Post/Author/DateTime	Post
themocaw 04-07-08, 01:52 PM	1. DM feels that Tome of Battle is overpowered, and that the Kensai and Cavalier classes from Complete Warrior are also broken. 2. DM has also created a custom prestige class called the dragoon based on Final Fantasy. Key powers include the ability to summon flaming pheonixes and the fact that the character's high and standing jump distance is now equal to their running jump distances. The party's fighter rejected this prestige class because he has no interest in becoming a military officer again: he's been in one war already, he's done taking orders. 3. DM now allows bards to use bardic music as a move action instead of a standard action, and allows bards to gain a feat called "Song Twist" that allows two bardic songs to be cast as one. 4. DM provides a new feat called "Improved Spontaneous Casting." End result: classes like Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, who normally cast spells using spell preparation, can cast any known spell spontaneously. 5. A couple of us are trying to figure out how to keep our party's elven fighter a viable character towards the higher levels. Thoughts?
Mr_Seth 04-07-08, 02:20 PM	1) Tome of Battle is high powered, but not overpowered. It'll fit right into any campaign that allows psionics. Kensai and Cavalier are both pretty much overpowered. 2) Sounds nifty. 3) VERY nifty, makes the Bard far more potent. 4) Severely overpowered! Why in the Nine Hells is this guy worried about ToB? 5) Feats are a fighter's forte. Head for the Character Optimization board, they'll tell you exactly how to twink him out. Heck, by the time they're done, he'll be so frighteningly broken that your DM will be BEGGING him to reroll as a Warblade!
nightwyrm 04-07-08, 03:04 PM	1. ToB makes melee useful, not overpowered. 2. Interesting. 3. Cool. 4. Totally broken. 5. Good luck with that when your DM broke his game with the new rule in #4.
pigknight 04-07-08, 03:06 PM	@ #4: And he thinks ToB is overpowered? Wow, all I can say, wow.
Krusk 04-07-08, 03:21 PM	1-its higher than phb melee classes, not higher in power than spellcasters though. Its about on par with a barbarian actually. The prestige classes are not overpowered, but they are half decent. 2-Is it this one? http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=971699 if so, then whatever. its not amazingly good. If not then without seeing the class at best guess I can give is "its probably overpowered, but i can't say for sure" 3-Cool, personally I let my bards "maintain" their music as a swift action each round. I still have people rarely play bards. 4- Ridicilus over powered. Others will or have gone into detail for you so i wont. Just consider that clerics druids and wizards are already regarded as some of the top 5 classes, Now they get a boost. 5-Tell him to multiclass into cleric. He keeps armor, but now gets spells. His BAB can be compensated for by divine power spell. Or go into his custom dragoon prestige class, if its not the one i listed above, it is probably really overpowered. Most DMs making custom classes for their games make them ridicilusly good so they see play*. [I'm probably just as guilty] -if the fighter does not want this class, ask about one unassociated with the military, but with the same abilities and a new name. *If he does not like the flavor of spells, tell him to call them manuvers and describe them as from the TOB.
Justaidan 04-07-08, 03:21 PM	1. ToB is prefectly fine 2. Sound nice but without numbers etc can't really say how viable/broken it is. 3. Nice 4.:eek: The Cleric, Druid and Wizard are considered to be the strongest PhB classes as they are and in fairness they are even outside the PhB as well. This is just so totally and utterly game breaking that I can think of no words to express it. 5. Seconding going over to the optimisation boards. There is a lot of great stuff over there. Depends on whether you want lockdown fighter, damage fighter or Ac massive fighter. Ac massive doesn't contribute to the party but maybe you can find some middle ground. A lot of the massive damage is dealt with viva powerattack, leap attack, shock trooper, the fighter only feats aren't that great and TWF is just bad unless you have extra damage. Make a spiked chain dex fighter and lock down the board (Combat reflexes/Inproved trip), bonus points if the wizard enlarges you.
CrimsonDeath 04-07-08, 03:47 PM	One feat, to allow a Cleric or Druid to spontaneously cast any spell from the appropriate spell list? That's obscenely, ridiculously overpowered. He's just asking to have the fear of CoD put into him. Those bard options sound nifty. I'm not sure what's wrong with the Kensai. Yes, the Signature Weapon saves you some cash, but a melee character needs it. Power Surge and Withstand are nice, but not especially game-breaking unless you get really creative. Plus, if your Fighter is "done taking orders", he won't be very eager to swear an Oath of Service to anyone. I'm not sure what's wrong with the Cavalier. Yes, he can make good mounted charge attacks. But you can't charge every round, you give up Paladin spells, and you can significantly nerf a Medium-sized one with a 5' corridor or a 2'6" door. Plus there's the fact that all he does is damage; he has no buffs/debuffs, no utility, and maybe three useful skills. ToB is a debate all by itself. Personally, I think it's fine.
navar100 04-07-08, 04:05 PM	Your DM hates warriors. He doesn't believe they should be able to do nifty things. All they are good for is to attack with a weapon to kill things. All the flashy, cool stuff belong to spellcasters. He creates a warrior prestige class that does a flashy magic thing. He has house rules that allow spellcasters to overcome some inconvenience relevant to their class. Ask the DM for specifics of how Tome of Battle is overpowered. Whatever he says, for each statement reply "And a spellcaster forces someone to save or die". Repeat it often enough and maybe he'll get some perspective. Should he finally complain a martial adept does more damage than a core warrior, show him a raging power attacking barbarian or a paladin power attack smiting with a lance using a spirited charge. When he complains that at least they need to do full round actions while the martial adept can move and still do lots of damage on one attack, tell him it's about time "and a spellcaster forces someone to save or die from a great distance."
