I'm looking to build a tank that can:
- Withstand obscene amounts of punishment
- Encourage enemies to engage with me rather than squishier party members
- Make it difficult for enemies to disengage from from me to pursue squishier party members
- Redirect, deflect, or soak damage aimed at squishier party members
- Enable other melee and ranged party members to be more effective
Additionally, the party has a tendency to search every square for traps, listen at every door, and in general crawl through a dungeon the same way octogenarians make love - slow and careful to avoid breaking a hip. I want to practice the "kick in the door" school of trapfinding to keep the action moving, so I want to be able to shrug off - or at least survive - as many kinds of nastiness as possible. Being able to see it coming so I can be ready for it (high spot/listen) is gravy, but not required.
Damage output is a secondary concern, as is mobility above and beyond putting myself in harms way to keep key party members out of harms way. A few non-combat, utility abilities - maybe crafting, something social, or investigative type skills - would keep me engaged in play outside of combat.
We're starting at first level and might not get to high-level play, so I'll need to be effective early and attain a degree of build-maturity by 10th level at the latest.
Here are my build options:
- Ability Scores - 36 point buy
- Race - one hit die, any level adjustment. LA buyoff will either be unavailable or very expensive, so I'd shy away from anything above a very strong +2. I'm leaning towards dwarf or human, but I'm open to suggestions.
- Starting gear - A robe, a quarter staff, and a pocket full of gold. Any suggested equipment will have to be purchased in play.
- Source Material - All non-setting-specific, WotC published core books and supplements except UA. Options from UA, Dragon Magazine, setting-specific sources, or 3rd party publishers need DM approval before I can use them.
- Psionics - treated as an alternate form of magic.
- Alignment - anything is allowable, but I usually favor NG.
- Class - no paladins or other classes that might cause non-fluff alignment conflicts.
This is a demand from the party rather than the DM. Fighter/cleric types have always served me well. I'm willing to explore possibilities from ToB, but haven't had a chance to play with them before so they are unfamiliar to me.
Given these parameters, does the board have any sage advice, guidance, sarcasm, abuse, or existential ennui for me?
Thanks,
D
Warblades (and Swordsages) get these cool maneuvers that let them replace a Reflex save with a Concentration check. This is pretty good against traps. Rogues are out there splashing one level with this thing. Factotums can pull it off as well, but that's not the point.
The point is that we can play a Crusader with Stone Power and be a beastly tank over just the right levels.
How cheesy is too cheesy with the trippy thing? Is it cheesy to have a reach weapon? One could just do the AoO thing instead of tripping. It's a vaguely similar strategy. Personally I like to have the tactical option to trip stuff here and there, without optimizing too much for it. Just enough to down Medium-sized dudes here and there. Nothing cheesier than the Tanglefoot Bag on the belt pouch.
We could use Mage Slayer and related feats.
Have you ever tried a Knight/Crusader?
Seconded. It fits the idea perfectly.
Also, Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator is a good class combo for this style. You've got plenty of support power, plenty of tanking power and are a nasty threat in melee. The best way to use this is a reach weapon + armor spikes + Thicket of Blades + Combat Reflexes (with a med. DEX score).
For more magic: Crusader 1/Cleric 4/RKV 5 (8th-level Cleric casting, so 4th-level spells)
For more combat/maneuvers: Crusader 4/Cleric 1/RKV 5 (5th-level Cleric casting, so 3rd-level spells)
These are just the easiest/simplest ways to enter the class. You can also try to keep them more balanced out, but I would suggest taking 2 Cleric levels before taking another Crusader.
(I'm currently playing a Crusader/Cleric, going for RKV, and really enjoying it. If you will be facing Humanoid opponents, the ranseur is a good reach weapon, and allows you free disarms. Less cheesy than trips, but still very effective. And if you focus on White Raven and buff spells, you are always helping out your party.)
If you wish to tank through uber DPS, check under the Hood. If you instead like great versatility, go Druid20.
I've been searching the forums for ideas on building a versatile tank, but most of the information I've found focuses on tripping - optimized to the point of cheesiness. My DM is not a fan of cheese (hence the lactose-intolerance in the title), and has asked that the party avoid creating a bunch of hyper-optimized one-trick ponies. If I go with an optimized lockdown build or something similar, no amount of bribing the DM with food will keep my character alive. :P
I'm looking to build a tank that can:
- Withstand obscene amounts of punishment
- Encourage enemies to engage with me rather than squishier party members
- Make it difficult for enemies to disengage from from me to pursue squishier party members
- Redirect, deflect, or soak damage aimed at squishier party members
- Enable other melee and ranged party members to be more effective
Additionally, the party has a tendency to search every square for traps, listen at every door, and in general crawl through a dungeon the same way octogenarians make love - slow and careful to avoid breaking a hip. I want to practice the "kick in the door" school of trapfinding to keep the action moving, so I want to be able to shrug off - or at least survive - as many kinds of nastiness as possible. Being able to see it coming so I can be ready for it (high spot/listen) is gravy, but not required.
Damage output is a secondary concern, as is mobility above and beyond putting myself in harms way to keep key party members out of harms way. A few non-combat, utility abilities - maybe crafting, something social, or investigative type skills - would keep me engaged in play outside of combat.
We're starting at first level and might not get to high-level play, so I'll need to be effective early and attain a degree of build-maturity by 10th level at the latest.
Here are my build options:
- Ability Scores - 36 point buy
- Race - one hit die, any level adjustment. LA buyoff will either be unavailable or very expensive, so I'd shy away from anything above a very strong +2. I'm leaning towards dwarf or human, but I'm open to suggestions.
