in place of the one you give up. It does not say you get back the feat lost from Embrace the Dark Chaos, or else it would say so specifically. This is an RAW-legal way to change out your feats. And my trick works because of the System not having a legal target for losing the Vile feats when you change alignments again. If any one of my players pulled this loop on me, I would have an Inevitable on their ass so fast you wouldn't believe it was possible. And I would still let them have those feats. I would deal with it the way it was meant to be dealt with: In Game. The Inevitables would consider this loop tampering with an oath of service, and Kolyaruts would be sent in to deal with the PC. Actually, I think a lot of the balance issues come from trying to carry over 2e high level magic, which was mostly not really for players to use. In 2e, a PWK would USUALLY kill a L20 fighter at full HP, or even a slight to moderately damaged Great Wrym... which could easily be arranged via time stop, if the dragon didn't do it to you first. Either way, I'll agree its the near infinite variety of options that makes casters better than martials, and Vancians more powerful than spontaneous. And this is still true today. A Great Wyrm that is caught off-guard (not as hard as it sounds) will be annihilated by a PC Wizard who knows what they are doing with a Nova. To this day, WotC still has trouble balancing everything (I look at Evocation and see this with each new spell they print), and they need better Editing for their books. I know people will be people, and things will be missed, but a little less haste to make a little more efficiency would be really nice from a professional editing team. You understand the point though, ne? I personally feel that players should stick to core, or campaign core (shifters, kalashatar, changelings, and warforged in Eberron etc), unless they really have a good concept or story of reason why not to. Why? Because if everyone is a CG Drow Ranger fighting to show the world that not all our drow, it really kind of takes away from the whole concept. There must be 'normal' for exceptional to mean anything. Same reason I use 25 point buy on almost all games. When I then say "32 point buy" they're like "Woo we're awesome". As opposed to rolling where you get that guy with nothing under 14 and the guy with nothing over 12. And this is where we differ horribly. I allow many a race into my games, even some home-brewed ones. I see to it that such beings have a place, and have done so with my Skies of Arcadia campaign by giving as many races a place in society as I could fit, and those that I missed in the OP have their own little world to live in due to my effort as a DM. As to rolling stats: Reroll 1s and 2s, and everyone's scores should be equal in terms of power. I do this IRL, and have never had a problem with one of my players rolling retardedly high stats. This is because everyone is equal in power in terms of rolls. I even give two sets of stats so as to avoid the worst case scenario of someone rolling all 9s. Also noting that I run politically-heavy Eberron games, bizzare races have difficulty participating. And I run many Home-Brew and Greyhawk settings, and play in a bit of everything. I have dabbled with the best of each, and know that only two settings support odd races: Greyhawk and Eberron (they have an entire nation set aside for monstrous races, so don't try to say otherwise). One does so because it is the default. The other does so because it was designed to include something from everything. Here's how it sounds to me. Let's use the Cradle of Rebirth, which for arguements sake, works on the same principle as a series of wish spells used to reshape the character (though whether wish even can do that is entirely at DM discretion). I am playing an elf wizard. Regular core elf, not a sun elf or any other +Int version. That +2 dex was pretty helpful at L1-5, but now I'd really rather have more feats and skill points, which at L20, will be more important than a minor boost to Dex, especially if I can negate that Con penalty at the same time. And into the cradle I hop... oh suddenly, I'm more optimized for my level. Now i'm a L20 human wizard with a feat selection that never required me to take any feats except ones that are useful at 20. Seems like pure 'twink' to me. And this is why Elves are sub-optimal for anything that isn't a Necropolitan. And it can make sense given the right intervention. Just looking at the mechanics doesn't do this. And Retraining requires the feat to be selected as though you always were a Human from level 1, so you are bending the rules there for the sake of argument. From the way your saying this, it sounds like your implying I don't. I never said this, but it may have come off as though I meant what you said I meant. Now I am the one apologizing. Noting that I play a Eberron game with a 'multiverse cosmology' (Essentially, each campaign setting cosmology is like a solar system, and if you can reach the Astral plane you can travel between cosmology's. Also, Sigil. Because Union sucks), the players can get House Cannith to upgrade their gear for most of their adventure and when they get high enough level that they need casters more powerful than exist in Eberron (or at least more powerful than any that are likely to do commission work), they can hit up Sigil, where you can find anything. And what if they aren't made aware of this? Okay, so what exactly is your point then? Why is the fighter using a MW sword at the ECL to have a +1 sword? Cause it's his grandfathers sword. Doesn't matter if you said "here, have a +5 vorpal sword" he should say "No thanks, I'd rather use mine" And I wouldn't use such a weapon myself. Most, if not all, of my characters have no reason to use weapons that they themselves haven't earned or made. Hell, most of my characters can use weapons that aren't even real, and the rest are all casters. My point is that RPing reasons should not supersede the rules. This ideal died off in 3rd, and should only be used as a last resort to justify anything.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-12-08, 03:05 PM	While I accept the appology, that comment was more of a joke than me making an argument. If you reread it, the context of PC can either mean Player or Character, so it was more of a swipe at people who play Wizards with a higher Int than that of the player (I deal with that every day with my little brother, so I couldn't resist poking a little fun).I've yet to meet a Wizard player, myself included, whose Int matches their players. An 18 Int, I do not claim. I take full credit for this loop: 1: Devote the character to an Elder Evil, thus gaining 5 free bonus Vile feats. 2: Embrace the Dark Chaos to swap them for Abyssal Heirator feats. 3: Change Alignments and cease devotion to the Elder Evils (Game RUles check to see what Vile feats are to be lost, feats are no longer there, nothing happens, PC retains feats.) 4: Shun the Dark Chaos to gain a new feat. If you are no longer Evil, your little ruling of them getting back the Vile feats won't work, as they no longer qualify (no longer Evil aligned, a requirement for every Vile feat). 5: Shift alignment again, and repeat from Step 1. Bam, infinite feats legal by RAW and without Pun-Pun loop. Attainable from a 1st level Warforged Wizard who can make the Knowledge (Religion) DC for calling Pazuzu and Wishing for a Staff of Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos.Every day, use this loop and re-summon Pazuzu to charge the staff again with another Wish. He will answer because you are no longer CE when you summon him. Now look at the wording in Shun the Dark Chaos. It lets you select a NEW feat in place of the one you give up. It does not say you get back the feat lost from Embrace the Dark Chaos, or else it would say so specifically. This is an RAW-legal way to change out your feats. And my trick works because of the System not having a legal target for losing the Vile feats when you change alignments again. If any one of my players pulled this loop on me, I would have an Inevitable on their ass so fast you wouldn't believe it was possible. And I would still let them have those feats. I would deal with it the way it was meant to be dealt with: In Game. The Inevitables would consider this loop tampering with an oath of service, and Kolyaruts would be sent in to deal with the PC. I do actually like the Inevitables idea. I hadn't considered them because I often forget the neutral outsiders (they don't play much part in Eberron, even less so than the other classical outsiders). And this is still true today. A Great Wyrm that is caught off-guard (not as hard as it sounds) will be annihilated by a PC Wizard who knows what they are doing with a Nova. To this day, WotC still has trouble balancing everything (I look at Evocation and see this with each new spell they print), and they need better Editing for their books. I know people will be people, and things will be missed, but a little less haste to make a little more efficiency would be really nice from a professional editing team.I guess we're in agreement here. Moving on. And this is where we differ horribly. I allow many a race into my games, even some home-brewed ones. I see to it that such beings have a place, and have done so with my Skies of Arcadia campaign by giving as many races a place in society as I could fit, and those that I missed in the OP have their own little world to live in due to my effort as a DM. As to rolling stats: Reroll 1s and 2s, and everyone's scores should be equal in terms of power. I do this IRL, and have never had a problem with one of my players rolling retardedly high stats. This is because everyone is equal in power in terms of rolls. I even give two sets of stats so as to avoid the worst case scenario of someone rolling all 9s.I've done a couple different stat methods throughout my time. I never DMed 2e, but god, 3d6 organic is a terrible way to roll. I just got lucky and got a high Int character when I wanted to play a Wizard. For all of 3.0, I used the 4d6 drop low, assign standard. In 3.5, though, with the adjustment of saving throw progression (3.0 was VERY easy to make unbeatable saves as PC characters even with Fort versus dwarven fighters), I began to dislike how even the weak save of the average PC was very difficult for them to fail (IE, makes it over 50% of the time). In my current game, the party's Paladin, courtesy of a cloak of Charisma and Divine Grace has a +12 Reflex save at L9. Forget Fortitude or Will, I think those are around +20. Oh, and an AC of 33 (Touch 27). So I practically have to pummel him with no-save no-attack roll spells like magic missile to effect him. Fortunetly, all this 'tanking' spec makes him do very little damage, but it's only a matter of time till he gets the 'dancing' property on his shield and starts wielding a 2her and using his power attack and divine might to serious effect. I actually think this player color a lot of my views about how PCs should balance, because he regularly reads the CO boards before making a character. Once I realized that with as many high stats as he has, he's very hard to personally threaten. Anyway, so after observing his optimized characters with high stats, I decided I needed to cut back on the power level of the game (also, I hate players going "oh, a 12... that's a bad stat". No it isn't. That's above human average, noticeably so) and switch to 25, with 32 point for games where I think they'll need 'powerful' stat characters. Regarding races, like I said, it's fine for homebrew, but I have a compulsion for when playing a campaign setting not altering it too much. IE, I will never put in a clear-cut "this is what caused the Day of Mourning" in my games, though I may implicate, and allude to player (not character) knowledge the cause. And I run many Home-Brew and Greyhawk settings, and play in a bit of everything. I have dabbled with the best of each, and know that only two settings support odd races: Greyhawk and Eberron (they have an entire nation set aside for monstrous races, so don't try to say otherwise). One does so because it is the default. The other does so because it was designed to include something from everything.Droam is more for 'monstrous' races, indeed. However, this means 'monsters' as in things from the Monsters Manual. While I could conceivably fit many splat races there, I generally find it better to place them in Xen'drik, particularly in the case of races that would logically have a strong impact on the world around them. I enjoyed MM3s "<monster> in Eberron" segments, especially for races like Ibixians. However even in Droam, you would have to have a pretty specific concept to be interfering in the politics of the Five Nations, so it still kind of puts you outside of the scope of my game. And this is why Elves are sub-optimal for anything that isn't a Necropolitan. And it can make sense given the right intervention. Just looking at the mechanics doesn't do this. And Retraining requires the feat to be selected as though you always were a Human from level 1, so you are bending the rules there for the sake of argument.See, it shouldn't be about 'optimal'. And while I can conceive of some prankster god coming down and going "lol reroll!", it still smacks of contrivence. After all, the character, if not the player, has been his race and class for quite some time. Unless he is some outcast race, like perhaps gully dwarves or kender of Krynn, I can conceive of no reason why the CHARACTER would choose any different choices. It strikes of too much the player making optimal gaming choices at the sacrifice of role play. And what if they aren't made aware of this?I've informed the players long since, and those with sufficient Knowledge (Planes) are aware in-character. And I wouldn't use such a weapon myself. Most, if not all, of my characters have no reason to use weapons that they themselves haven't earned or made. Hell, most of my characters can use weapons that aren't even real, and the rest are all casters. My point is that RPing reasons should not supersede the rules. This ideal died off in 3rd, and should only be used as a last resort to justify anything.Personally, I do feel role play should supersede mechanics, so I guess that's a difference of opinion. Now, I agree that RP shouldn't be used to BALANCE mechanics, ala BoVD and BoED, but characters shouldn't avoid logical RP-based decisions on the basis of mechanical advantage.