Kouk 04-07-08, 04:11 PM	1. In comparison to core melee and "non-caster" classes, ToB is overpowered depending what you choose. In comparison to core casters, it is about equal (though not in early or late levels). Kensai is cool as hell, but not that powerful. The Good: d10 HD. Free Magic weapon. Neat +8 Str if you make a Concentration check (comparable to a Rage). Slight bonus on social skills. Gets to make Concentration check in place of Reflex saves against area effects. Some other minor things. Higher than 2 skill points per level. The Bad: Rough entry requirements for non-paladins, and pretty tough even for them with their low skill points (5 ranks in Ride?). Strict alignment requirements. Strict Code of Conduct requirements. Non-full BAB. Only good Will Saves (though the Withstand ability offsets the Reflex a bit). The FAQ rules that existing magic doesn't stack with the Kensai's ability to enhance weapons. No spell progression or any bonus feats or progression of class abilities or anything. In sum, Kensai is pretty "average" in terms of power, unless you choose it for a very particular build. Cavalier: Very Niche. The Good: Paladin mount can progress. Attack roll bonus while mounted. Slight bonus on certain skills. Deadly Charge is awesome. Can make his mount faster.Full attack on mount up to full movement speed. Unstoppable Charge is just silly. Good Fort and Will. Full BAB. The Bad: Requires Lawful. Requires BAB +8 (so 9th level is the minimum you can enter it). Requires some trash skills (Handle Animal and Knowledge Nobility). 4 feat requirements, but you probably want those for a mounted character. 2 skill points per level and unimpressive skill list. No spell progression or class progression (except mount). You need to be riding a damn horse (or whatever) so this extremely limits you when indoors. In sum: Depending on how much outdoors, open-ground fighting there is, this can be considered "overpowered". This is a very very specialized character though. Take away the horse, and not much is left. Beware the Halfling/Riding Dog Paladin though... 2. No comment. 3. Not too bad, Bards are kind of weak. 4. Your DM is high, or just has a very awful sense of class balance (or both). Has he ever heard of the Favored Soul or Sorcerer? 5. Can't help you if that spellcaster feat goes in and ToB is out of the question.
turalisj 04-07-08, 04:28 PM	Your DM has issues with melee'rs in general it seems. You should ask him if he is trying to cover up a lack of phallus. :P
Bozwevial 04-07-08, 04:51 PM	1. DM feels that Tome of Battle is overpowered, and that the Kensai and Cavalier classes from Complete Warrior are also broken. 2. DM has also created a custom prestige class called the dragoon based on Final Fantasy. Key powers include the ability to summon flaming pheonixes and the fact that the character's high and standing jump distance is now equal to their running jump distances. The party's fighter rejected this prestige class because he has no interest in becoming a military officer again: he's been in one war already, he's done taking orders. 3. DM now allows bards to use bardic music as a move action instead of a standard action, and allows bards to gain a feat called "Song Twist" that allows two bardic songs to be cast as one. 4. DM provides a new feat called "Improved Spontaneous Casting." End result: classes like Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, who normally cast spells using spell preparation, can cast any known spell spontaneously. 5. A couple of us are trying to figure out how to keep our party's elven fighter a viable character towards the higher levels. Thoughts? 1. Tome of Battle has been proven to be more balanced than core is. The Kensai and Cavalier are probably weaker than most other prestige classes from Complete Warrior, no matter what the flavor text says. 2. As long as the DM isn't penalizing the fighter for not taking it or forcing him into the class, I don't see the problem. 3. Sounds like an attempt to patch up nonexistent holes in the bard. The bard really doesn't need it. Ask the DM to sing two songs at once and then ask how come he can't do it but every other bard can. 4. Hmm, spontaneous casting from an unlimited list. As though those classes weren't broken enough. 5. Robilar's Gambit, Improved Trip, that sort of thing. I agree, ask your DM why ToB is overpowered, then point out that for anything they can do, casters can do, only better. Damage? Casters explode your face off. Oh, you can attack twice as much? They can polymorph into a hydra or a marilith. You can get a heal on hit? THEY CAN STOP TIME!
DrMorganes 04-07-08, 06:23 PM	I agree, ask your DM why ToB is overpowered, then point out that for anything they can do, casters can do, only better. Damage? Casters explode your face off. Oh, you can attack twice as much (once per encounter)? They can polymorph into a hydra or a marilith. You can get a heal on hit (that's not on par with a cleric of the same level)? THEY CAN STOP TIME! Fixed.