- Starting gear - A robe, a quarter staff, and a pocket full of gold. Any suggested equipment will have to be purchased in play.
- Source Material - All non-setting-specific, WotC published core books and supplements except UA. Options from UA, Dragon Magazine, setting-specific sources, or 3rd party publishers need DM approval before I can use them.
- Psionics - treated as an alternate form of magic.
- Alignment - anything is allowable, but I usually favor NG.
- Class - no paladins or other classes that might cause non-fluff alignment conflicts.
Given these parameters, does the board have any sage advice, guidance, sarcasm, abuse, or existential ennui for me?
Thanks,
D
Yeah if your DM dislikes cheese, check with him before looking at ToB, it's banned by about 3/4's of the DM's I know and for good reason. What you described I'd actually go with a Battle Cleric, either a WarPriest (DMG) or a Knight of the Raven (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft). If your DM allows Knight of the Raven I'd go for it, 9/10 casting, 10/10 BAB, d10 HP, and some cool abilities and a really neat Raven familiar (which also gets cool abilities). Cleric 5/ Knight of the Raven 10/ Warpriest 5. Beef up your CON and WIS and get a nice set up Full Plate. Buff up with spells like Shield of Faith, Aid, Bless, Divine Power, Righteous Might; then help out the other PC's with spells like Shield Other, Dispel Magic, Prayer, Mass Aid, Recitation, Magic Circle Against XX, and of course Cure Spells. Later levels you get nice offensive spells like Slay Living, Destruction and Blade Barrier too.
If you really want a tank of all tanks I'd check out Warforged (Eberron) again if you're DM will allow it I'd go Barbarian 1/Fighter 4/Warforged Juggernaut 4/ Barbarian 11. If your DM will allow it take Whirling Frenzy instead of Rage out of UA (get one extra attack on a full attack, +4 str, +2 reflex, +2 AC instead of rage abilites), and Lion Totem out of Complete Champion to get Pounce (Full Attack on a charge). Warforged Juggernaut makes you more like a construct so you're pretty much immune to everything - but you can't be healed. Which means you'll need a mage in the party to cast Repair XX Damage on you via wands or max out your Use Magic Device skill and use them on your own. They deal lots of damage and have a +2 Con, with all those levels in Barb your HP will be insane, you also get DR 2/adamantine from Warforged Juggernaut.
Hope this helps good luck.
Given these parameters, does the board have any sage advice, guidance, sarcasm, abuse, or existential ennui for me?
Thanks,
D
Well depending on what type of campaign you are being engaged in there are some different options.
As people have mentioned previously, TOB material is exceedingly effective for tanking (I happen to love the deepwarden sentinel). But if you can't swing that past your GM and am playing in a more traditional fantasy game than a simple dwarven knight/ranger going into DeepWarden (races of stone) may prove useful (for both tanking & avoiding pitfalls).
But if you're looking for something perhaps more unconventional than I would suggest the possibility of an urban barbarian (utilizing the cityscape web enhancement and other alternate class features) which would give you a sort of Marv from Sin City-like bruiser who could move around the battlefield taking down foes, protect when he needed to, provide social support in the way of intimidation & knowledge of the streets as well as being able to kick in the door (you'd be able to disarm traps by hitting them...).
What will end up being the biggest deciding factor though is what type of game your engaged in and how you want to fit into it.
Yeah if your DM dislikes cheese, check with him before looking at ToB, it's banned by about 3/4's of the DM's I know and for good reason. What you described I'd actually go with a Battle Cleric, ...
While DMs may have reservations regarding ToB, I'd dispute it's "for good reason". Most of the ToB discussion threads on these forums showed that such attitudes are generally caused by a lack of understanding of the material (both rules and flavor).
Also, you are implying that ToB is cheesy, and then you are suggesting CoDzilla instead. That doesn't compute.
and in general crawl through a dungeon the same way octogenarians make love - slow and careful to avoid breaking a hip.
I'll cast another vote for Crusader.
At level 1, get a reach weapon (glaive) and the Iron Guard's Glare stance : enemies within your reach are at -4 to attack your allies.
Also get Crusader's Strike to heal yourself or an ally 1d6+1.
Check out the "Tome of Battle for Dummies" thread for more in-depth information.
+1 Crusader- it does exactly what you describe, you have moves that FORCE enemies to attack you, and a steady supply of health- Ruby Knight Vindicator might be considered cheesy as a Cleric is by nature already as powerful as a character ever needs to be and the ruby knight makes it better.
Of course, this depends on you definition of cheese, my DM has banned druids ever since I cast Bite of the Werebear on my wildshaped Arcane heirophant (bard other side, with some levels in Fochlucan lyrist-I didn't quite grasp the theurge problem when I built the character)
It looks like the concensus is to go with Crusader, so I think I'll give it a try. Ruby Knight Vindicator looks interesting too, and it' plays into the fighter/cleric type I'd like to play.
If the character gets broken enough that the DM kills him off or makes him an NPC, I'll try a knight instead.
Yeah if your DM dislikes cheese, check with him before looking at ToB, it's banned by about 3/4's of the DM's I know and for good reason.
Do they also ban wizards, clerics and druids? :P
Do they also ban wizards, clerics and druids? :P
Jah, that was my first thought as well. ToB ain't exactly the most broken book in the world, particularly in comparison to well... the PHB. Oh it has its cheese but overall the book is well written for WotC work.