High Octane 02-12-08, 03:19 PM	I hear ya, at least on the races issue (classes, not so worried; PrCs get a good kicking over though, at least in my games). Hell, I find half-orcs and gnomes fall into that category... I agree in the whole races being tacked on at the end in supplements. Some are very poorly thought out, and some like Illumans are more reading then I care to do. By all means a DM doesn't have to add those races to his game, but it can be annoying having to say no to a player for what I'm sure the player thinks is a minor point and a good concept simply because the race doesn't exist in your game. Classes are far easier to implement, and feats are a cinch. It would be easier to implement the entire Book of Nine Swords into a base game than adding just 1 race like Goliath. I actually liked how Eberron handles new races though. For an ENTIRE campaign setting they added what, 4 new races? All of which were signifigantly different from other races and were already implemented into the campaign setting. As opposed to Faerun which had what felt like 135 new subraces and derivatives of base races. OOOHH Half-drow! How original. And then each region had its own version of the base races, except for human of course who are vanilla always. I always found that stupid that humans are supposed to be one of the most diverse races yet they are the only ones without regional racials.
Sinfire Titan 02-12-08, 04:36 PM	I've yet to meet a Wizard player, myself included, whose Int matches their players. An 18 Int, I do not claim. Same here. I have, at best, a 13 Int, about 130 IQ. I'm smart, but just a few cuts above average. But I'm also very creative and clever, so I can pull off playing a 28 Int Wizard (which I will be soon doing). I do actually like the Inevitables idea. I hadn't considered them because I often forget the neutral outsiders (they don't play much part in Eberron, even less so than the other classical outsiders). The Neutral Outsiders match the Eberron's Shades of Gray feeling the way peanut butter and chocolate match. They may not play an active role, but that is because they were meaningless symmetry added into 3E. Use the ideas to balance out the power level. Let the players realize just what consequences their actions will have, and events like Pun-Pun won't happen. I guess we're in agreement here. Moving on. Let's. I've done a couple different stat methods throughout my time. I never DMed 2e, but god, 3d6 organic is a terrible way to roll. I just got lucky and got a high Int character when I wanted to play a Wizard. For all of 3.0, I used the 4d6 drop low, assign standard. In 3.5, though, with the adjustment of saving throw progression (3.0 was VERY easy to make unbeatable saves as PC characters even with Fort versus dwarven fighters), I began to dislike how even the weak save of the average PC was very difficult for them to fail (IE, makes it over 50% of the time). In my current game, the party's Paladin, courtesy of a cloak of Charisma and Divine Grace has a +12 Reflex save at L9. Forget Fortitude or Will, I think those are around +20. Oh, and an AC of 33 (Touch 27). So I practically have to pummel him with no-save no-attack roll spells like magic missile to effect him. Fortunetly, all this 'tanking' spec makes him do very little damage, but it's only a matter of time till he gets the 'dancing' property on his shield and starts wielding a 2her and using his power attack and divine might to serious effect. I actually think this player color a lot of my views about how PCs should balance, because he regularly reads the CO boards before making a character. Once I realized that with as many high stats as he has, he's very hard to personally threaten. Anyway, so after observing his optimized characters with high stats, I decided I needed to cut back on the power level of the game (also, I hate players going "oh, a 12... that's a bad stat". No it isn't. That's above human average, noticeably so) and switch to 25, with 32 point for games where I think they'll need 'powerful' stat characters. And I'm playing a 1st level game where the DM is using an 83 PB with the base stats at 0 instead of 8, and it is point-for-point. My lowest score is a 10, my highest is a 28. Guess what? Nothing will be making their saves against my spells unless it is hand-made to deal with me specifically. We also have a Druid in the party. This is the part where things get out of hand. I specifically dialed down my Optimizing for this purpose, but I couldn't resist the alure of that Int score. What I wouldn't give for a few Flaws/Uncanny Forethought. Spontaneous 1st level Wizard? Yes please! As for dealing with huge tanks, hitting them with things that don't need to roll is fairly standard, but making them roll Skill checks for Cross-Class skills works even better. If it were me, a single Grease spell would shut down that Paladin in a heartbeat during the surprise round. I would then follow with Solid Fog and Slow to screw him over completely. When you realize that sinking everything into one place will leave you horridly vulnerable everywhere else, you start to wonder if Optimizing one area is worth it. Truth is, unless it can house even when screwed, it isn't. Regarding races, like I said, it's fine for homebrew, but I have a compulsion for when playing a campaign setting not altering it too much. IE, I will never put in a clear-cut "this is what caused the Day of Mourning" in my games, though I may implicate, and allude to player (not character) knowledge the cause. And then you get the mood for a whacky game where everyone has a +5 LA minimum. Then you get Lolth-Touched Mineral Warrior Dvati Half-Minotaur Frenzied Berserkers charging your monsters with Greatswords. And you know what? That DM still is finding ways to deal with that PC. And I enjoy every minute of it. Droam is more for 'monstrous' races, indeed. However, this means 'monsters' as in things from the Monsters Manual. While I could conceivably fit many splat races there, I generally find it better to place them in Xen'drik, particularly in the case of races that would logically have a strong impact on the world around them. I enjoyed MM3s "<monster> in Eberron" segments, especially for races like Ibixians. However even in Droam, you would have to have a pretty specific concept to be interfering in the politics of the Five Nations, so it still kind of puts you outside of the scope of my game. True. See, it shouldn't be about 'optimal'. And while I can conceive of some prankster god coming down and going "lol reroll!", it still smacks of contrivence. After all, the character, if not the player, has been his race and class for quite some time. Unless he is some outcast race, like perhaps gully dwarves or kender of Krynn, I can conceive of no reason why the CHARACTER would choose any different choices. It strikes of too much the player making optimal gaming choices at the sacrifice of role play. Concept and Optimization go hand-in-hand almost 80% of the time. There is no such thing as sacrificing RP for Opimization or Vice Versa. There is only Superior, and Inferior. You are either one or the other, no exceptions. There is no middle ground for such a thing. I've informed the players long since, and those with sufficient Knowledge (Planes) are aware in-character. In that case, go for it. Won't affect me in any way. Personally, I do feel role play should supersede mechanics, so I guess that's a difference of opinion. Now, I agree that RP shouldn't be used to BALANCE mechanics, ala BoVD and BoED, but characters shouldn't avoid logical RP-based decisions on the basis of mechanical advantage. Again, we disagree on this point. Becoming inferior or superior is a player's choice, and should be left to the player to decide. Even if RP is involved, most of the time a player will pick Superior over Inferior.
CryoSilver 02-12-08, 04:52 PM	Personally, I do feel role play should supersede mechanics, so I guess that's a difference of opinion. Now, I agree that RP shouldn't be used to BALANCE mechanics, ala BoVD and BoED, but characters shouldn't avoid logical RP-based decisions on the basis of mechanical advantage. In the case being argued, choosing to use your grandfather's old sword over an immensely powerful weapon of DOOM is not really the "logical RP choice." It isn't like a +10 sword is made in China, with lead paint. Some nigh legendary wizard made it using his incredible level 20 powers. So you'd be trading your crappy metal stick for the almost-artifact level sword of DOOM. Did King Arthur Keep using his old sword after he found Excalibur? Hell no; he took the shiny new sword of doom.
Sinfire Titan 02-12-08, 04:56 PM	In the case being argued, choosing to use your grandfather's old sword over an immensely powerful weapon of DOOM is not really the "logical RP choice." It isn't like a +10 sword is made in China, with lead paint. Some nigh legendary wizard made it using his incredible level 20 powers. So you'd be trading your crappy metal stick for the almost-artifact level sword of DOOM. Did King Arthur Keep using his old sword after he found Excalibur? Hell no; he took the shiny new sword of doom. Same thing with virtually everything else. The only character I can think of that still has virtually the same weapon is Roy Greenhilt, and that is because the weapon has no actual stats, so no matter what they find, it will be better than the rest of it.
Ecalsneerg 02-12-08, 05:01 PM	Same thing with virtually everything else. The only character I can think of that still has virtually the same weapon is Roy Greenhilt, and that is because the weapon has no actual stats, so no matter what they find, it will be better than the rest of it. I think it's a +5 greatsword (said in the comic), likely with undead bane.
Sinfire Titan 02-12-08, 05:03 PM	I think it's a +5 greatsword (said in the comic), likely with undead bane. Starmetal gave it the (Evil) Bane trick, and it doesn't always function. This was covered in the comic too, IIRC.
VulcanStormwrath 02-12-08, 05:28 PM	All other things equal, a ToB PC should be stronger than its npc counterpart, unless you can tinker with its cr effectively (since npcs tend to be screwed over by their poorer wealth limits), and really know how to build one such that it can effectively contend with 4 PCs/round. I am really interested to see what your definition of a ToB npc who can properly challenge a party entails.:) One that's immune to critical hits/sneakattacks (when PC's have optimized for best crit range/damage) Dices up party's followers using Kill and Heal maneuvers, delays damage, has Diehard and Final Blow feats.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-15-08, 07:15 PM	Same thing with virtually everything else. The only character I can think of that still has virtually the same weapon is Roy Greenhilt, and that is because the weapon has no actual stats, so no matter what they find, it will be better than the rest of it. See, I rather like Roy Greenhilt's attachment to his sword.
heretic888 02-15-08, 07:22 PM	See, I rather like Roy Greenhilt's attachment to his sword. Hi JancariusSeiryujinn, Yes, but if you may recall, in Roy's first real battle with Xykon the lich destroyed his sword with a single spell and Roy had to beat him with a rock he picked up off the ground (which, by the way, wouldn't have worked in an actual D&D session). During their second battle, Roy got a few good licks in, at which point Xykon flew above him and obliterated him with meteor swarm. Roy is currently a ghost. That speaks volumes. Laterz.
Eldritch_Lord 02-15-08, 07:51 PM	Roy is currently a ghost. That speaks volumes. Seconded. No matter how fancy your sword technique is, a meteor swarm to the face is a meteor swarm to the face.
Nephlite 02-15-08, 08:00 PM	Hi JancariusSeiryujinn, Yes, but if you may recall, in Roy's first real battle with Xykon the lich destroyed his sword with a single spell and Roy had to beat him with a rock he picked up off the ground (which, by the way, wouldn't have worked in an actual D&D session). Actually, the rock would work if he dealt enough Str damage. But he'd need like 20 or more str assuming 2 handed rock. Maybe 1d3 for a rock 1 handed, 2 handed rock 1d4? Than he only needs 11 more damage: +4 Str mod (Str 18) using a 2 hander (so +6 damage) with PA for 4 (8) damage). If he deal max damage he can deal 18 damage so he dealt 3 damage to the lich. Maybe it was magic rock? That would go through DR.
turalisj 02-15-08, 09:09 PM	I think your suffering from a knee-jerk reaction. I can think of many Core 20 builds that could mop the floor with anything from ToB. Spellcasters still kick everyones ass, Wizards just gave the warrior-types some love. But a Swordsage is still going to take a Arcane Thesis-Twinned-Maximized-Empowered Orb of Force to the face poorly. Thirded (or whatever we are on now). ToB brought the power of melleers closer to that of a spellcaster. You don't like it, ban the book, **** off your players, watch them leave you, and find another group that's as hard assed about different abilities then you.