Cedric_the_Lucky 04-07-08, 06:32 PM	The only way #4 should be allowed in a game would be remove every other feat, remove all skill points and drop the HD, so d8 would become d4, d4 would become d2. It's simply ridiculous.
Necroramo 04-07-08, 06:55 PM	1. :( 2. big whoop 3. " 4. lolololol!!! on the one hand he says that ToB is overpowered, and on the other he completely breaks the game. The problem with DMing is that you have a lot of responsibility and you have to know how the rules interact with each other in order to run an effective game. Show up with a wizard and show him the power of the LIGHTNING WARRIOR, I see no reason why he should get mad at your newfound power if he imposed the houserule 5. Go crazy with a spiked chain and a bunch of feats that make life hard, like (of course) Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, Defensive Sweep, the overpowering strike ACF, Karmic Strike, Mage Slayer/Supernatural Harrier, etc. if it fails and he perishes from the earth, make a wizard or druid like your DM has encouraged :)
themocaw 04-07-08, 07:49 PM	Thanks, guys. In terms of suggestions, a lot of them are helpful, but I'm trying not to be confrontational with this guy. I've basically come to the same conclusion that someone else did: this is a setting where magic rules all and even the great melee fighters need magical support to be awesome. Since storyline wise, he's heading towards a plot point that could get him in possession of the sword that the ancient gods used to destroy the primordial giants called the Burning Titans, that might not be an issue. I'm simply trying to keep our fighter from becoming irrelevant until then. My decision is basically running towards, "Don't bother trying any more." He's obviously got a vision for his game, and it's a good one (his head for game balance is basically nil, but his storytelling is great), but it's not the same vision I'd have for my personal game, and I gotta respect that.
turalisj 04-07-08, 08:12 PM	Is the sword called the Sword of Rurik? :D
tyrandor 04-07-08, 08:31 PM	1 - So only people with flashy magical attacks can be powerful... 2 - Just like Final Fantasy 3 - Just like in Everquest... 4 - So he wants the caster to use 'mana points' instead of memorising spells... Since storyline wise, he's heading towards a plot point that could get him in possession of the sword that the ancient gods used to destroy the primordial giants called the Burning Titans You sure he didn't mean Burning Legion? :rolleyes: Sounds like you're playing a bad videogame rip off...
CrimsonDeath 04-07-08, 08:46 PM	One more thing... 4. DM provides a new feat called "Improved Spontaneous Casting." End result: classes like Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, who normally cast spells using spell preparation, can cast any known spell spontaneously. Do Sorcerers and Bards get a feat they can use to gain access to their entire class spell list, instead of their limited list of spells known?
syrinth 04-07-08, 08:59 PM	1. Never read the ToB but from what Iv'e heard I don't like it. More from a flavor standpoint but meh. If any of my players buy the book I'll look into it more thoroughly 2. Odd and peculiar but whatever. Although phoenixes make no sense to me 3. Doesn't seem like that big of an issue, bards could use some loving :P 4. As an arcanist I think that is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen. This DM needs the concept of balance explained to him very carefully. 5. It's not really possible with these rules >_>
Etarnon 04-07-08, 09:00 PM	I'm of the mind of play your character, the Game is the DM's province. if you think it's broken, move on.
Salla 04-07-08, 09:40 PM	I'm of the mind of play your character, the Game is the DM's province. if you think it's broken, move on. More or less, though the temptation to show him just how broken it is gets miiiighty tempting.
wraithstrike 04-07-08, 11:01 PM	1. The Tome of Battle is not overpowered as long as you are playing by the rules. The SS is very versatile, but not powerful. The Warblade hits hard, and to me is what the fighter should have been, but a barbarian can hit harder(search the threads to find it, and show it to your DM). 2. no need to speak on it 3. That is not a good idea. Bards are not in the starting lineup, but they are good enough to not get any help 4. So let me make sure I read this correctly. The classes that have access to all their spells, and that most people see as overpowered now cast what they want when they want, but the TOB classes, which are still below the caster classes are too much. :eek: I think you should just invite him here. 5. Multiclass like everyone else. Now that the spellcasters get to be spontaneous the powercreep(sp?) to keep the party in line is going to be ridiculous.
wraithstrike 04-07-08, 11:15 PM	double post
wraithstrike 04-07-08, 11:28 PM	As a fellow DM, and one who made many balancing mistakes with houserules during my first campaign, I hate to say it, but I would lay the smack down on him. My more experienced players tried to warn me, but I was stubborn so they used actions to achieve what words could not. With that spontaneous nonsense the party might not even need to step outside of the PHB, but the harder you hit him the easier he will learn. I would not argue with him, but I would come at him again with sound logic before the campaign began, but if he does not listen refer to the above paragraph.