Lol you guys can ***** and moan all you want, it's not going to change my or others thoughts on ToB
Heh, while there are quite a few people here who disagree with you, I see none who agreed. To be honest, I've only had one DM claim the ToB was cheesy (in comparison to other books) and it was his first time DMing. Does the book have some cheese? Absolutely, but not as much as many other books. If I was going down a list banning things from most powerful to least, I'd do a lot of work in Core before getting to ToB.
Likely, DMs ban ToB because it's something new to learn, an additional expense, or/and they believe class balance is mostly OK.
Lol you guys can ***** and moan all you want, it's not going to change my or others thoughts on ToB
Arguments are to be avoided. They are vulgar and almost always convincing.
Lol you guys can ***** and moan all you want, it's not going to change my or others thoughts on ToB
Yeah, because non-fullcasters can't have nice things.... But, you're SO right. I have never seen anyone who has already made their mind about ToB change that, ever afterwards... and, it's very okay not to use it.
I do, however, get a bit peeved when people decide not to use it for stupid reasons, especially if it's readily available for them.
Heh, while there are quite a few people here who disagree with you, I see none who agreed. To be honest, I've only had one DM claim the ToB was cheesy (in comparison to other books) and it was his first time DMing. Does the book have some cheese? Absolutely, but not as much as many other books. If I was going down a list banning things from most powerful to least, I'd do a lot of work in Core before getting to ToB.
Actually, I agree with him. No need to get sarcastic. All he was saying was that DeePCedure should check with his DM first.
To Be Honest: I agree with him for the fact TOB ruins Fighter/Ranger and Barbarian classes (maybe not so much the Barbarian though). TOB is far too 4.0 for me. I don't like how you continue to increase in abilities as you increase in level which aren't levels of the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader (personally I wouldn't allow a Crusader in a non-cheese game as it is the worst of the 3). You may as well allow all classes to benefit from new level-based abilities even though you take a PrC and get benefits from that.
No need to ban it though. Just play with it and ban those aspects of it you dislike or think are too cheesy. Just as DM's ban particular spells because they are just too much hard work.
I know the arguments. I've read the threads. This is my personal opinion and To Be Honest I question why those of you who use the TOB as a staple for Warrior classes (and I bet you don't use the PHB 3 classes often/ever anymore) haven't migrated to 4.0 as it is obviously geared toward you???
BUT. I also agree with Senevri. It's there, so use it if you like it.
Sorry for piping in, but I hate to see some-one being picked to pieces by others with no-one else willing/strong enough to voice their opinions as well when so many are against them. Not many would want to go against the wall of opposition would they.
I question why those of you who use the TOB as a staple for Warrior classes (and I bet you don't use the PHB 3 classes often/ever anymore) haven't migrated to 4.0 as it is obviously geared toward you???
Because 4e took the best bits of ToB and threw it in a blender?
To Be Honest: I agree with him for the fact TOB ruins Fighter/Ranger
You mean the classes that were at the bottom of the tier system? Outdoing them isn't hard, nor is it an achievement.
Barbarian outdoes the Fighter. Druid outdoes the Ranger by a margin of "it's not even funny anymore".
To Be Honest: I wonder if you've actually been paying attention while reading threads.
To Be Honest: I agree with him for the fact TOB ruins Fighter/Ranger and Barbarian classes (maybe not so much the Barbarian though).
If by ruin, you mean make less caster dependent, than you're right.
I don't like how you continue to increase in abilities as you increase in level which aren't levels of the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader
huh? By that logic, you wouldn't like wizards because you can't gain wizard abilities by leveling up a rogue.
To Be Honest I question why those of you who use the TOB as a staple for Warrior classes (and I bet you don't use the PHB 3 classes often/ever anymore) haven't migrated to 4.0 as it is obviously geared toward you???
That's so fallacious it accidentally my whole brain.
In regards to a tank, I'd say +1 to Phaedrus, ardents can be great tanks if you watch your PP, as can warminds.
Because 4e took the best bits of ToB and threw it in a blender?
Lol, yes they certainly stuffed up 4.0. I played a game in the weekend and it was horrific.
You mean the classes that were at the bottom of the tier system? Outdoing them isn't hard, nor is it an achievement.
They are at the bottom for good reason. But they play well due to their simplicity. They don't have the firepower of other classes because they aren't supposed to be as powerful which is what Warrior classes were designed for but the TOB changes this considerably.
Barbarian outdoes the Fighter. Druid outdoes the Ranger by a margin of "it's not even funny anymore".
Agreed
To Be Honest: I wonder if you've actually been paying attention while reading threads.
I've read many of your posts in the past Dandu which I've respected, so I will bite back my comments on this statement.
If by ruin, you mean make less caster dependent, than you're right.
Casters are the strongest Characters. Everyone knows this. Compare a man with a Sword and a man with a Shotgun. Who is a stronger combatant? TOB gives the man with the sword several pistols which may not be as strong as the shotgun but are not in keeping with how that person fights.
huh? By that logic, you wouldn't like wizards because you can't gain wizard abilities by levelling up a rogue.
No you've taken that wrong. I take a PrC that will increase my spell casting and do not get the benefits of Wizard class abilities as I get those of the PrC.
That's so fallacious it accidentally my whole brain.
It accidently what your whole brain? Miss a word maybe? When using big words and sarcasm, please do not make mistakes.
In regards to a tank, I'd say +1 to Phaedrus, ardents can be great tanks if you watch your PP, as can warminds.
Agreed.