High Octane 02-15-08, 09:12 PM	Don't try to apply logical gaming statistics to a COMIC. PLEASE.
Tectorman 02-16-08, 12:13 AM	DERAIL ALERT Shadow jump *is* 50 ft., but it has to be through shadows, the Ss can't just shadow jump through a well lit arena or open field. If the fight was going on in the dark, then a darkvision spell would give the wizard the upperhand. What kind of wizards stands next to a wall during a duel, anyway, unless he was planning on using Shadowform or the like? No, it does not have to be through shadows (alternatively, it does, but you're creating the shadows as part of the maneuver). In either case, the SS can shadow jaunt/stride/blink in, oh say, Death Valley (bright, no cover, cloud or otherwise). This concludes the thread derail.
Sunic_Flames 02-16-08, 09:49 AM	The real proof of suboptimalness is not thinking to pack Fire Resist 20, which would basically negate a Meteor Swarm. :rolleyes: Well that, and the fact the Lich actually wasted a 9th level spell on that, instead of *insert just about any other 7th-9th level spell here*.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-16-08, 12:22 PM	Yeah, perhaps someone applied magic weapon to his rock between panels. Then he would pass Xykon's DR easily. And yeah, he is a ghost, but he also tried to take on a much higher level spellcaster single handedly, and one with a nasty template to boot. Oh, who was riding on a zombie dragon or something of the sort. So it wasn't like it was a 1 on 1 fight versus an even level character or anything close. Roy is somewhere in the 12-15 range and Zykon's clearly at least 17th level and probably 20. ToB brought the power of melleers closer to that of a spellcaster. You don't like it, ban the book, **** off your players, watch them leave you, and find another group that's as hard assed about different abilities then you.For like the third time, I'm not saying ToB is overpowered relative to casters or anything close. My dislike of the book stems from one ability of one class: the Warblade's ability to change it's weapon focus/spec feats (and the fact that it gets 'fighter' feats at all... way to take out ANY reason to take that class to 20).
turalisj 02-16-08, 12:44 PM	I play warblades most of the time when I play a martial adept. I usualy stick with one beefed up weapon (most of the time a bastard sword, for personal flavor reasons). Heck, usualy the only weapon-specific feat I take is improved crit(insert weapon). The ability isn't all that powerfull, unless you plan to be walking around with a greatclub, greataxe, and lance in your backpack (each to negate a different DR type)
CryoSilver 02-16-08, 12:49 PM	It can be useful if you suddenly find a weapon much more powerful than your own in a treasure horde and want to use it right away.
Nephlite 02-16-08, 01:32 PM	For like the third time, I'm not saying ToB is overpowered relative to casters or anything close. My dislike of the book stems from one ability of one class: the Warblade's ability to change it's weapon focus/spec feats (and the fact that it gets 'fighter' feats at all... way to take out ANY reason to take that class to 20). What feats do you mean? These are its choices: agile, athletic, Blind fight, combat reflexes, direhard, endurance, impr Init, , quick draw, run save feats: great fort, Iron will, Lightning Ref + New Feats: blade mediation, Ironheart,stone power, tiger blooded, unnerving, White Raven defense Of these: Improved Init, Combat Reflexes, Quick Draw, and Blind Fight are only Fight bonus feats. So you are wrong that they get lots of fighter feats. Heck, if these are the Fighter feats you want: you get them as a Level 2 Fighter if human or 3 if non-human. Fighter never had a reason to go past 4.
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 02:06 PM	What feats do you mean? These are its choices: agile, athletic, Blind fight, combat reflexes, direhard, endurance, impr Init, , quick draw, run save feats: great fort, Iron will, Lightning Ref + New Feats: blade mediation, Ironheart,stone power, tiger blooded, unnerving, White Raven defense Of these: Improved Init, Combat Reflexes, Quick Draw, and Blind Fight are only Fight bonus feats. So you are wrong that they get lots of fighter feats. Heck, if these are the Fighter feats you want: you get them as a Level 2 Fighter if human or 3 if non-human. Fighter never had a reason to go past 4. A: He is talking about them being able to take Weapon Spec and such. B: Dungeon Crasher would like a word with people who take Fighter to 4th only.
Crimson_Concerto 02-16-08, 02:17 PM	My dislike of the book stems from one ability of one class: the Warblade's ability to change it's weapon focus/spec feats (and the fact that it gets 'fighter' feats at all... way to take out ANY reason to take that class to 20).A) Your dislike of the ENTIRE book stems from ONE ability that ONE of the classes gets? :confused: B) There's NEVER been any reason to take Fighter to 20th level, because Fighter-only bonus feats aren't very good. Yes, believe it or not, the Weapon Focus tree sucks. War-Blades who actually know what they're doing and know they have limited feats likely won't bother even making use of the ability to take Fighter-only feats anyways. C) There are still things that are unique to Fighters though, believe it or not, if it's really that big a deal to you: c1) Weapon Supremacy for example requires Fighter Level 18. War-Blades can't qualify until level 20, and they don't get a feat at that level, so they can't take it. Also, you can't pull off Warblade 18 / Fighter 2 or anything similar to get it either, because (surprise!) Weapon Supremacy actually isn't designated as a Fighter Bonus Feat, so you actually DO need to have your first 18 levels be of Fighter to take it. c2) And then of course there are the multitude of Fighter variants floating out there around the books, like Dungeon Crasher for example which somebody mentioned above, that actually make the Fighter slightly more useful and War-Blades have no access too. c3) You probably don't care, but I'll go ahead and mention it: War-Blades don't have Heavy Armor or Tower Shield proficiency. Fighters do.
Sunic_Flames 02-16-08, 03:59 PM	Dungeon Crasher means one type of Fighter actually takes the 5th and 6th levels. And... that's about it. :rolleyes:
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 04:21 PM	Dungeon Crasher means one type of Fighter actually takes the 5th and 6th levels. And... that's about it. :rolleyes: And makes it work!
Sunic_Flames 02-16-08, 05:33 PM	And makes it work! Yes, but it's assumed the ones that don't work are not taken. Which is also why Shadowdancer is 1 level long and Swashbuckler 3, even though there are actually more levels on paper. In all seriousness a complete newbie to D&D figured this stuff out on their own, on their first trip through the core books. It's not even about optimization. It's about common sense.
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 06:00 PM	Yes, but it's assumed the ones that don't work are not taken. Which is also why Shadowdancer is 1 level long and Swashbuckler 3, even though there are actually more levels on paper. In all seriousness a complete newbie to D&D figured this stuff out on their own, on their first trip through the core books. It's not even about optimization. It's about common sense. Actually, Rogue or Swordsage 4/Swashbuckler 16 is a decent build with Daring Outlaw. You take Swordsage to 4, multiclass into Swashbuckler for 2 levels for the Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) and then take Daring Outlaw at 9th for those who don't know it. Add in Shadow Blade with TWFing for even more effectiveness, and then take Trickery Devotion for the extra oomph.
Sunic_Flames 02-16-08, 06:58 PM	Shouldn't the 4th level of SS come after the 2 levels of Swash? That way you get it without having to spend a feat? And for the most part, still mainly used for the Int to damage thing.
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 08:04 PM	Shouldn't the 4th level of SS come after the 2 levels of Swash? That way you get it without having to spend a feat? And for the most part, still mainly used for the Int to damage thing. Well, doing that delays the Stance until SS gets another one. You would need 6 levels of SWB to get it at 2nd level of SS. So taking it as SS 1/SWB4/ SS2 would be meaningless, and doing it as SS 6/SS 2 takes till 8th. ANything else makes you lose either a feat or a point of BAB for waiting until SS 5th to get another stance.
turalisj 02-16-08, 09:42 PM	Actually, Rogue or Swordsage 4/Swashbuckler 16 is a decent build with Daring Outlaw. You take Swordsage to 4, multiclass into Swashbuckler for 2 levels for the Martial Stance (Assassin's Stance) and then take Daring Outlaw at 9th for those who don't know it. Add in Shadow Blade with TWFing for even more effectiveness, and then take Trickery Devotion for the extra oomph. I was thinking Swash3/Fighter4/Champion of Correllen3.... A good build in 10 levels! You get the damage from power attack, your strength, intelligence mod, and dex mods! :D
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 10:06 PM	I was thinking Swash3/Fighter4/Champion of Correllen3.... A good build in 10 levels! You get the damage from power attack, your strength, intelligence mod, and dex mods! :D Wouldn't Swashbuckler 2/Warblade 4/Tempest 4/Eternal Blade 10/ get the job done much better? With the right feats, you get Dex and Int to damage, IL of 17, and 1/day make three full attacks with dual wielding Thinblades and Stormguard Warrior added into the mix. All at Full BAB to boot. Now that is a house!
turalisj 02-16-08, 10:09 PM	*blinks* And this folks, is why I never try to optimize too much.
Sinfire Titan 02-16-08, 10:12 PM	*blinks* And this folks, is why I never try to optimize too much. Ok, now it is fixed to meet the requirements.