Necroramo 04-07-08, 11:28 PM	Given that you named yourself "wraithstrike" I don't think you even had to post in order for us to know your opinion :-D
wraithstrike 04-07-08, 11:33 PM	Given that you named yourself "wraithstrike" I don't think you even had to post in order for us to know your opinion :-D I said to use logic first:)
Crimson_Concerto 04-07-08, 11:52 PM	1. DM feels that Tome of Battle is overpowered, and that the Kensai and Cavalier classes from Complete Warrior are also broken.ToB is actually perfectly balanced. Your DM is very, very wrong, and if he really thinks it's overpowered, it would be a very goo didea to send him to these boards with his concerns so we can set him straight. I don't know much about Cavalier, since I've never seen it in play, but I haven't had any negative experiences with the Kensai, and I've seen quite a few of those. 2. DM has also created a custom prestige class called the dragoon based on Final Fantasy. Key powers include the ability to summon flaming pheonixes and the fact that the character's high and standing jump distance is now equal to their running jump distances. The party's fighter rejected this prestige class because he has no interest in becoming a military officer again: he's been in one war already, he's done taking orders.Is this a problem or something? 3. DM now allows bards to use bardic music as a move action instead of a standard action, and allows bards to gain a feat called "Song Twist" that allows two bardic songs to be cast as one.... I wouldn't do that. People underestimate the Bard, and it really doesn't need that much of a boost. 4. DM provides a new feat called "Improved Spontaneous Casting." End result: classes like Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, who normally cast spells using spell preparation, can cast any known spell spontaneously.That's just completely ridiculously broken... And this guy thinks ToB is overpowered? The Cleric, Druid and Wizard are more powerful than ToB without this feat, and with this feat? Well... Good luck on this game's survival if you have any of these guys as enemies... 5. A couple of us are trying to figure out how to keep our party's elven fighter a viable character towards the higher levels.Prestige Class? Though with house rules like in #4, no classes really have a chance to shine besides Cleric, Druid, and Wizard...
kelvinaw273 04-08-08, 03:58 AM	1. DM feels that Tome of Battle is overpowered, and that the Kensai and Cavalier classes from Complete Warrior are also broken. ToB is balanced, but dear goddess is it badly written! This and the flavour put me off ever using it, quite frankly. 2. DM has also created a custom prestige class called the dragoon based on Final Fantasy. Key powers include the ability to summon flaming pheonixes and the fact that the character's high and standing jump distance is now equal to their running jump distances. The party's fighter rejected this prestige class because he has no interest in becoming a military officer again: he's been in one war already, he's done taking orders. Sounds less like a concession and more like a "And now I get to tell you what to do!" excuse. 3. DM now allows bards to use bardic music as a move action instead of a standard action, and allows bards to gain a feat called "Song Twist" that allows two bardic songs to be cast as one. Nothing wrong with this. 4. DM provides a new feat called "Improved Spontaneous Casting." End result: classes like Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, who normally cast spells using spell preparation, can cast any known spell spontaneously. He did WHAT? And he says ToB is unbalanced? Ask him what he's taking ... seriously ... 5. A couple of us are trying to figure out how to keep our party's elven fighter a viable character towards the higher levels. Thoughts? Don't bother. The DM does not want him to be viable unless he does what he's told, so forget it. Get him to take a spellcasting class and show the DM the meaning of "Broken." This DM needs a slap in the face with a wet kipper ...
Bozwevial 04-08-08, 05:17 PM	DrMorganes: Thank you for underlining my point, though there is a reason recovery rules exist. kelvinaw273: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "badly written" in reference to Tome of Battle. Are you referring to flavor text or rules text? If it's flavor, that's a matter of personal opinion (but you can adapt it as you like, so that's not much of a problem). Rules wise, I can only think of a few things that need to be revised-Clarify some maneuvers, expound on others (Iron Heart Surge comes to mind) and fix errata. Other than that, it was the best addition I had seen since I picked up the XPH.
turalisj 04-08-08, 05:40 PM	Three steps to convincing him: 1. Ask him to talk with you outside 2. Pull out a baseball bat hidden next to some bushes. 3. Slam it into the side of his skull. Or you can just get Spell Compendium and load up on offensive skills.
Cuindless 04-09-08, 01:40 AM	I'm pretty much seconding everything said here already. 1. ToB appears overpowered at first glance due to some previously unheard of melee abilities. Having allowed it into my game on a probationary status, I can safely say that I don't think it's game breaking at all and is, in fact, pretty well balanced. I can't speak to Kensai or Cavalier from personal experience, but I don't see anything in the mechanics that appears broken. 2. Seems a bit fanboyish to me, but without a mechanics write-up I can't really comment. 3. Not terribly broken. Bards are a swingy class. They're difficult to optimize, but if done so then they really shine. This feat makes a bard easier to optimize and, therefore, easier to play. 4. Yes, definitely very broken. Even if the requirements are exhorbitant and shattering and you could only select it at 18th level, it still increases the power level of the preparation casters by a factor of 5 at least. 5. I can't see a way to do this. It's difficult enough to make a viable high-level melee build with ToB available. Remove ToB and add this ridiculous house-rule for casters, and it seems nigh impossible.
narack 04-09-08, 08:22 AM	4. DM Speach first game of the campaign: " :cheer:Hey Hey Hey :cheer: listen dudes i don't allow ToB it's too overkill instead ill will nerf spell caster giving them ...."