This breaks away from the initial comment which everybody ignored. Mister_Crowley was making a valid point, which was that DeePCedure should check with his DM first, as it is not uncommon for DM's dislike the TOB. Does this deserve to have you all jump on him? I think not.
They are at the bottom for good reason.
"Because WotC messed up class design big time" is not a good reason.
I've read many of your posts in the past Dandu which I've respected, so I will bite back my comments on this statement.
Apologies, but that was a really poor showing when you posted "why don't you all just go play 4e if you like TOB so much".
If you keep that up, we will get our own game. With beer, and hookers.
If you keep that up, we will get our own game. With beer, and hookers.
Awesome
And you're not invited.
Lol well that ruins the party for me..Meanwhile, if the OP wants to know more about tanks, I suggest the following links:
Panzer Leader
Afrika Korps
Best Tank of WW2
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (This one might be considered cheese though. The thing's powered by a friggin' jet engine.)
Actually, I agree with him. No need to get sarcastic. All he was saying was that DeePCedure should check with his DM first.
You may want to check the definition of sarcasm. For now though, allow me to reassure you it's what I wasn't doing.
Actually my comment simply pointed out the fallacy of his implication of people in this thread thinking the ToB was cheesy and noted my experiences.
To Be Honest: I agree with him for the fact TOB ruins Fighter/Ranger and Barbarian classes (maybe not so much the Barbarian though). TOB is far too 4.0 for me. I don't like how you continue to increase in abilities as you increase in level which aren't levels of the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader (personally I wouldn't allow a Crusader in a non-cheese game as it is the worst of the 3). You may as well allow all classes to benefit from new level-based abilities even though you take a PrC and get benefits from that.
I'm going to assume you mean ToB makes playing core melee impossible. However, implying that having alternative semi pre optimized melee classes available hardly "ruins" core classes. They ruin themselves (and always have) for casual use. Which isn't to say they're unplayable, just that it's going to require more effort to be proficient with them whether ToB is used or not.
As for IL, it may be consistent only in the ToB but similar concepts are scattered all over 3.5. I don't particularly feel one way or the other about the concept myself.
I know the arguments. I've read the threads. This is my personal opinion and To Be Honest I question why those of you who use the TOB as a staple for Warrior classes (and I bet you don't use the PHB 3 classes often/ever anymore) haven't migrated to 4.0 as it is obviously geared toward you???
Do you really? Your main claim here seems to be that ToB should not be allowed because it doesn't suck as much as Fighters/Rangers/Barbs. By that standard, you shouldn't allow most core content, forget supplements.
Also, the random insulting references to us supposedly liking 4E (Which, since you seem fascinated by my attitude is something like kill it with fire), are kinda pointless. Even if 4E derived some inspiration from ToB it's not just mangled, it's like they used rot grown from the dead body. If you're going to present a serious argument, I recommend laying off on that.
Sorry for piping in, but I hate to see some-one being picked to pieces by others with no-one else willing/strong enough to voice their opinions as well when so many are against them. Not many would want to go against the wall of opposition would they.
Right. Picked to pieces. He claimed something, and implied people agreed. I pointed out that they didn't and added that almost no one else I knew did either. Very one sided, responding to his statement and all.
If you really want to present arguments that ToB is more cheesy than casters, or other books go ahead.
Lol, yes they certainly stuffed up 4.0. I played a game in the weekend and it was horrific.
No really?
... Ok, that was pure sarcasm, 4E brings out the worst in me even now, long after I first read/played that abomination.
They are at the bottom for good reason. But they play well due to their simplicity. They don't have the firepower of other classes because they aren't supposed to be as powerful which is what Warrior classes were designed for but the TOB changes this considerably.
How do they play well? I could see an argument that Rogue plays well, based on SA dice and skills but a Fighter? It not only doesn't play well, it doesn't play at all without a certain level of optimization. It's simply non functional in its supposed role without careful work.
That said, I like the implication that people whacking things with a metal stick shouldn't be as powerful as beings playing with the forces of creation. In fact, I agree. Sadly though on a practical level this isn't so reasonable, and even by that standard melee classes don't do what they're supposed to for the most part in core.
Casters are the strongest Characters. Everyone knows this. Compare a man with a Sword and a man with a Shotgun. Who is a stronger combatant? TOB gives the man with the sword several pistols which may not be as strong as the shotgun but are not in keeping with how that person fights.
I've already stated I agree with this in principal if not in practice, but as written the man with the sword can't even use it well. That said, ToB is as I view it less of a supplement for the man with the sword and more of a new type of man who has all those pistols. It's a form of caster, not a form of non magical combatant.
It accidently what your whole brain? Miss a word maybe? When using big words and sarcasm, please do not make mistakes.
Internet meme.
Also, on a last note I play the ToB and core melee classes in about equal proportions. Why? Because they're different, and unlike a casual player I'm perfectly capable of designing a Fighter which is able to do its job. It might not be a caster, but it has its own uses.
It accidently what your whole brain? Miss a word maybe? When using big words and sarcasm, please do not make mistakes.
With this simple statement, I know that I can ignore you and not miss a thing.
Also, you misspelled accidentALly.
How do they play well? I could see an argument that Rogue plays well, based on SA dice and skills but a Fighter? It not only doesn't play well, it doesn't play at all without a certain level of optimization. It's simply non functional in its supposed role without careful work.
Jack B Quick is an example of a well optimised fighter build.
However I do like your line of thinking that TOB classes are alternative forms of casters.
As for DM's not liking TOB. Brand new thread today.. Read what is stated re TOB You can go and find many other threads that are similar if you wish?