runestar 02-17-08, 04:39 AM	I love weapon aptitude. Now, I longer have to fill my treasure hoards with only magical longswords just because the warblade/fighter chose to specialize in them.:D
Alpha_Moose 02-17-08, 12:55 PM	My dislike of the book stems from one ability of one class: the Warblade's ability to change it's weapon focus/spec feats (and the fact that it gets 'fighter' feats at all... way to take out ANY reason to take that class to 20). For the Warblade being able to change feats, is it a problem with it flavor-wise or balance-wise. It is perfectly balanced of course, and has been said before Warblade itself isn't the reason to not take Fighter 20. But if it's bothering you in a conceptualizing sense I have to ask you a question, what does a Feat represent? Specifically what does Weapon Focus represent? Is it a lifelong specialization in one weapon, or does it represent the mental focus required to wield one weapon with grace? Remember that Weapon Focus only gives a +1 bonus on attack with one weapon, which is not that much. Also remember that a Warblade can't just reallocate his Feats to just anything, he can only move them from one weapon to another. Training with a halberd for a half hour so you get used to thrusting it doesn't seem that odd to me. Also, and this isn't directed at you JancariusSeiryujinn, but who has a problem with the whole Maneuvers Readied thing, thinking it's too much like spellcasting? Remember that it only takes 5 minutes to change maneuvers and any Martial Adept can get Adaptive Style which allows him to switch his maneuvers as a full-round action. Think about it like this, have you ever learned something really well and then not used it for a while? It would probably take a while for you to get back into it right? That's why most classes at school start with a bit of review, because if you haven't used any French all summer it will probably take a while to remember everything. That's why soldiers need to be constantly training, so they can use their skills whenever they need to. Think of Maneuvers in a similar way, you haven't used those few strikes in a while and it's hard to try to use them mid-battle. However if you practice a bit it's fine. Of course it's an abstraction, but that's the whole game.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-17-08, 05:47 PM	For the Warblade being able to change feats, is it a problem with it flavor-wise or balance-wise. It is perfectly balanced of course, and has been said before Warblade itself isn't the reason to not take Fighter 20.Flavor, entirely. But if it's bothering you in a conceptualizing sense I have to ask you a question, what does a Feat represent? Specifically what does Weapon Focus represent? Is it a lifelong specialization in one weapon, or does it represent the mental focus required to wield one weapon with grace? Remember that Weapon Focus only gives a +1 bonus on attack with one weapon, which is not that much. Also remember that a Warblade can't just reallocate his Feats to just anything, he can only move them from one weapon to another. Training with a halberd for a half hour so you get used to thrusting it doesn't seem that odd to me.To me, especially the specializations, represent a long period of training and focus on the use and mastery of one weapon. Also, and this isn't directed at you JancariusSeiryujinn, but who has a problem with the whole Maneuvers Readied thing, thinking it's too much like spellcasting? Remember that it only takes 5 minutes to change maneuvers and any Martial Adept can get Adaptive Style which allows him to switch his maneuvers as a full-round action. Think about it like this, have you ever learned something really well and then not used it for a while? It would probably take a while for you to get back into it right? That's why most classes at school start with a bit of review, because if you haven't used any French all summer it will probably take a while to remember everything. That's why soldiers need to be constantly training, so they can use their skills whenever they need to. Think of Maneuvers in a similar way, you haven't used those few strikes in a while and it's hard to try to use them mid-battle. However if you practice a bit it's fine. Of course it's an abstraction, but that's the whole game.Honestly, my only eyebrow raiser about manuveurs is that they are per-encounter and refreshable. I don't really find it that overpowered in concept, but some things like Death Mark are pretty sweet to set off at the beginning of each combat on clustered foes.
High Octane 02-18-08, 03:06 AM	For the Warblade being able to change feats, is it a problem with it flavor-wise or balance-wise. It is perfectly balanced of course, and has been said before Warblade itself isn't the reason to not take Fighter 20. To me Fighter will always have a place as the quidessential dipping class. I dont mind it representing say, a wizard taking some of his like to learn how to use weapons and armor and how to use his attack spells better, or a rogue showing more martial prowess at the cost of his skills like move silently.
calronmoonflower 02-18-08, 04:42 AM	To me Fighter will always have a place as the quidessential dipping class. Don't forget gestalt.
Sinfire Titan 02-18-08, 08:59 AM	Don't forget gestalt. Even then it is a dip class. I've never seen anyone take Fighter/Anything all the way to 20th unless the Multiclassing penalties were enforced at 150% capacity in the game. Which, when paired with the Gestalt rules, makes absolutely no sense. I mean, how can you justify a 50% XP penalty for multiclassing in Gestalt?
Sunic_Flames 02-18-08, 12:28 PM	For some reason, every gestalt game I've seen doesn't allow normal multiclassing or PRCing. It's just two base classes all the way. Course when done the other way it becomes absurdly broken, but then what, exactly is the point of gestalt as plain old base classes? Especially considering how few of them are 1-20 material... I can count all the ones that come to mind on two hands with fingers to spare. Less, if you consider the whole any full casting PRC with decent class features > cleric/wizard thing. As for the focus/spec tree: You can get +2/+2 with a whole type (bludgeoning, piercing, ranged, slashing) of weapon with one feat. What, exactly is the point of something you need 3 feats for, to get +2/+2 with a single weapon? Especially when it's played up as a class feature, which is by design supposed to be 2-3 times as strong as a feat?
weepingminotaur 02-19-08, 02:20 PM	Just bought the Book of Nine Swords last week. I've skimmed most of it, focusing on the new classes and the maneuvers. I really like it. It brings some excitement into the world of melee fighters, and it gives you a legitimately viable range of options turn by turn that don't all involve a five-foot step and full attack. :) I still like the core melee classes, but I think TOB is a very elegant change of pace. In fact, I may play one of the TOB classes when my friend runs Expedition to Castle Ravenloft in the summertime. I have to say, I was a bit wary of TOB when I first heard about it, and resisted buying it for a long time because it did sound broken, but now that I've had a chance to read some of it, it doesn't feel broken at all, just different. Your regular core fighter is still going to have his place, especially at lower or mid levels. Ditto paladin. Now, though, you have more options, which is never a bad thing for me at any rate -- if you don't like those options, don't use 'em! ;)
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-20-08, 05:06 PM	Weeping, I honestly doubt I'll ever see a straight class fighter or Paladin again after I open ToB to my players. On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept.
Sinfire Titan 02-20-08, 05:23 PM	Weeping, I honestly doubt I'll ever see a straight class fighter or Paladin again after I open ToB to my players. On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept. Go back to ADnD if you want to prevent Builds from occurring en masse.
the_rooster 02-20-08, 05:26 PM	On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept. You contradict yourself. Making a 'build' requiring 4 or more classes is often necessary when playing a concept. Let's say I want a character who is monkish in his fighting ability, i.e. a martial artist. But he is also an elf, and as a cultural thing, learned arcane magic. My concept also includes him being favored with healing magic by the gods because his parents died defending a temple. As an orphan he grew up on the streets, though, and learned the ways of a street thug as well. So now I want to make a monk/wizard/favored soul/rogue and somehow I'm NOT playing a concept? But the guy who wants to play Conan and takes 4 levels in barbarian is somehow a more conceptual roleplayer than me? While optimizing strictly for a numerical benefit by dipping into classes that have no place in your concept is something I find annoying, flatly declaring anyone who ever dips is not playing a concept is just silly.
CryoSilver 02-20-08, 05:27 PM	Weeping, I honestly doubt I'll ever see a straight class fighter or Paladin again after I open ToB to my players. On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept. Actually, I'm playing a warblade/fighter/crusader now, who will take Master of the Nine around level 25, and I can honestly say my build would be just as effective with mostly fighter levels, dipping into crusader for just 2 levels to get Defensive Rebuke and Thicket of Blades, and even then, Thicket of Blades can be mostly replicated with a few I saw somewhere... I'm not using ToB for the power, I'm using it for the fun.
weepingminotaur 02-20-08, 06:05 PM	On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept. I'm less hardline than you are here, but must admit that no build I've ever come up with has contained more than 3 classes (prestige included). And though I'm willing to concede that not all multi-class builds are necessarily about pure optimization, I also don't see why every element of your character's background has to be represented by a class level. :) But then, I'm also a luddite who only allows core races in his campaigns. None of this tiefling / plane-touched / half-dragon stuff for me. :cool:
GuyrtheadamantineOne 02-20-08, 06:11 PM	But then, I'm also a luddite who only allows core races in his campaigns. None of this tiefling / plane-touched / half-dragon stuff for me. You know this is core, right? Those are all in the core books. I'll join the replies on JancariusSeiryujinn: On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept. Ha!(Ala Edna Crabapple please) It's fun to see people throwing this comment. I must admit I am myself a powergamer. I like to know I got power behind a character, even if I don't wanna use it. I also think that the concept of ''classes'' in D&D is more like building blocks, a way to make different characters without much thought. Those building blocks are just useful to make a new concept. A character concept.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-20-08, 08:09 PM	You contradict yourself. Making a 'build' requiring 4 or more classes is often necessary when playing a concept. Let's say I want a character who is monkish in his fighting ability, i.e. a martial artist. But he is also an elf, and as a cultural thing, learned arcane magic. My concept also includes him being favored with healing magic by the gods because his parents died defending a temple. As an orphan he grew up on the streets, though, and learned the ways of a street thug as well.My concept is that I'm the best at everything in the world ever. Don't nerf my roleplay. If my player came to me with that concept I'd say "trim it down, you have all 4 archetypes in your concept" and learned the ways of a street thug as wellBesides contradicting the rest of your concept (an elven street orphen with wizard levels), this doesn't require any class levels whatsoever. So now I want to make a monk/wizard/favored soul/rogue and somehow I'm NOT playing a concept?Yeah, even if I were to tolerate this rather TERRIBLE concept, here's what I'd say "You're monk self-heal is your healing magic, and you can take any rogue related skills as cross-class as a monk. You obviously don't have Wizard levels if you were a street thug, because wizarding is formal training. If you really want arcane ability, take sorcerer levels and prestige into that enlightened fist class" But the guy who wants to play Conan and takes 4 levels in barbarian is somehow a more conceptual roleplayer than me? While optimizing strictly for a numerical benefit by dipping into classes that have no place in your concept is something I find annoying, flatly declaring anyone who ever dips is not playing a concept is just silly.[/QUOTE]
GuyrtheadamantineOne 02-20-08, 08:17 PM	You'd just nerf a player because you consider his concept terrible?:rolleyes:
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-20-08, 08:27 PM	You'd just nerf a player because you consider his concept terrible?:rolleyes: Not letting someone twink is not a nerf. And if they aren't twinking with a build that involves 4+ classes, they just need to have multiple characters in different games, because no reasonable concept is going to include that many.
Sinfire Titan 02-20-08, 08:29 PM	My concept is that I'm the best at everything in the world ever. Don't nerf my roleplay. If my player came to me with that concept I'd say "trim it down, you have all 4 archetypes in your concept" Besides contradicting the rest of your concept (an elven street orphen with wizard levels), this doesn't require any class levels whatsoever. Yeah, even if I were to tolerate this rather TERRIBLE concept, here's what I'd say "You're monk self-heal is your healing magic, and you can take any rogue related skills as cross-class as a monk. You obviously don't have Wizard levels if you were a street thug, because wizarding is formal training. If you really want arcane ability, take sorcerer levels and prestige into that enlightened fist class" While optimizing strictly for a numerical benefit by dipping into classes that have no place in your concept is something I find annoying, flatly declaring anyone who ever dips is not playing a concept is just silly. So I'm guessing you also don't approve of a Factotum because it can cover all 4 bases at any given point that it needs to. Optimization is not strictly for numerical benefits, it is to keep a character alive long enough to roleplay as well. We all know that you can't RP very well if your character keeps dying at the flip of a light switch. In an unrelated note: My right-click menu keeps showing the Spell Checker when I am not trying to spell check. It only displays one word: Approaches. Anyone know how to deal with that glitch?