themocaw 04-09-08, 12:22 PM	I checked back on the text of the spell, and as it turns out, Improved Spontaneous Casting doesn't work on Wizards after all, only Clerics and Druids. Checked with my DM why he included it, and basically his logic is that Clerics and Druids, being that they call upon the power of the gods, and that their power basically comes direct from the gods/nature, it didn't make much sense for them to pray to spells only at one time of the day and hold the spell in their memory like Wizards (who directly manipulate the forces of magic through sheer willpower) do. In-story, it kinda makes sense. System wise, yeah. . . totally broken, and I have a feeling it's gonna wind up screwing 90% of his fights given that our druid took it. 7th level, and the game is rapidly becoming easy mode. I'm guest DMing next session, and wondering how I can set up an encounter that allows the entire party to participate instead of just playing support for Improved Spontaneous CODzilla. The guy playing the druid's pretty cool, so he's not a jerk about it, and even he admits the feat is overpowered, but he still uses it because, you know, you take anything you can get. Thoughts so far: 1. Don't go outside. 2. Antimagic Fields are my friends. 3. Desecrated ground, where nature has been blighted badly. After the next session, it's a moot point: I'll be back to playing my Song Twisted bard and wondering, to myself, how it is that I'm able to inspire courage in my allies and fascinate my enemies in the same breath, but who cares, you know, because like our druid, I'll take anything I'm given.
CrimsonDeath 04-09-08, 12:41 PM	A lot of Druid spells don't work without ambient vegetation.
kelvinaw273 04-09-08, 12:53 PM	kelvinaw273: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "badly written" in reference to Tome of Battle. Are you referring to flavor text or rules text? If it's flavor, that's a matter of personal opinion (but you can adapt it as you like, so that's not much of a problem). Rules wise, I can only think of a few things that need to be revised-Clarify some maneuvers, expound on others (Iron Heart Surge comes to mind) and fix errata. Other than that, it was the best addition I had seen since I picked up the XPH. More because after reading it cover to cover I still couldn't figure out what level of power you could use at a given character level. In fact, until I looked at the powers I didn't even realize they had levels! Some other areas were unclear to me as well. I don't think I'm that dumb, and I'm sure it must give the information somewhere, but it wasn't easy to find. Now with the XPH I would agree - that was simple, concise, easily understood and easily applied (I've become a convert, I love psionics). Not so ToB, and in my experience that kind of thing is all too easily abused by an unscrupulous player - perhaps the reason that it is consider 'broken' by the OP's DM. The other thing I don't like about ToB is that it's the kind of fix that leaves existing fighting classes out in the cold: If it makes the new classes so much better, then the old classes are redundant. The feats and prestige classes are good for all classes, and I think the various 'new' powers could have been better incorporated into a feat system than deployed as yet another 'alternative magic' system. In short, I think it has some great ideas, but they are presented poorly and implemented questionably, but that's just my opinion.
Rania 04-09-08, 01:58 PM	3. Sounds like an attempt to patch up nonexistent holes in the bard. The bard really doesn't need it. Ask the DM to sing two songs at once and then ask how come he can't do it but every other bard can. ... I agree, ask your DM why ToB is overpowered, then point out that for anything they can do, casters can do, only better. Damage? Casters explode your face off. Oh, you can attack twice as much? They can polymorph into a hydra or a marilith. You can get a heal on hit? THEY CAN STOP TIME!LOL. Both of those are great. (Feel free to add this to your egopad.)
Cuindless 04-10-08, 01:48 AM	The other thing I don't like about ToB is that it's the kind of fix that leaves existing fighting classes out in the cold: If it makes the new classes so much better, then the old classes are redundant. The feats and prestige classes are good for all classes, and I think the various 'new' powers could have been better incorporated into a feat system than deployed as yet another 'alternative magic' system. In short, I think it has some great ideas, but they are presented poorly and implemented questionably, but that's just my opinion. I hear this a lot and couldn't disagree more. Without derailing this into a ToB debate, consider this: Most optimizers wouldn't take more than 4 levels of fighter even before ToB came out, and usually it was just two for the bonus feats. Then they'd take just a couple levels of barbarian for rage and d12 hit points. Basically, what I'm getting at is that the CORE melee classes had long been viewed as dipping classes before ToB was released. If anything, ToB added more options for the CORE melee classes, not to mention making them better for dipping. I've seen more players taking a few levels of fighter now than I did before.