I'll admit I was out of line (being an Ass more to the point) re the 4e and TOB call as Dandu rightly pointed out.
With this simple statement, I know that I can ignore you and not miss a thing.
Also, you misspelled accidentALly.
Lol touche'
I see your response was delayed due to cloggage in the tubes.
Clearly done by Al Gore. We all know he's responsible for the internet after all.
Jack B Quick is an example of a well optimised fighter build.
Absolutely, like I said Fighters are perfectly playable with some decent optimization (I'm fond of that style myself in fact.)
As for DM's not liking TOB. Brand new thread today.. Read what is stated re TOB You can go and find many other threads that are similar if you wish?
I don't deny that they occur, but personally as I said I only had it occur once. Although I do know a few people who are flat out to lazy to read the ToB.
I'll admit I was out of line (being an Ass more to the point) re the 4e and TOB call as Dandu rightly pointed out.
**** happens. At least it gave me an excuse to make a semi long post, and stop rereading Mage: The Awakening.
Clearly done by Al Gore. We all know he's responsible for the internet after all.
But what's he clogging it with?
That worries me?
As for DM's not liking TOB. Brand new thread today.. Read what is stated re TOB You can go and find many other threads that are similar if you wish?
He also banned Psionics, so either the DM is running a mostly core game iwth a light touch of SpC and Mic, so it might just be because he can't wrap his head around new paradigms just yet rather than disliking it.
Or he's one of those people that go "omg psionics and tob is teh brozkenz!!1!" in which case I would like access to the Ion cannon and his home address.
But what's he clogging it with?
That worries me?
Internet memes clearly.
Actually my comment simply pointed out the fallacy of his implication of people in this thread thinking the ToB was cheesy and noted my experiences.
Um re-re-re read my post. No where does it say implicitly or explicitly that anyone in this thread other than myself thinks ToB is cheesy. I think ToB of is cheesy. That is my opinion. It is not a fallacy. It is not an argument. You guys might as well start up a thread of whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.
I did note however that most DM's I know don't allow it. This of course has no bearing on my own opinion of the book. I could be the only one on this planet who bans that book and I would be fine with it.
Sword Disciple had some good points, for one it does make making a Ranger or Fighter or Knight obsolete. Then you guys come back with well they're only Tier 3 - shut up with your tier BS already. This is a roleplaying game, not some hack and slash video game like WOW. If someone has it in his head to play a fighter 20 or one of your "low" tier classes, then let him. Don't come along and gently pat him on the back and say, "well Jimmy, you're class is only a tier 4 class, you shouldn't except much out of it."
You guys might as well start up a thread of whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.
Please. Americone Dream.
Sword Disciple had some good points, for one is does make making a Ranger or Fighter or Knight obsolete. Then you guys come back with well they're only Tier 3 - shut up with your tier BS already. This is a roleplaying game, not some hack and slash video game like WOW.
It's a roleplaying game. There is a roleplaying aspect to it, and there is a gaming aspect to it. You are on a forum dedicated to the gaming part of the experience. What do you think we talk about here, how to best roleplay Fighter McFighter?
That belongs in the forum below this one, Character Development.
If someone has it in his head to play a fighter 20 or one of your "low" tier classes, then let him.
We do.
Don't come along and gently pat him on the back and say, "well Jimmy, you're class is only a tier 4 class, you shouldn't except much out of it."
While we try to help him build the damn character to the best of its effectiveness, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the mechanical limitations of the class.
Thanks.
Um re-re-re read my post. No where does it say implicitly or explicitly that anyone in this thread other than myself thinks ToB is cheesy. I think ToB of is cheesy. That is my opinion. It is not a fallacy. It is not an argument. You guys might as well start up a thread of whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.
You said it wasn't going to change you or others opinions. You were the only one here at that time.
Edit: Dandu is over 9000... Obligatory internet meme for posting faster than me, again.
Back to the topic, what combination of Knight and Crusader do people feel is most optimal?
While we try to help him build the damn character to the best of its effectiveness, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the mechanical limitations of the class.
That again is your opinion, not fact. Thanks.
That again is your opinion, not fact. Thanks.
While it may be his opinion it still contains some amount of truth within it. A pure twentieth level fighter gains 18 feats and 40 skill points over his adventuring career. Now to say this is mechanically sufficient in the face of the warblade, who gains 7 feats (24 if you consider maneuvers & stances to simulate feats), actual class abilities and 92 skill points over his adventuring career, is pulling at weak strings.
It is mechanically superior to select a warblade over a fighter because of the mechanical stipulations of the fighter class.
So I'll phrase the question, why would you ever choose the fighter over the warblade?
It is mechanically superior to select a warblade over a fighter because of the mechanical stipulations of the fighter class.
Wrong again. There is a lot of opinion that a Warblade is "mechanically" superior to a Fighter, but that is not a fact. Also skill points do equal power, look at your "tier 1" classes of wizard, cleric, sorcerer etc all have 2 skill points per level. Also how would you quantify feats not being better than stances/manuevers? The answer is that there is really no concrete way to do so.
So I'll phrase the question, why would you ever choose the fighter over the warblade?
Well since the campaign I play in has banned ToB and the games I DM I also ban ToB I would say yes I would play a fighter over a warblade :P
That again is your opinion, not fact. Thanks.
That is again your opinion, not a fact. Thanks.
Wrong again. There is a lot of opinion that a Warblade is "mechanically" superior to a Fighter, but that is not a fact.
Yeah if your DM dislikes cheese, check with him before looking at ToB, it's banned by about 3/4's of the DM's I know and for good reason.