Endarrion 02-20-08, 08:43 PM	Yeah, even if I were to tolerate this rather TERRIBLE concept, here's what I'd say. . . And that's where any sane, self-respecting player would tell you to sod off telling them what to play. Player: "I have a character concept, here it is. . ." DM: "Nah, I don't think so, instead I think you'll play a sub par class and then spend a bunch of skill points on cross-class skills. Then you can go into a ho-hum PrC and end up slowing the party down with your terrible build." Now, the whole monk/favored soul/wizard/rogue build isn't exactly optimizing, but still. Not allowing certain material is a DMs choice, but telling the player what he can and can't do with his build, when everything in it is allowable material in your game, is bad stuff. Heck, just play with the multi-class XP rules, that should curb any player's class kleptomania. For example, in an Eberron game, I'm playing a shifter warblade (fav. class is ranger) and plan on taking a single PrC, and two levels of fighter. 2 classes and a PrC. But I can't because they're using the multi-class XP rules.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-20-08, 08:57 PM	I'm pretty indifferent to factotem, actually, because it's a single class that does all 4 archetypes poorly, as opposed to 4 classes which do all 4 archetypes poorly (or in the case of some builds well, which actually makes me hate them more). There's a difference between 'optimizing' for super power, which is what I mean by optimizing and twinking, and designing a character that's functional. A straight monk is functional (till a certain level, like 5 or 6... I'll concede that's a straight class that just gets worse over time) with the right feats. I don't really think multi classing extensively in order to qualify for a prestige class earlier or something like that is necessary. Oh, and I do use multi-classing XP penalty rules. I enforce them with a religious ferocity. Player: "I have a character concept, here it is. . ." DM: "Nah, I don't think so, instead I think you'll play a sub par class and then spend a bunch of skill points on cross-class skills. Then you can go into a ho-hum PrC and end up slowing the party down with your terrible build."If they wanted to play something like that, I'm pretty sure I don't want them to play it in my game. My game isn't for just any random throw together cobbling of classes, it's for logical and believable characters. I don't want characters that don't fit in my world's 'canon' and elven street urchin wizards just don't make sense. Also, favored souls don't make sense in Eberron, but that's just a personal thing.
Sinfire Titan 02-20-08, 09:05 PM	I'm pretty indifferent to factotem, actually, because it's a single class that does all 4 archetypes poorly, as opposed to 4 classes which do all 4 archetypes poorly (or in the case of some builds well, which actually makes me hate them more). There's a difference between 'optimizing' for super power, which is what I mean by optimizing and twinking, and designing a character that's functional. A straight monk is functional (till a certain level, like 5 or 6... I'll concede that's a straight class that just gets worse over time) with the right feats. I don't really think multi classing extensively in order to qualify for a prestige class earlier or something like that is necessary. Oh, and I do use multi-classing XP penalty rules. I enforce them with a religious ferocity. If they wanted to play something like that, I'm pretty sure I don't want them to play it in my game. My game isn't for just any random throw together cobbling of classes, it's for logical and believable characters. You are playing the wrong game, buddy.
Alpha_Moose 02-20-08, 09:24 PM	But I can't because they're using the multi-class XP rules. Which hilariously enough don't do even what they are intended to do. And what they do is something that shouldn't be enforced by the rules. First off, multiclassing in general doesn't make for a more powerful character. A straight Wizard or Druid can do anything better than a Sorcerer/Wizard/Paladin Half-Dragon other than suck. Second, the XP penalties only work if your classes are two or more levels apart. Meaning a Druid 1/Wizard 1/ Cleric 1/ Fighter 1/ Bard 1/ Monk 1 takes no XP penalties, but a Barbarian 1/Fighter 5 character who plays a race without those as favored classes takes penalties. There's no reason to use the XP penalties as written. Third, many times multiple classes are needed for a character concept. What if I wanted a Wizard who wasn't too bad with a rapier (dipping into Warblade)? What about a paladin of the Silver Flame who could call upon the flame within him (dipping into Swordsage and reflavoring Desert Wind)? There's a reason that multiclassing exists. Of course this is trailing into a different (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=970929) topic (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941969). Also remember that optimizing usually isn't just shooting for pure power (well, ignoring Pun-Pun). It's trying to mechanically represent your character in the easiest way that still is functional. On the TO boards they just have fun trying to create some crazy thing, but none of them play that character.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-20-08, 10:21 PM	Which hilariously enough don't do even what they are intended to do. And what they do is something that shouldn't be enforced by the rules. First off, multiclassing in general doesn't make for a more powerful character. A straight Wizard or Druid can do anything better than a Sorcerer/Wizard/Paladin Half-Dragon other than suck. I agree for spellcasters. However, martial classes can get more powerful by multiclassing. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 1 will probably beat a Fighter 2, just to use very low level examples. Second, the XP penalties only work if your classes are two or more levels apart. Meaning a Druid 1/Wizard 1/ Cleric 1/ Fighter 1/ Bard 1/ Monk 1 takes no XP penalties, but a Barbarian 1/Fighter 5 character who plays a race without those as favored classes takes penalties. There's no reason to use the XP penalties as written.Sadly a true example, but again, by that time I would have just stepped in and said "no." to the player. Third, many times multiple classes are needed for a character concept. What if I wanted a Wizard who wasn't too bad with a rapier (dipping into Warblade)? What about a paladin of the Silver Flame who could call upon the flame within him (dipping into Swordsage and reflavoring Desert Wind)? There's a reason that multiclassing exists. Of course this is trailing into a different (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=970929) topic (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=941969). Take Martial Weapon Proficency feat. Or be an elf. Now, I like that Paladin/swordsage thing, but it could be done easily enough with Paladin spellcasting straight classed. I mean, Flame of the Faith practically does that as a spell already, even though it doesn't give the full variety of flame abilities that the Desert Wind maneuvers do. Also, Paladin not multiclass friendly, since you lose advancement if you multiclass. Also remember that optimizing usually isn't just shooting for pure power (well, ignoring Pun-Pun). It's trying to mechanically represent your character in the easiest way that still is functional. On the TO boards they just have fun trying to create some crazy thing, but none of them play that character.Then I don't agree with the vernacular term. Optimizing to me is twinking to output the maximum damage or acheive the greatest possible effect by any combination of feats races and classes allowed.
Endarrion 02-20-08, 10:32 PM	Take Martial Weapon Proficency feat. Or be an elf. Now, I like that Paladin/swordsage thing, but it could be done easily enough with Paladin spellcasting straight classed. I mean, Flame of the Faith practically does that as a spell already, even though it doesn't give the full variety of flame abilities that the Desert Wind maneuvers do. Also, Paladin not multiclass friendly, since you lose advancement if you multiclass. Sure that's the easy way, but it's not very fun. I suppose that's the true reason I enjoy the ToB so much is because it makes melee characters more fun. Before it, a melee type was pretty much a one-trick pony. If you tried to be good at several different things, you usually ended up sucking at them instead. But with ToB, a melee character actually has OPTIONS. Yay! Diversity! And the whole monk/paladin multi-classing thing is pretty dumb, even if it is thematically appropriate. I mean, they're two pretty weak classes, and made even more weak by taking away the ability to multi-class. And multi-classing is pretty good for anyone: that extra +2 to a save is pretty nice for a one-level commitment.
Sinfire Titan 02-20-08, 10:38 PM	Then I don't agree with the vernacular term. Optimizing to me is twinking to output the maximum damage or acheive the greatest possible effect by any combination of feats races and classes allowed. Then you are wrong about that. Optimization is about being able to survive to the next level. TO is about being able to do things that make DMs cry out to their own sanity.
turalisj 02-20-08, 10:46 PM	Sure that's the easy way, but it's not very fun. I suppose that's the true reason I enjoy the ToB so much is because it makes melee characters more fun. Before it, a melee type was pretty much a one-trick pony. If you tried to be good at several different things, you usually ended up sucking at them instead. But with ToB, a melee character actually has OPTIONS. Yay! Diversity! Aye for that. There's only so many times you can say 'I slash at the monster with my [insert weapon] and deal [insert damage]'. With ToB, you have alot more choices. Now, instead of simply hack and slashing, you can use a manuever to strike at a foe, and then when that foes turn comes along, use a counter and offset their attack.
weepingminotaur 02-20-08, 10:46 PM	You know this is core, right? Those are all in the core books. Are we talking about the same core? Maybe I'm confused here. I am referring to the races given in the Player's Handbook: elf, dwarf, human, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and gnome (and the regional variants of each found in the Forgotten Realms). That's it. But perhaps I am using the term 'core' incorrectly in this instance.
turalisj 02-20-08, 10:54 PM	FR is NOT core.
Nephlite 02-20-08, 10:58 PM	Are we talking about the same core? Maybe I'm confused here. I am referring to the races given in the Player's Handbook: elf, dwarf, human, half-elf, half-orc, halfling, and gnome (and the regional variants of each found in the Forgotten Realms). That's it. But perhaps I am using the term 'core' incorrectly in this instance. Nope. Core means all three Core rulebooks in 3.5. (and 3.5 Psionics according to Complete Psionics, but that is neither here nor there). PHB races + setting races=what you meant.
Alpha_Moose 02-20-08, 11:32 PM	I agree for spellcasters. However, martial classes can get more powerful by multiclassing. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 1 will probably beat a Fighter 2, just to use very low level examples. That's probably true, but that has to do with most martial classes being too front loaded. Again, that's the plus of ToB. There's a good reason to continue in Warblade, get a PrC, or multiclass into another Martial Adept (generally what makes a good class can be seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55947)). Sadly a true example, but again, by that time I would have just stepped in and said "no." to the player. For the first example, or the second? I can understand for the first, but I would probably say it also because his character would suck (whatever he's getting at, there's an easier way of doing it). The second though is a perfectly good character concept, and isn't really that bad mechanically (except for the odd Fighter levels, but he's probably waiting for Dungeon Crasher :P). Take Martial Weapon Proficency feat. Or be an elf. He'd still be bad with a rapier, just not horrible. And the elf forces you into one thing. But notice how you are fine with the character concept. Why do you specifically dislike him multiclassing to better fulfill that idea? Now, I like that Paladin/swordsage thing, but it could be done easily enough with Paladin spellcasting straight classed. I mean, Flame of the Faith practically does that as a spell already, even though it doesn't give the full variety of flame abilities that the Desert Wind maneuvers do. Also, Paladin not multiclass friendly, since you lose advancement if you multiclass. There is a feat to allow you to multiclass (it's in ECS), but I agree with Endarrion in that it's a bad mechanic. I dislike mechanics that force you to RP a certain way. It makes the class more important than the character. Then I don't agree with the vernacular term. Optimizing to me is twinking to output the maximum damage or acheive the greatest possible effect by any combination of feats races and classes allowed. Understandable, but the "greatest possible effect" for what? Practical Optimization focuses on making a character for play, meaning trying to work with a concept and not to brake the game (basically what Sinfire Titan said). You're thinking of TO, which can get crazy. Hilariously enough they don't care about damage anymore, and are now messing around with multiple time streams.:D
Sinfire Titan 02-20-08, 11:51 PM	Understandable, but the "greatest possible effect" for what? Practical Optimization focuses on making a character for play, meaning trying to work with a concept and not to brake the game (basically what Sinfire Titan said). You're thinking of TO, which can get crazy. Hilariously enough they don't care about damage anymore, and are now messing around with multiple time streams.:D And Infinite Feats, something I have contributed to.