Sargeras 04-10-08, 04:01 AM	Alrighty...haven't posted in a long time...here goes. I'll preface by saying that when I play, I'm a caster-lover (wizards/sorcerers specifically), so I know how strong they can be. And CoDzilla is no myth, either. I can also be very good at powergaming, had I not realized that it made the game no fun to be able to do everything better than everybody else in the party in this team-based, friend-oriented game. I also DM my local group. Now to my actual opinions: 1- My wife bought me Tome of Battle last year sometime, and I read it through...very interesting, and I think it could bring fighty-types almost up to par with casters in terms of power. However, I took it back to the store because I found it a little confusing (and in my group, I'm the rules guru, so I don't think the others would have bothered learning the mechanics, simple as they may have been to implement), and because I didn't really like the flavor...which is simply a matter of preference. I do not take ToB to be overpowered. I made a Kensai-based character, (using Fighter/CW Samurai as a base (the Char-Op guys just gasped, eh?)- I obviously don't just powergame all the time :P , this guy was for flavor and was still effective) and the one thing that could be abused is the fact that the bonus to Str thing the Kensai can do with a concentration check is an unnamed bonus, therefore you could make 3 checks in a row to get a +24 to Str, etc....but it's not a problem if you don't break it like that. The Cavalier can also be broken, but only while mounted, so...not really a big deal- unless they're a Halfling with a medium-sized mount so they can go where everybody else does...but I digress. 2- The prestige class is just an option, so...no biggie. Unless he can't wield that sweet sword without taking it or something...but that's a problem with the DM. 3- I house-rule that Bards can continue (not begin) singing/playing as a move action as well, or in combination with a move (an actual move, not move-equivalent) as long as they have 5 or more ranks in Perform, much like a fighty-type can draw their weapon with a move. The dual-song thing is a bit much, especially at higher levels with more song options, or with certain prestige classes, but I would interpret it as getting two effects with one song, as opposed to actually singing two songs at once...that defies reason....:P 4- That's just stupid. Sounds like a noob DM mistake to me (we all make them), or at least (like you said) someone with no understanding of game balance. 5- Your elven fighter friend will still be viable, as a fighter. As long as he's not worried about competing with the casters on "their turf", he's still a capable combatant. Fighter works okay (and I mean just okay) against monsters, just not so much when compared with other classes, especially casters, but...it's a team game. Let everyone fill their niche. My group doesn't play many fighters (they're barbarians, rangers, and monks, if fighty-types at all), but we have one guy who's been playing a dwarven fighter (Crunk...I loves him.) off and on since we started, and he's perfectly happy. And he doesn't just charge in and hit stuff. He uses a lot of techniques like sunder, trip, disarm, and bull-rush to mix things up. He does a great job, and we all have a blast. Actually, he's probably the reason other players haven't made fighters- we don't need any more! As far as helping your fighter "stay viable": If the party is working together, especially with funds, consider allocating more to your fighter pal so he can get some kick-A enchantments and magic items to "keep up". Those are always fun. Hope that helps!
themocaw 04-10-08, 12:10 PM	5- Your elven fighter friend will still be viable, as a fighter. As long as he's not worried about competing with the casters on "their turf", he's still a capable combatant. Fighter works okay (and I mean just okay) against monsters, just not so much when compared with other classes, especially casters, but...it's a team game. Let everyone fill their niche. My group doesn't play many fighters (they're barbarians, rangers, and monks, if fighty-types at all), but we have one guy who's been playing a dwarven fighter (Crunk...I loves him.) off and on since we started, and he's perfectly happy. And he doesn't just charge in and hit stuff. He uses a lot of techniques like sunder, trip, disarm, and bull-rush to mix things up. He does a great job, and we all have a blast. Actually, he's probably the reason other players haven't made fighters- we don't need any more! As far as helping your fighter "stay viable": If the party is working together, especially with funds, consider allocating more to your fighter pal so he can get some kick-A enchantments and magic items to "keep up". Those are always fun. Hope that helps! Thanks, that's basically what I'm going for. The thing I'm worried about is that at high levels, the druid and the bard (me) might be standing around beating up monsters and having a grand ol' time flinging around lightning bolts and laying down sonic damage cones while he's sitting there, waiting for his turn to come around, and occasionally saying, "Okay, I'll take my four schwacks at it." It's a bit exacerbated by the fact that this is his first time playing 3.5 (great timing, huh?) and he's more used to second edition. My thought is that as the bard, I'll focus on laying my buff-ups on him, and build my character primarily to be fighter support. Cure spells to keep him in the fight, Inspire Heroics to boost his ability to swing that bastard sword (like I said, it's his first time playing and it's technically supposed to be more a roleplay game than a combat one, but hey, it's D&D, so what can you do?), and debuffs to make the enemy suck so that he can thwack on them. It would have been nice to grab that spell that makes flanking godly (combat coordination or something) but again, that one was vetoed as broken.
kelvinaw273 04-11-08, 12:29 PM	I hear this a lot and couldn't disagree more. Without derailing this into a ToB debate, consider this: Most optimizers wouldn't take more than 4 levels of fighter even before ToB came out, and usually it was just two for the bonus feats. Then they'd take just a couple levels of barbarian for rage and d12 hit points. Basically, what I'm getting at is that the CORE melee classes had long been viewed as dipping classes before ToB was released. If anything, ToB added more options for the CORE melee classes, not to mention making them better for dipping. I've seen more players taking a few levels of fighter now than I did before. That's precisely my point ... they make dipping the class more attractive, but playing it less. If the use of stances and maneuvers was set up as a feat-tree progression, available as fighter bonus feats, all of a sudden the fighter becomes a 20-level class. Instead they introduce new classes to make the old ones less desirable (except as dips) to incorporate new ideas that are poorly explained ... I don't have a problem with new classes to increase choice, but it sucks if you are playing a class and enjoying the character and all of a sudden you get sidelined by a new class that does everything you can and then some. Or to put it another way, melee classes overshadowed by casters is actually not as bad as melee classes overshadowed by newer, more powerful melee classes.