Doublethink is rightthought because it is ++good.
Wrong again. There is a lot of opinion that a Warblade is "mechanically" superior to a Fighter, but that is not a fact. Also skill points do equal power, look at your "tier 1" classes of wizard, cleric, sorcerer etc all have 2 skill points per level. Also how would you quantify feats not being better than stances/manuevers? The answer is that there is really no concrete way to do so.
The 'tier 1' spellcasters don't need skill points as much to shift the scale of power. The warblade may have a strong aptitude in combat but he isn't going to competing with the guys that can summon titans & stop time.
As for the whole feats/maneuvers thing, well maneuvers are better than feats. I'll attribute this opinion to the fact that you can swap out old maneuvers for new ones, constantly allowing your warrior to be upping his game and not using 'old' tools.
Now I can understand if you want to shift this into a philosophical argument of "nothing is fact and all is opinion," but you're going to sooner or later address that the warblade as bigger toys to play with than the fighter.
Well since the campaign I play in has banned ToB and the games I DM I also ban ToB I would say yes I would play a fighter over a warblade :P
In the above situation you are without choice so it isn't a valid example.
Your response needs more snark.
I have but realizes this....
....rawr!
Well since the campaign I play in has banned ToB and the games I DM I also ban ToB I would say yes I would play a fighter over a warblade :P
Since you don't have a choice in this case, it doesn't answer the question.
I run a LOT of games, and generally allow ToB. ToB hasn't seriously imbalanced any game I've run, and everyone seems to really enjoy their warblades and crusaders and swordsages. Out of around 20 players, I've had one guy ask me to stop banning fighter. I stopped, and he still hasn't made one.
While facts is not the plural of anecdote, supporting evidence is the anonymous collective noun for the plural of anecdote.
I don't think ToB > Ranger at all. A Mystic Ranger with the spells from Spell Compendium is pretty damn powerful, specially at the low to mid levels!
True. For archery, I'd also argue that even the regular ranger / swift hunter > ToB.
In the above situation you are without choice so it isn't a valid example.
Since you don't have a choice in this case, it doesn't answer the question.
Wrong again! Since I choose to play in campaigns that don't use ToB, and I choose to ban the book when I DM I do have a choice. Neither of you would make good lawyers ;)
Just to shut you both up my last campaign allowed ToB and I played a fighter/barbarian/disciple of thyrm so yes you could say I had a choice to play a warblade and chose a fighter instead.
Oh, and your post is not a fact but an opinion.
And no response to this?
Wrong again. There is a lot of opinion that a Warblade is "mechanically" superior to a Fighter, but that is not a fact.
Yeah if your DM dislikes cheese, check with him before looking at ToB, it's banned by about 3/4's of the DM's I know and for good reason.
So ToB is cheese... but the Warblade is not mechanically superior to the Fighter... so the only logical conclusion is that the Warblade's fluff is far cheesier than that of the fighter.
Am I right so far? Because I see no other way to reconcile your opinion that the Warblade is not mechanically superior to the Fighter with your belief that ToB is cheesy.
dwarf barbarian (whirling frenzy and pounce variants) 4/Fist of the Forest 1 / deepwarden 2 / bear warrior 5 / warshaper 5 / dwarf paragon 3
you may want to swap 2 levels of barbarian for 2 levels of fighter because this is very feat intensive. but essentially, pick up extra rage, get CON to AC twice and turn into a freakin' bear to eat face. shocktrooper goes very nicely with unarmed strike and natural weapons.
obviously you'll want to max con out at character creation. bear warrior gives you plenty of strength, so you can get by with 14-16.
endurance and steadfast determination will help your sucky will save.
Wrong again! Since I choose to play in campaigns that don't use ToB, and I choose to ban the book when I DM I do have a choice. Neither of you would make good lawyers ;)
So you compliantly indulge in ignorance? Simply avoiding an issue doesn't make it disappear.
In addition, you haven't been actually giving any evidence to support your claims. You simply wish away all opposition to you point of view.
Your Claim
Wrong again. There is a lot of opinion that a Warblade is "mechanically" superior to a Fighter, but that is not a fact. Also skill points do equal power, look at your "tier 1" classes of wizard, cleric, sorcerer etc all have 2 skill points per level. Also how would you quantify feats not being better than stances/manuevers? The answer is that there is really no concrete way to do so.
Can you support this claim? Can you offer up anything except saying, "Nuh uh," because until you can you're not looking like too terrific a lawyer.
Just to shut you both up my last campaign allowed ToB and I played a fighter/barbarian/disciple of thyrm so yes you could say I had a choice to play a warblade and chose a fighter instead.
You chose to play an inferior character most likely...
I second riddles suggestion.
It certainly does the wildman archetype well.
Dwarf Druid 1, Monk 2/ Barbarian 1 (Lion Totem for Pounce)/ Dwarf Paragon 3/ Deepwarden 2/ Fighter 1/ Sentinel of Bharrai 2/ Fist of the Forest 1 / Sentinel of Bharrai 7
36pt buy and levels give (Base/Final)
12 Str: 13
08 Dex: 08
20 Con: 26
14 Int: 14
16 Wis: 16
06 Cha: 06
Hp:256
Feats: Ordered Chaos, Combat Reflexes, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Power Attack, Track, Sacred Vow, Vow of Obedience, plus two free
Dwarf Abilities plus
10th level Druid casting,
Flurry,
Energy Resistance Acid, Cold, Electricity and Fire 10,
Con to AC twice +16, Wis to AC +3,
Evasion,
Bear Shape (Black, Brown, Polar and Dire) at will for as long as you wish. You can also Rage in this form,
Quickened Call Lightning 1/day - 10 bolts,
Natures Veil,
Lay on hands up to total HP - 256,
Cavalry of Bears - 1/week call 1d6 Dire Bears with max HP to fight for you,
Feral Trance,
Pounce.