the_rooster 02-20-08, 11:57 PM	Yeah, even if I were to tolerate this rather TERRIBLE concept, here's what I'd say "You're monk self-heal is your healing magic, and you can take any rogue related skills as cross-class as a monk. You obviously don't have Wizard levels if you were a street thug, because wizarding is formal training. If you really want arcane ability, take sorcerer levels and prestige into that enlightened fist class" Your whole post was funny. My example was off the top of my head. But I AM running a monk/wizard/enlightened fist, ironically enough. He has developed into quite the acrobat, so I'm taking a few levels in Thief Acrobat to make that a stronger part of his character, because simply having ranks in tumble doesn't convey the heroic sense of acrobatics that Thief acrobat does. My 'concept' is an agile monk who comes from a school valuing knowledge over enlightenment (wisdom) and therefore uses arcane magic, as well as an intelligence based fighting style. Not a strange concept at all, in fact, firmly founded in reality (even the believing in magic part). Yet, because I have 4 classes...my concept is over the top optimization according to you. But frankly, your answers smack of someone suffering from I-can't-admit-I'm-wrong-on-the-internet-itis. You regularly contradict yourself when the new opinion suits your latest point (for example not allowing someone to multiclass to learn rapier, but being ok with them selecting elf JUST for that reason, and then further contradicting your point by pointing out how multiclassing with a paladin hurts your level advancement). But you refuse to just say "well, I was exaggerating. I just dislike min/maxing." I can only conclude you're suffering from this common, yet remarkably hard to diagnose problem. I'd see a forum doctor....I'm leaving before I catch it...it's very contagious.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-21-08, 12:32 AM	Your whole post was funny. My example was off the top of my head. But I AM running a monk/wizard/enlightened fist, ironically enough. He has developed into quite the acrobat, so I'm taking a few levels in Thief Acrobat to make that a stronger part of his character, because simply having ranks in tumble doesn't convey the heroic sense of acrobatics that Thief acrobat does. My 'concept' is an agile monk who comes from a school valuing knowledge over enlightenment (wisdom) and therefore uses arcane magic, as well as an intelligence based fighting style. Not a strange concept at all, in fact, firmly founded in reality (even the believing in magic part). Yet, because I have 4 classes...my concept is over the top optimization according to you.Yeah, congrats, as I said below, it's possible to make up examples to which my general guideline does not apply. People on the Wizards forums always assume that any statement made by a DM is an ironclad rule which they can't negotiate on. But frankly, your answers smack of someone suffering from I-can't-admit-I'm-wrong-on-the-internet-itis. You regularly contradict yourself when the new opinion suits your latest point (for example not allowing someone to multiclass to learn rapier, but being ok with them selecting elf JUST for that reason, and then further contradicting your point by pointing out how multiclassing with a paladin hurts your level advancement). But you refuse to just say "well, I was exaggerating. I just dislike min/maxing." I can only conclude you're suffering from this common, yet remarkably hard to diagnose problem. I'd see a forum doctor....I'm leaving before I catch it...it's very contagious. I think my arguement suffers more from "Make a statement, and then the response can think of ANY possible scenario in which my statement would be incorrect, and then I have to make an addendum that I've not fully thought through." And my point about Paladins is they can't be multiclassed. I mean, you just can't, not an continue as a Paladin (without certain feats). And if someone told me they were taking elf JUST for martial weapon prof as a wizard, I'd probably just shrug, yes. That's such a minor aspect of that characters build (arcane spellcaster), that I wouldn't care.
Cuindless 02-21-08, 12:48 AM	Yeah, congrats, as I said below, it's possible to make up examples to which my general guideline does not apply. People on the Wizards forums always assume that any statement made by a DM is an ironclad rule which they can't negotiate on. That's because when the DM changes his mind he changes the laws of physics that govern his world. If a DM can't be relied upon for consistency, then what can he be relied upon for? If I say, "I don't allow builds with more than 3 classes," to my players, then someone comes up with an "exception", those other players that wanted a 4+ build character that I disallowed have a justifiable reason to complain. I think my arguement suffers more from "Make a statement, and then the response can think of ANY possible scenario in which my statement would be incorrect, and then I have to make an addendum that I've not fully thought through." And my point about Paladins is they can't be multiclassed. I mean, you just can't, not an continue as a Paladin (without certain feats). And if someone told me they were taking elf JUST for martial weapon prof as a wizard, I'd probably just shrug, yes. That's such a minor aspect of that characters build (arcane spellcaster), that I wouldn't care. The simple answer to this is not to post before you've thought your position through. Making a blanket statement that any build with more than 3 classes including PrCs is somehow over-optimized is just ridiculous. What about a knowledge hungry wizard who joins multiple organizations to learn from them. You could end up with a wizard/loremaster/paragnostic apostle/mage of the arcane order/archmage. Throw is specialization and you could have a diviner/master specialist/loremaster/paragnostic apostle/mage of the arcane order/archmage. Such a character wouldn't necessarily be well-optimized or min-maxed at all. You should really read the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization aren't opposite ends of a continuum, they're completely different axis on the gaming spectrum.
calronmoonflower 02-21-08, 03:09 AM	:ahem: If anyone really want to discuss roleplaying and power gaming or working strange builds into roleplaying I recommend this thread. Competing Theories: The Evolution of the Stormwind Fallacy Debate.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-21-08, 04:02 AM	That's because when the DM changes his mind he changes the laws of physics that govern his world. If a DM can't be relied upon for consistency, then what can he be relied upon for? If I say, "I don't allow builds with more than 3 classes," to my players, then someone comes up with an "exception", those other players that wanted a 4+ build character that I disallowed have a justifiable reason to complain.See below, I never said anything like that. The only rules of my game that have been discussed in this thread are whether I allow ToB or not, my cosmology setup, and my players awareness of my cosmology setup. Please don't ascribe things I haven't said to me in your eagerness to dogpile. The simple answer to this is not to post before you've thought your position through. Making a blanket statement that any build with more than 3 classes including PrCs is somehow over-optimized is just ridiculous. What about a knowledge hungry wizard who joins multiple organizations to learn from them. You could end up with a wizard/loremaster/paragnostic apostle/mage of the arcane order/archmage. Throw is specialization and you could have a diviner/master specialist/loremaster/paragnostic apostle/mage of the arcane order/archmage. Such a character wouldn't necessarily be well-optimized or min-maxed at all. You should really read the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization aren't opposite ends of a continuum, they're completely different axis on the gaming spectrum.You know, let me go back to what I said originally, since people don't read back. On which note: Also, really, no 'build' should require more than 3 classes, including prestige. I always just look at the CO board builds and shake my head, especially the ones that have 4-8 different classes. Optimization can bite me, play a concept.I didn't say any build involving more than 4 classes was over-optimized, so I'm gonna go with people twisting my words here. In the case of your rather PrCed Wizard above (I'm not sure if you can qualify for all those?) I would point out to the player that one does not have to take a level in a class to be a member of an organization. RP effects and/or history don't HAVE to be duplicated in a character's classes. So if you're a DM, and a player says "I want to be a Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Duskblade 1/Swordsage 1/Warblade 1/Crusader 1/Knight 1/Samurai 1/Scout 1/Ninja 1/ Rogue 1/Swashbuckler 1/Paladin 1/Monk 1 and my concept is that I'm trying out every combat style in the world" what would your response be? Mine would be "No. One, there's no way I'm letting you take 15 different classes, some of which have opposing alignment restrictions, and two, the rest of the party is not gonna have to suffer through your character." Sure, at L15 it'd be hard to make a worse build (I guess if mixed in a bunch of L1 spellcasting classes), but that's not my concern (well, it's a partial concern because the character in this case may be so poorly designed as to be unplayable, but...), it's that a reasonable person wouldn't do that, and presumably the character has Int and Wis above 10. Also, a character in this case with a build like that would be extraordinarily unlikely to live to L15. Reading through that linked thread, I honestly agree with Nemo's statement that the idea of a 'build' is in of itself counter to the idea of roleplaying. I think characters should choose feats based on their experiences, IE a character who wishes to take Improved Trip should have made at least a few trip attempts since his last feat selection, a character who wishes to take a weapon focus/spec should have used the weapon, etc. You guys have this idea that a character can't possibly be effective if he's not optimized and if he just chooses his feats based on what seems reasonable at the moment of level up. I can't speak for your DMs, but this isn't true in my games. One, I don't think I'm ever going to throw a 'optimized' character at them. I'm quite content with using Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics for BBEG enemies, and various martial classes for fodd-lieutenants. Of course, you all might say "I'm optimizing" because, for example, not all of my casters have taken item creation feats! <gasp> I don't agree that that is optimizing. Occasinally, you'll get a wizard with just Improved Toughness or something, to toss a little extra HP on him without making the fight really harder, as perhaps Spell Focus:Enchant or Trans would do. Either way, I'm wandering from my point, which is the more you focus on how 'effective' you're character is, I agree with the statement that you will roleplay less and less, and think of them more and more like some video game character, a floating collection of stats that occasionally exhibits personality traits. On further reading, I pretty agree with everything that Nemo's said that I've read so far.
Cuindless 02-21-08, 04:25 AM	I didn't mean to stir up trouble or step on anyone's toes, I was just trying to point out that the idea that optimization detracts from roleplay isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion.
weepingminotaur 02-21-08, 09:29 AM	Nope. Core means all three Core rulebooks in 3.5. (and 3.5 Psionics according to Complete Psionics, but that is neither here nor there). PHB races + setting races=what you meant. Oh, I'm quite aware that FR isn't core. :) But when I refer to 'core races,' isn't it understood that I'm referring to the PH? What else could I be referring to? I'm honestly confused.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 02-21-08, 10:00 AM	Oh, I'm quite aware that FR isn't core. But when I refer to 'core races,' isn't it understood that I'm referring to the PH? What else could I be referring to? I'm honestly confused. You mentionned half-dragon and tiefling. Those are core, just not in the PHb.
Ecalsneerg 02-21-08, 12:04 PM	Oh, I'm quite aware that FR isn't core. :) But when I refer to 'core races,' isn't it understood that I'm referring to the PH? What else could I be referring to? I'm honestly confused. Look on the front cover of the DMG, PHB and MM. They all say Core rulebook x. I think that's the definition used under the OGL, at least my 3rd party books (not allowed to use the terms 'PHB', 'MM' and 'DMG' iirc) use core rulebook x to denote the core three books.
calronmoonflower 02-21-08, 05:29 PM	Reading through that linked thread, I honestly agree with Nemo's statement that the idea of a 'build' is in of itself counter to the idea of roleplaying. Well, sense it is here, I'll cross this over to here. instead of derailing this thread. Here's the link to the start of that thread again. Competing Theories: The Evolution of the Stormwind Fallacy Debate
Crimson_Concerto 02-21-08, 06:24 PM	Oh, I'm quite aware that FR isn't core. :) But when I refer to 'core races,' isn't it understood that I'm referring to the PH? What else could I be referring to? I'm honestly confused. No, "core races" simply refers to races in the core books, which includes not only the PHB but also the MM. Things like Teiflings, Half-Dragons, and Centaurs are all core races. "PHB races" is likely what you meant.