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 04:27 PM	Probably the reason they decided to make new classes instead of a feat tree is because it was easier.
Crimson_Concerto 04-11-08, 05:43 PM	I don't get why so may people appear to have flavor complaints about the ToB. Everything you find in it is also in the PHB. Crusader is pretty much the same as a Paladin, Swordsage is pretty much the same as a Monk, and Warblade is pretty much the same as a Barbarian or Fighter. Even the disciplines don't really add any new flavor. Devoted Spirit matches up with the Paladin perfectly, Diamond Mind matches up with what Monks are supposed to do, Iron Heart is the same flavor as pretty much every melee Fighter ever, Setting Sun matches up with the Monk's unarmed abilities again, Stone Dragon is just a Dwarf Fighter or other Fighter concentrating on heavy plate armor, Tiger Claw is just a TWF-ing Barbarian, and White Raven is what the Bard is supposed to do (maybe Marshal). Even Shadow Hand is pretty much just a way to access Shadow Dancer (a DMG PrC) flavored abilities earlier on, and Desert Wind is just a gish that focuses on Fire spells. ToB doesn't introduce anything new in terms of flavor...
CrimsonDeath 04-11-08, 07:04 PM	I don't get why so may people appear to have flavor complaints about the ToB. Everything you find in it is also in the PHB. Crusader is pretty much the same as a Paladin, Swordsage is pretty much the same as a Monk, and Warblade is pretty much the same as a Barbarian or Fighter. Even the disciplines don't really add any new flavor. Devoted Spirit matches up with the Paladin perfectly, Diamond Mind matches up with what Monks are supposed to do, Iron Heart is the same flavor as pretty much every melee Fighter ever, Setting Sun matches up with the Monk's unarmed abilities again, Stone Dragon is just a Dwarf Fighter or other Fighter concentrating on heavy plate armor, Tiger Claw is just a TWF-ing Barbarian, and White Raven is what the Bard is supposed to do (maybe Marshal). Even Shadow Hand is pretty much just a way to access Shadow Dancer (a DMG PrC) flavored abilities earlier on, and Desert Wind is just a gish that focuses on Fire spells. ToB doesn't introduce anything new in terms of flavor... And it's not like you can't add your own flavor anyway (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=470229)...
Necroramo 04-11-08, 07:25 PM	The other thing I don't like about ToB is that it's the kind of fix that leaves existing fighting classes out in the cold: If it makes the new classes so much better, then the old classes are redundant. The feats and prestige classes are good for all classes, and I think the various 'new' powers could have been better incorporated into a feat system than deployed as yet another 'alternative magic' system. When I take a two-level dip into swordsage in my fighter/dervish build for shadow blade, it doesn't leave the rest in the cold. Those 4 levels of bloodstorm blade do not leave the other 16 levels of the machinegun thrower in the cold. When my totemist/soul eater takes a few levels of Warblade for the tiger claw bonuses to jump checks, the rest of the build isn't sent spiraling into obscurity. The ToB material is easy to dip into to make primarily non-ToB fighting builds very powerful, thus giving these classes much more power.
Cuindless 04-11-08, 08:03 PM	That's precisely my point ... they make dipping the class more attractive, but playing it less. How is class dipping not playing the class? If the use of stances and maneuvers was set up as a feat-tree progression, available as fighter bonus feats, all of a sudden the fighter becomes a 20-level class. Martial Study and Martial Stance count as bonus feats for a fighter, if I recall correctly. Instead they introduce new classes to make the old ones less desirable (except as dips) to incorporate new ideas that are poorly explained ... I don't have a problem with new classes to increase choice, but it sucks if you are playing a class and enjoying the character and all of a sudden you get sidelined by a new class that does everything you can and then some. Or to put it another way, melee classes overshadowed by casters is actually not as bad as melee classes overshadowed by newer, more powerful melee classes. Whereas I'm more of the opinion that the fighter was rendered obsolete by the Druid and the Barbarian. As far as melee classes go, there's no reason to take more than 4 levels of fighter in CORE only when other classes make you 10 times more effective. If you're playing a Druid, there's absolutely no reason to take levels of fighter whatsoever. If you're playing a ToB character, though, taking fighter levels becomes more attractive.
Callista 04-11-08, 10:17 PM	"Class dipping" means that you're taking the class for its abilities--it doesn't have much to do with your concept of the PC and the way he operates.
Cuindless 04-11-08, 10:36 PM	"Class dipping" means that you're taking the class for its abilities--it doesn't have much to do with your concept of the PC and the way he operates. Class is purely mechanical, though. It should have little effect on how the character sees himself. I could be playing any class at all and call myself a "fighter". That's a false dilemma. Class dipping simply means you're only taking a few levels in the class.