Without templates etc, just class abilities
Combat in Dire Bear Form and Rage for 35 Str. Grapple people and rip them up with a +35 Grapple check. Use Druid spells to buff yourself. Maybe get Natural Spell Feat to cast while shifted.
:D
Then take Knockdown so you get a free trip attempt at an enemy every time you hit him for 10 or more damage. Combined with Improved Trip, which lets you take a free attack every time you trip someone, and the fact that you can Pounce, you should get a lot of attacks.
Your other free feat should be Steadfast Determination in order to make up for Will Saves.
I'd ditch Dwarf Paragon for three additional fighter levels. This allows you access to the Dungeoncrasher ACF and an extra feat. I recommend Improved Bull Rush.
Hm. Now only if you could work in Robiliar's Gambit and Karmic Strike...
Take the Passive Way monk and you'll net Combat Expertise and Improved Trip in 2 levels. Take the Decisive Blow ACF for a good AoO build. (Full round action, one attack, doubles all damage dealt by your melee attacks until the start of your next round)
Then take Knockdown so you get a free trip attempt at an enemy every time you hit him for 10 or more damage. Combined with Improved Trip, which lets you take a free attack every time you trip someone, and the fact that you can Pounce, you should get a lot of attacks....
I like this, but you would need to boost the dex some-how (item with wildshaping clasp maybe?)
Your other free feat should be Steadfast Determination in order to make up for Will Saves.
Will save is +18 or +20 while Raging
I'd ditch Dwarf Paragon for three additional fighter levels. This allows you access to the Dungeoncrasher ACF and an extra feat. I recommend Improved Bull Rush.
Dungeoncrasher needs 6 levels of fighter and you need that extra feat to get Power Attack for FOTF
Hm. Now only if you could work in Robiliar's Gambit and Karmic Strike...
Robilars can certainly be added! This was really just an idea for the OP. High HP's and being able to call a small army of Dire Bears could be fun
But great ideas!I like this, but you would need to boost the dex some-how (item with wildshaping clasp maybe?)
Buy a 16 in Con, put a 14 in Dex. You have Combat Reflexes, do you not?
And then you can afford a 14 strength too.
14, 14, 16, 10, 16, 8 can be done in 32 point buy.
Will save is +18 or +20 while Raging
If you think that's good enough.
Dungeoncrasher needs 6 levels of fighter and you need that extra feat to get Power Attack for FOTF
Dungeoncrasher is at fighter level 2. Improved Dungeoncrasher shows up at fighter level 6.
A 4th level fighter, which is what I'm suggesting you replace Dwarf Paragon with, gets dungeoncrasher and 2 feats. That's good enough.
Hmm. True, +30 like the Fort save is probably better
The reason I like the Dwarf Paragon is the bonus of +2 to con. Upon further thought you could try and rearrange to add 2 levels of Fighter for Dungeoncrasher and 2 levels of Warshaper which would net a +4 to Str and Con. What do you think?
Keep in mind that you want to be versatile, and having a few less points in Con won't kill you.
The Street Savage: Male Human Lion Totem Barbarian 20; Medium humanoid (human); HD 20d12+5; hp 245; Init +2; Spd 30 ft.; AC 12 (-0 ACP), touch 12, flat-footed 10; Base Atk +20; Grp +23; Atk +23/+18/+13/+8 melee (1d4+3/13-20x2; kukri); SA Ferocity (6/day; 11 rounds), Pounce; SQ Improved Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense +6, Streetfighter; AL NG; SV Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +6; Str 16 (+1 at 4th), Dex 14, Con 20 (+1 at 8th, 12th, 16th & 20th), Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 12.
Skills (using Skilled City-Dweller), Skill Tricks and Feats: Gather Information +26, Intimidate +22, Jump +28, Knowledge (Local) +23, Listen +23, Sense Motive +23, Speak (Common, Goblin & Orc) and Tumble +27; Never Outnumbered; Dreadful Wrath [1st], Power Attack [H], Urban Tracking [3rd], Improved Bull Rush [6th], Improved Critical (Kukri) [9th], Shocktrooper [12th], Leap Attack [15th], Standstill [18th]
You know, I have the sneaking suspecioun that the "you" used in the sentence was an impersonal, rhetocial, abstract you, rather than being directed at the entity known as Crowley.
Oh, and your post is not a fact but an opinion.
And no response to this?
So ToB is cheese... but the Warblade is not mechanically superior to the Fighter... so the only logical conclusion is that the Warblade's fluff is far cheesier than that of the fighter.
Am I right so far? Because I see no other way to reconcile your opinion that the Warblade is not mechanically superior to the Fighter with your belief that ToB is cheesy.
Where do I begin..... Those two statements I made really have nothing to do with each other. You are assuming that Warblade=everything in ToB, which obviously is wrong. There is lots of cheese in ToB (RKV among others) but instead allowing the non-cheesy ToB classes I just ban the whole book, easier that way.
I'm saying there's no concrete proof or evidence that the Warblade is mechanically superior to a fighter in game terms. That's all.
So you compliantly indulge in ignorance? Simply avoiding an issue doesn't make it disappear. ...
really? are you sure?
In addition, you haven't been actually giving any evidence to support your claims. You simply wish away all opposition to you point of view.