Cuindless 02-21-08, 06:35 PM	See below, I never said anything like that. The only rules of my game that have been discussed in this thread are whether I allow ToB or not, my cosmology setup, and my players awareness of my cosmology setup. Please don't ascribe things I haven't said to me in your eagerness to dogpile. My apologies, I misunderstood your post (though I did read it). I don't know if my intention was to "dogpile" or not, since I'm unsure what you mean by that statement. Please forgive me if I seemed eager to argue... I wasn't. You know, let me go back to what I said originally, since people don't read back. I didn't say any build involving more than 4 classes was over-optimized, so I'm gonna go with people twisting my words here. In the case of your rather PrCed Wizard above (I'm not sure if you can qualify for all those?) I would point out to the player that one does not have to take a level in a class to be a member of an organization. RP effects and/or history don't HAVE to be duplicated in a character's classes. They do if they include mechanical benefits. If I'm a Paragnostic Apostle who's studied long enough to learn one of their secrets, and that secret is represented mechanically, I need a level of the PrC. The same can be said for Mage of the Arcane Order. If my character joins the Arcane Order to get access to their "spell pool", I need the mechanics to represent that achievement. That would require at least 1 level of MotAO. Shadow Thieves of Amn have a special language similar to Thieves Cant from 2E and previous. Joining the organization means they taught you that special language, ergo you'd need a level of the class to gain that benefit. And, yes, it's easy to qualify for all of those with 20 levels to play with. I've constructed a build that was FS Conjurer 5/Master Specialist 4/Mage of the Arcane Order 7/Paragnostic Apostle 1/Archmage 2/Loremaster 1. It just requires a little finesse with the feat selection. So if you're a DM, and a player says "I want to be a Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Duskblade 1/Swordsage 1/Warblade 1/Crusader 1/Knight 1/Samurai 1/Scout 1/Ninja 1/ Rogue 1/Swashbuckler 1/Paladin 1/Monk 1 and my concept is that I'm trying out every combat style in the world" what would your response be? Mine would be "Okay... that's interesting. How are you going to resolve the fact that a barbarian can't be lawful and a paladin can't be anything but?" If their answer is, "I'll just switch my alignment," I'd point out that that's metagame thinking and should be discouraged. Besides, what's the difference between a paladin's combat style and a fighter's combat style? In other words, I think your example is a little specious. Mine would be "No. One, there's no way I'm letting you take 15 different classes, some of which have opposing alignment restrictions, and two, the rest of the party is not gonna have to suffer through your character." Sure, at L15 it'd be hard to make a worse build (I guess if mixed in a bunch of L1 spellcasting classes), but that's not my concern (well, it's a partial concern because the character in this case may be so poorly designed as to be unplayable, but...), it's that a reasonable person wouldn't do that, and presumably the character has Int and Wis above 10. Also, a character in this case with a build like that would be extraordinarily unlikely to live to L15. If I was starting a game at level 15, I wouldn't allow this character without a very convincing backstory, and even then I'd counsel the player against it. That build is clearly sub-optimal. That is an example of poor min-maxing and probably poor roleplaying as well. If I started a campaign at level 1 and every level the player took a different class and could somehow justify it based on the events and/or circumstances of the campaign, though, I'd be hard-pressed not to let him. Reading through that linked thread, I honestly agree with Nemo's statement that the idea of a 'build' is in of itself counter to the idea of roleplaying. I think characters should choose feats based on their experiences, IE a character who wishes to take Improved Trip should have made at least a few trip attempts since his last feat selection, a character who wishes to take a weapon focus/spec should have used the weapon, etc. You guys have this idea that a character can't possibly be effective if he's not optimized and if he just chooses his feats based on what seems reasonable at the moment of level up. I can't speak for your DMs, but this isn't true in my games. One, I don't think I'm ever going to throw a 'optimized' character at them. I'm quite content with using Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics for BBEG enemies, and various martial classes for fodd-lieutenants. Of course, you all might say "I'm optimizing" because, for example, not all of my casters have taken item creation feats! <gasp> I don't agree that that is optimizing. Occasinally, you'll get a wizard with just Improved Toughness or something, to toss a little extra HP on him without making the fight really harder, as perhaps Spell Focus:Enchant or Trans would do. Either way, I'm wandering from my point, which is the more you focus on how 'effective' you're character is, I agree with the statement that you will roleplay less and less, and think of them more and more like some video game character, a floating collection of stats that occasionally exhibits personality traits. On further reading, I pretty agree with everything that Nemo's said that I've read so far. I'd ask you to provide examples as to why you think that a build is counterproductive to good roleplaying, but calronmoonflower has already pointed out that this isn't the appropriate thread. Perhaps I can look forward to you posting on the Stormwind Fallacy Debate?
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-22-08, 01:55 PM	They do if they include mechanical benefits. If I'm a Paragnostic Apostle who's studied long enough to learn one of their secrets, and that secret is represented mechanically, I need a level of the PrC. The same can be said for Mage of the Arcane Order. If my character joins the Arcane Order to get access to their "spell pool", I need the mechanics to represent that achievement. That would require at least 1 level of MotAO. Shadow Thieves of Amn have a special language similar to Thieves Cant from 2E and previous. Joining the organization means they taught you that special language, ergo you'd need a level of the class to gain that benefit. And, yes, it's easy to qualify for all of those with 20 levels to play with. I've constructed a build that was FS Conjurer 5/Master Specialist 4/Mage of the Arcane Order 7/Paragnostic Apostle 1/Archmage 2/Loremaster 1. It just requires a little finesse with the feat selection. But a merely knowledge seeking character does not require the mechanical benefits. Also, see DMG2 for guild membership benefits and guild-attached alternate class features. You can be a mage of the arcane order without having access to the spellpool. I'm not familar with the Apostle, but I imagine the same applies. I see your point, but I don't agree that the mechanical benefits is necessary to gain for the concept. Mine would be "Okay... that's interesting. How are you going to resolve the fact that a barbarian can't be lawful and a paladin can't be anything but?" If their answer is, "I'll just switch my alignment," I'd point out that that's metagame thinking and should be discouraged. Besides, what's the difference between a paladin's combat style and a fighter's combat style? In other words, I think your example is a little specious. My example was just all the martial classes I could think of in a few seconds, it wasn't intended to be a real build. The difference between a fighter and paladin's style is entirely up to the DM and the player of the character(s), as fighter don't even share identical styles with each other. If I was starting a game at level 15, I wouldn't allow this character without a very convincing backstory, and even then I'd counsel the player against it. That build is clearly sub-optimal. That is an example of poor min-maxing and probably poor roleplaying as well. If I started a campaign at level 1 and every level the player took a different class and could somehow justify it based on the events and/or circumstances of the campaign, though, I'd be hard-pressed not to let him.I agree that I might not put the stop on him right away, but around L3 or 4 when he hasn't advanced any class to 2, I'd start pressing him hard about why he's taking so many classes. I'd ask you to provide examples as to why you think that a build is counterproductive to good roleplaying, but calronmoonflower has already pointed out that this isn't the appropriate thread. Perhaps I can look forward to you posting on the Stormwind Fallacy Debate?See my post there.
weepingminotaur 02-25-08, 10:08 AM	No, "core races" simply refers to races in the core books, which includes not only the PHB but also the MM. Things like Teiflings, Half-Dragons, and Centaurs are all core races. "PHB races" is likely what you meant. Right, I understand that, but I was talking about creating PCs, not monsters. Tiefling, Half-Dragon, and Centaur are all in the MM, but unless I'm missing something, they aren't available options when a player wants to create a character using only the core rulebooks (PH, MM, DM), right? I'm not trying to be a pain here. :) I'm just a bit confused and trying to sort things out. ;)
Tectorman 02-25-08, 10:47 AM	Right, I understand that, but I was talking about creating PCs, not monsters. Tiefling, Half-Dragon, and Centaur are all in the MM, but unless I'm missing something, they aren't available options when a player wants to create a character using only the core rulebooks (PH, MM, DM), right? I'm not trying to be a pain here. :) I'm just a bit confused and trying to sort things out. ;) You can create PCs using those races using just the Core Rulebooks. If the entry for a monster only has its stat block (a la the Tarrasque), then a player wouldn't be able to use it as a race. However, if the monster's entry also has a table beginning with "Racial Traits" and including things like "base land speed is 40 ft.", "Str +2, Dex +4", "Favored Class: Barbarian", etc., (and Tieflings and Centaurs, among other things, have such a table) then a player can use that as a race. Templates (unless specifically said otherwise) can be applied to ANY race (PC-playable or not). Hence, Half-Dragon, seen in the MM, can be applied to any race in the PHB, any race in the MM, any race anywhere (almost, there are rules for stacking templates and base creature types that you have to watch out for). Now, a fair number of the races in the MM can't be played right off the bat at first level due to Level Adjustment, but all that means is that the player would either have to wait to join in, the campaign would have to start at a higher level, or (requires Savage Species) use the Monster Class progressions. Hope that helps.
weepingminotaur 02-25-08, 11:11 AM	Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I will use the term "PHB races only" from now on. :) In any case, back to TOB. I like what I'm reading, though I do feel the section describing the Crusader's maneuvers and how they're 'granted' is a muddy mess. Definitely could have used an edit to make things clearer. I am mulling over the idea of playing a Fighter 1 / Warblade 5 (Major: Diamond Mind; Minor: Iron Heart) for a campaign my buddy intends to run in a few months. I really dig the maneuvers that allow characters to boost saving throws in weak areas (Reflex or Will for melee combatants, fortitude for spellcasters) as immediate actions. Particularly the Will boosts, since my friend will be running Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and I'm betting there will be a fair number of mind-controlling undead to contend with. :)
turalisj 02-25-08, 02:33 PM	Just run a straight warblade. Multiclassing to fighter, imho, isn't worth it. You get a bonus feat, for what? You lose the d12 hd, 4+int mod skill points, a new manuever, etc.
Nephlite 02-25-08, 03:31 PM	Just run a straight warblade. Multiclassing to fighter, imho, isn't worth it. You get a bonus feat, for what? You lose the d12 hd, 4+int mod skill points, a new manuever, etc. Tower shield/Heavy Armor + bonus feat = Fighter level. Warblade lacks those.