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 03:35 AM	Why is "playing the class" seen as such a virtue anyway? Is Wizard 20 somehow "holier" or "purer" than Wizard 7/Loremaster 10/Archmage 3?
kelvinaw273 04-12-08, 03:37 AM	Whereas I'm more of the opinion that the fighter was rendered obsolete by the Druid and the Barbarian. As far as melee classes go, there's no reason to take more than 4 levels of fighter in CORE only when other classes make you 10 times more effective. If you're playing a Druid, there's absolutely no reason to take levels of fighter whatsoever. If you're playing a ToB character, though, taking fighter levels becomes more attractive. The entire problem with the Fighter (or any melee class) is that they are not worth specializing in. It's worth taking a wizard or cleric to 20th level, or at least using that as a theme with various prestige classes. Yes, the Druid and the Barbarian made the fighter obsolete in an optimized game - you cannot fix things by then making it even more obsolete as a pure class. While the ToB rules allow a fighter to use feats to gain a few abilities, it's a drop in the ocean compared to what is available to the new ToB classes. It's like saying a feat that allows a single spell-like ability is makes a character the equivalent of a spell caster; it doesn't, and it doesn't fix the issue that spell casters dominate the game at mid to high level. The fighter's massive feat selection should have made them versatile in the extreme, but the limited number of feats in the core game gimped this, and the power of spells overshadow it at higher levels. What was needed was a feat system that gave several options of considerable ability at the top of the feat-tree. This was delivered in part by expanded feats in various supplements, but ToB could have capped it off nicely - and didn't. Instead the feats made the fighter more desirable as a dip class, but even less as a pure class. Then, it introduced classes that made the pure fighter even more obsolete ... I really get the feeling that ToB was not so much an attempt to fix melee classes as to try out some concepts for 4.0 and see how they worked ...
Kouk 04-12-08, 04:34 AM	I really get the feeling that ToB was not so much an attempt to fix melee classes as to try out some concepts for 4.0 and see how they worked ... Actually, they pretty much stated that it was a test for 4th edition concepts. Yes, Fighters are a bit screwed. Rather than trying to write a book to solve the Fighter class, they wrote a book that functioned on its own and did some cool things. Supplement books usually add things to a game rather than reverse-engineer the core game. There isn't really anything that can be done to "save" the 3.5 Fighter and make it a viable 20-level class. Instead, they just made melee classes which could stand up with the Wizards and Clerics, at least much more than traditional core melee classes. In 4th Edition, Fighters should be equal to all other classes, so there's that to look forward to :P
kelvinaw273 04-12-08, 07:04 AM	Actually, they pretty much stated that it was a test for 4th edition concepts. Yes, Fighters are a bit screwed. Rather than trying to write a book to solve the Fighter class, they wrote a book that functioned on its own and did some cool things. I know ... a shame, though. It isn't even difficult, a simple feat-tree would work, and work very well indeed.
Necroramo 04-12-08, 02:31 PM	While we're talking about classes that are generally ineffectual, should we complain about how the samurai is made "obsolete" by every single base class that has ever been published save itself and decry all of these? BAN SHADOWCASTERS
MrCustomer 04-12-08, 05:55 PM	1. ToB isn't overpowered, especially in light of rule #4, though some specific items might be clipped by the DM (such as those two classes) while still allowing the rest of the book. 2. Cool idea, but I never really liked that character from FF 9 that well and rarely had him in my party, I mean come on, he jumped and was gone and then hopefully came back down in time to attack the enemy before the fight was finished. 3. Imagine what that would sound like? Row, twinkle, row, twinkle, row your little star boat how I gentlly wonder down what stream you are.... I will go out on a limb here and guess your DM played EverQuest. If bards are under classed, there are several prestige classes that give them considerable power already. 4. This feat is just plain broken. 5. Well without access to TOB and with these bonuses being given to casters, it will leave your fighter in the dust. Not much you can do there unless the DM is made to see the light of day, as it were concerning rule #4
CrimsonDeath 04-12-08, 09:20 PM	Yes, the Druid and the Barbarian made the fighter obsolete in an optimized game - you cannot fix things by then making it even more obsolete as a pure class. But does making them "more obsolete" actually create a problem, or even exacerbate an existing one? If people already refuse to play Fighters because better classes exist, Tome of Battle won't make them refuse any harder. If people already play Fighters despite the fact that better classes exist, Tome of Battle won't make them stop. I know ... a shame, though. It isn't even difficult, a simple feat-tree would work, and work very well indeed. Feats have been getting added to the Fighter list for years, and it hadn't done much for them prior to Tome of Battle. The best thing to happen to the Fighter since 3rd Edition came out was the Dungeon Crasher variant from Dungeonscape-- turning it from a two-level class into a six-level class. So, just what sort of feat tree would've actually helped the Fighter out?
Cuindless 04-12-08, 10:09 PM	Why is "playing the class" seen as such a virtue anyway? Is Wizard 20 somehow "holier" or "purer" than Wizard 7/Loremaster 10/Archmage 3? You know, that's an interesting point. Take the following builds: Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5 or Focused Conjurer 5/Master Specialist 4/Mage of the Arcane Order 7/Archmage 4 No one ever looks at those and says "Hey, that's wizard dipping! You're not actually playing the class!" But if someone plays a Fighter 4/Barbarian 1/Frenzied 10/Something Else 5 then it was "a fighter dip". Classes are just mechanics. They don't represent the actual character more than what he can do.