Vaelan 02-25-08, 04:55 PM	Just run a straight warblade. Multiclassing to fighter, imho, isn't worth it. You get a bonus feat, for what? You lose the d12 hd, 4+int mod skill points, a new manuever, etc. If a hitpoint, two skill points, and half of a maneuver are worth more than a bonus feat, you need to stop picking Dodge. There are feats that don't suck. They're worth a couple of levels in Fighter if you can manage to pick out enough of them that work together.
navar100 02-25-08, 05:13 PM	Just run a straight warblade. Multiclassing to fighter, imho, isn't worth it. You get a bonus feat, for what? You lose the d12 hd, 4+int mod skill points, a new manuever, etc. Multiclassing 2 fighter levels is worth it. Two bonus feats help a lot. (Two-Weapon fighting for Tiger Claw. Power Attack for Iron Heart and a little Diamond Mind.) You can still get weapon specialization at 6th level just as a warblade 6 could, and taking those two fighter levels before you reach warblade 4 means when you actually do reach warblade 4, you can get a stance that's not 1st level. The warblade capstone is great, but you're lower than 20th level for a lot longer than being 20th level so not getting the capstone before epic is no big deal. Lump the reflex save hit; your intelligence modifier will help. Use Moment of Perfect Mind to take care of your otherwise atrocious will save. Level 1: Warblade 1 - get the full 12+CON hit points, great skill points, and your maneuvers. Weapon Focus is a good feat. Be human for an extra feat. Adaptive Style is good. You don't need it now, but you will want it eventually. Level 2: Fighter 1 - feat Level 3: Fighter 2 - feat and level feat. As a human you now have 5 feats to work with. That's the same as Fighter 3 + three maneuvers + 2 hit points and lots more skills. Level 4: Warblade 2 - Your new maneuver can now be a 2nd level maneuver. Adaptive style now helps since you know more maneuvers than you can ready Level 5: Warblade 3 - Get another maneuver also 2nd level. Level 6: Warblade 4 - Get another stance, which can be 3rd level. Take Weapon Specialization.
weepingminotaur 02-26-08, 10:56 AM	Thanks, navar, I was thinking the same thing (adding two levels in Fighter instead of one to get a higher-level stance). With the discipline I have in mind for the character (Diamond Mind), armor check penalties really aren't a problem, so I might even throw some heavy armor and a tower shield on this character.
runestar 02-27-08, 06:49 AM	Also, from the few examples in the book, it seems that the 1/2 IL you get from multiclassing is rounded up, rather than down. This means that a warblade4/fighter1 has IL5, same as a warblade5. Because you get a new maneuver every odd lv, and can swap in a new one every even lv, this means that you don't really get new maneuvers any slower (as you effectively get a new maneuver every lv). The only drawback is that you accrue maneuvers readied and new stances 1 lv slower. This may be a good thing at warblade4 because of its wonky stance progression, but gets a little irritating thereafter. Stance mastery is well worth going pure warblade, but if you don't see yourself playing to lv20, then no point preparing for a rainy day that will never come. Maybe go something like warblade1/fighter2/warblade2-6/swordsage1/warblade7-10/swordsage2/warblade11/master of nine5? :)
weepingminotaur 02-27-08, 03:19 PM	Also, from the few examples in the book, it seems that the 1/2 IL you get from multiclassing is rounded up, rather than down. I was wondering about this. Does anyone know for certain whether the 1/2 IL is rounded up or down? Also, am I correct in my belief, based on reading TOB, that a warblade can recover ALL expended maneuvers with a single swift action + melee attack / standard action?
Zombie_Babies 02-27-08, 03:24 PM	Also, am I correct in my belief, based on reading TOB, that a warblade can recover ALL expended maneuvers with a single swift action + melee attack / standard action? Yes. You may also full attack (if you didn't move more than 5') or simply twirl your sword around. It's a nice recovery method.
Crimson_Concerto 02-27-08, 06:32 PM	Unless otherwise stated, everything in D&D is rounded down, and I don't recall anything that makes Initiator Level an exception. Also, yes, a Warblade can recover ALL of his maneuvers with a single swift action + melee attack / standard action. You can also do a swift action and a full attack since that includes a melee attack as well. Recognize, however, that if you have used an immediate action since your last turn, you don't have a swift action left this round, so you can't recover maneuvers.
turalisj 02-27-08, 06:59 PM	Stance mastery is well worth going pure warblade, but if you don't see yourself playing to lv20, then no point preparing for a rainy day that will never come. Except that Warblade10/Eternal Blade10 nets you two extra manuevers and an extra stance.
CryoSilver 02-27-08, 07:09 PM	I'm looking at a warblade 16/fighter2/crusader2 as my current build in a game, and then going into epic, warblade 20/same/same. It's worth it to me to get Thicket of Blades, Furious Counterstrike, my Cha mod (+3) to Will saves and two bonus feats (Karmic Strike and Shock Trooper) at the cost of delaying my acquisition of Dual Stance.
Vaelan 02-27-08, 07:12 PM	Stance mastery is well worth going pure warblade, but if you don't see yourself playing to lv20, then no point preparing for a rainy day that will never come. Moving past 20, stance bonuses will become irrelevant. Before 20 you don't get the ability. The only way I see this being worth going pure Warblade is if you play exactly at or not very far past 20. This is a range of levels that not many people tend to care about.
runestar 02-27-08, 07:32 PM	I was wondering about this. Does anyone know for certain whether the 1/2 IL is rounded up or down? If you look at the sample NPCs for the jade phoenix mage and shadow sun monk prcs, you will find that IL was rounded up for them. For example, in the case of the JPM, the warblade1/wiz5/JPM4 has an IL of 8, which implies that the 5 lvs of wizard supplies +3IL. As for the shadow sun monk, it has used the martial study feat 3 times over its 6 monk lvs. This means that it must have taken said feat once at 1st lv to take a 1st lv maneuver. Since you need an IL of at least 1 to qualify, this suggests that monk1 gives an IL of 1, which again supports my theory that IL is rounded up, rather than down.:) Except that Warblade10/Eternal Blade10 nets you two extra manuevers and an extra stance. ??? You can an extra stance at EB5, same as a warblade (who gets it at lv16). Plus, you get extra maneuvers readied, but your quality of maneuvers drops (since you cannot swap in new ones every even lv with EB as you can with a warblade).
Crimson_Concerto 02-27-08, 07:57 PM	If you look at the sample NPCs for the jade phoenix mage and shadow sun monk prcs, you will find that IL was rounded up for them. For example, in the case of the JPM, the warblade1/wiz5/JPM4 has an IL of 8, which implies that the 5 lvs of wizard supplies +3IL. As for the shadow sun monk, it has used the martial study feat 3 times over its 6 monk lvs. This means that it must have taken said feat once at 1st lv to take a 1st lv maneuver. Since you need an IL of at least 1 to qualify, this suggests that monk1 gives an IL of 1, which again supports my theory that IL is rounded up, rather than down.:)I challenge you to find a sample NPC that ISN'T messed up. :rofl: Sorry, but I don't think using sample NPCs as evidence works when it contradicts everything else in D&D. :P
runestar 02-27-08, 09:15 PM	I challenge you to find a sample NPC that ISN'T messed up. :rofl: Sorry, but I don't think using sample NPCs as evidence works when it contradicts everything else in D&D. :P This is true only if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the npcs are indeed messed up. Stuff like that sample master of 9 npc is all too apparent (it cannot possibly meet its own prereqs - the designer probably just came up with a swordsage7/MoN3 template, then slotted the feats in) or the warblade (he has a 3rd lv stance by 5th lv, which is not possible under existing rules). But in my examples, it just means that they are either empirical evidence that fractional IL is rounded up, or that the npcs are not accurate to begin with. However, the problem is that we have no way of telling just which one it is.:P
Vaelan 02-27-08, 11:56 PM	The default rule is that you round down and it stands unless you can find a passage explicitly overruling it. Sample characters are not rules text. You know how we know? They often explicitly contradict the actual rules text and are not subjected to errata. Pick any random 3.5 book. They all have sample characters that aren't written up right. An example was given out of the ToB already.
Crimson_Concerto 02-28-08, 12:03 AM	This is true only if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the npcs are indeed messed up.The general rule for all of D&D is to round down unless it explicitly says otherwise. If it never says that Initiator Level is different (and to my knowledge it doesn't), then the default assumption must be that they round down and that the the sample NPCs are simply poorly constructed... again. :P
Sinfire Titan 02-28-08, 12:22 AM	The general rule for all of D&D is to round down unless it explicitly says otherwise. If it never says that Initiator Level is different (and to my knowledge it doesn't), then the default assumption must be that they round down and that the the sample NPCs are simply poorly constructed... again. :P But if it is rounded down, then the Martial Study feat is useless at 1st level unless you are all ready a Martial Adept. Explain it now, seeing as there was a FAQ about that not being the case.
Vaelan 02-28-08, 12:33 AM	But if it is rounded down, then the Martial Study feat is useless at 1st level unless you are all ready a Martial Adept. Explain it now, seeing as there was a FAQ about that not being the case. Link? I don't see it in the 3.5 FAQ on the D&D site...
Crimson_Concerto 02-28-08, 12:36 AM	But if it is rounded down, then the Martial Study feat is useless at 1st level unless you are all ready a Martial Adept.Yes, I've always assumed so. Explain it now, seeing as there was a FAQ about that not being the case.Really? Okay, I'll look, but I haven't seen anything to that effect. It'd be great if you could provide me a link if you mean Sage Ruling or something (which still aren't always right) or if you could tell me a page number if you mean the actual FAQ...
Sinfire Titan 02-28-08, 12:42 AM	Yes, I've always assumed so. Really? Okay, I'll look, but I haven't seen anything to that effect. It'd be great if you could provide me a link if you mean Sage Ruling or something (which still aren't always right) or if you could tell me a page number if you mean the actual FAQ... Search it for Initiator Level. The Advanced Search on these boards should find it for you. If not, pull up all of the thread's pages, and hit Control:F to do a manual search.
runestar 02-28-08, 12:46 AM	The default rule is that you round down and it stands unless you can find a passage explicitly overruling it. Sample characters are not rules text. You know how we know? They often explicitly contradict the actual rules text and are not subjected to errata. Pick any random 3.5 book. They all have sample characters that aren't written up right. An example was given out of the ToB already. Yes, but my point is - how do you know if, in the case of the sample ToB npcs, their IL being rounded up was just an error, or the designers actually meaning for it to be rounded all along (and maybe forgetting to reiterate it earlier on). It could easily be either, that I admit, but there does not seem to be any ruling here which explicitly favours one over the other. It is not stated outright that you round fractional IL down either.:P Also, the ruby knight vindicator npc rounds up as well. And I cannot find a single example where IL is rounded down. The designers sure are consistent in making errors then...;)
Sinfire Titan 02-28-08, 12:59 AM	Yes, but my point is - how do you know if, in the case of the sample ToB npcs, their IL being rounded up was just an error, or the designers actually meaning for it to be rounded all along (and maybe forgetting to reiterate it earlier on). It could easily be either, that I admit, but there does not seem to be any ruling here which explicitly favours one over the other. It is not stated outright that you round fractional IL down either.:P Also, the ruby knight vindicator npc rounds up as well. And I cannot find a single example where IL is rounded down. The designers sure are consistent in making errors then...;) Well, I say http://a.deviantart.com/avatars/b/l/blanksexplz.gif the argument. If that is how RWI, then that is how RAI should be.
Crimson_Concerto 02-28-08, 01:01 AM	Search it for Initiator Level. The Advanced Search on these boards should find it for you. If not, pull up all of the thread's pages, and hit Control:F to do a manual search.Still can't find it. If you know where it is, could you not just link me to it please? :P EDIT: It is not stated outright that you round fractional IL down either.:PIt wouldn't need to be, because that's the default rule. It would only need to outright state it if it violated the default rule. Because it doesn't say, the logical assumption is that the default rule is still in place. The designers sure are consistent in making errors then...;)No disagreements here. :P
Sinfire Titan 02-28-08, 01:16 AM	Still can't find it. If you know where it is, could you not just link me to it please? :P EDIT: It wouldn't need to be, because that's the default rule. It would only need to outright state it if it violated the default rule. No disagreements here. :P Wasn't there, but I bumped it and asked the question.