Your Claim
Um genius look at my above post. I'm simply saying there's really no way to prove that a Warblade is mechanically better than a fighter. If you find a scientific way let me know
Can you support this claim? Can you offer up anything except saying, "Nuh uh," because until you can you're not looking like too terrific a lawyer.
I don't need to support the claim, all I have to do is point out that there's no possible way you can support yours. It's done all the time in court
You chose to play an inferior character most likely...
Nuh uh :P
There is lots of cheese in ToB (RKV among others) but instead allowing the non-cheesy ToB classes I just ban the whole book, easier that way.
I knew this one German guy who was a total jerk so I just don't hangout with any Germans at all, easier that way right?
Um genius look at my above post. I'm simply saying there's really no way to prove that a Warblade is mechanically better than a fighter. If you find a scientific way let me know
Let's see how I can possibly break this down...
So the fighter and the warblade both have one ideal purpose, killin' things. So, let's use a visual aid perhaps.
This is the fighter
And this is the warblade
Both of them can kill but obviously one has more options and is more effective at it's purpose.
Now you may shrug off this opinion and I would gently ask you to look around and gauge the communities opinion regarding the issue. Do you believe all of us happen to be crazy or something?
really? are you sure?
Um genius look at my above post. I'm simply saying there's really no way to prove that a Warblade is mechanically better than a fighter. If you find a scientific way let me know
I don't need to support the claim, all I have to do is point out that there's no possible way you can support yours. It's done all the time in court
Nuh uh :P
Frankly, the way you make your claims decreases the over-all credibility of your cause. The best thing you can do for your own side of the argument is lay off, be polite, and treat other people with more respect. I try really hard to remain impartial, but dude, this is totally uncalled for.
Probably uncalled for on both sides, but yours just happened to be the one that caught my attention. Look, community opinion isn't just a bunch of chock-a-blocks meandering around like sheep, and thinking of us that way is a sure-fire way to make a lot of people rightfully upset with you. A lot of people I really respect think highly of ToB, and many of them have hammered out some very solid math behind their support of it. What I'm not seeing from you is anything direct or useful. Builds, numbers, meaningful conversation about specifics, that's all I give a damn about. Fail to offer it, and you fail to offer anything.
Frankly, the way you make your claims decreases the over-all credibility of your cause. The best thing you can do for your own side of the argument is lay off, be polite, and treat other people with more respect. I try really hard to remain impartial, but dude, this is totally uncalled for.
Probably uncalled for on both sides, but yours just happened to be the one that caught my attention. Look, community opinion isn't just a bunch of chock-a-blocks meandering around like sheep, and thinking of us that way is a sure-fire way to make a lot of people rightfully upset with you. A lot of people I really respect think highly of ToB, and many of them have hammered out some very solid math behind their support of it. What I'm not seeing from you is anything direct or useful. Builds, numbers, meaningful conversation about specifics, that's all I give a damn about. Fail to offer it, and you fail to offer anything.
Doc Rock I don't think community opinion is anything to scoff at. Quite the opposite. I post here all the time asking for advice, there are lots of people on here I love to hear from. I'm also here to help people who need help. Yes I get a little bored at my job and make irrevrent posts no and then but really there nothing wrong with that. What kind of specifics or you looking for really? For me to take a fighter 20 and a Warblade 20 and put them up against each other in an octogon? I mean really you're calling me out for being vague but you're being equally so. I'm not saying anyone who uses ToB is an idiot, nothing of the sort. I'm just saying it's not for me. And well the burden of proof lies on the other side of the fence. Since I'm saying hey there's no way you can prove this! Therefore it's up to the other side to actually go out and prove it. These are all valid and logical arguments here Rock, you're assuming too much.
I knew this one German guy who was a total jerk so I just don't hangout with any Germans at all, easier that way right?
Let's see how I can possibly break this down...
So the fighter and the warblade both have one ideal purpose, killin' things. So, let's use a visual aid perhaps.
This is the fighter
And this is the warblade
Both of them can kill but obviously one has more options and is more effective at it's purpose.
Now you may shrug off this opinion and I would gently ask you to look around and gauge the communities opinion regarding the issue. Do you believe all of us happen to be crazy or something?
I like your visuals. I yes I agree with you. I'll leave it alone. But I really could argue that that rifle is better at killing people than the M16 with a grenade launcher ;)
I don't need to support the claim, all I have to do is point out that there's no possible way you can support yours. It's done all the time in court
Objection!
CSI: Miami is not indicative of an actual court.
If you don't survive with that, you survive with nothing. Also, minimize power or whatever is the thing that reduces all variables from a spell to minimum, well, it works on spells and powers and is immediate action. You are relatively safe from those, too.
It is not necessarily a matter of raw, numeric power. Imagine a D&D campaign where all characters in the party played the strictly, scientifically, most "powerful" characters. Assuming that some bizarre formula could be concocted to find the most powerful class, and assuming it was correctly constructed, then players would have undeniable proof about the most numerically powerful class. A game in which everyone rolled up characters of this class would hardly be an exciting one. And players KNOW this, just as much as DMs do. No one plays the strictly most absurdly powerful character available to them, just as it is very rare to find campaigns full of players running with the same classes.
To me and others, and perhaps to Crowley, the issue is one of D&D flavor. Again, this is primarily in reference to ToB, and not to psionics. Here is one way of viewing D&D that I find is within the spirit of the game.
Classes and characters are supposed to have niches. Wizards designed the game so each player would have his own particular set of talents and skills that he, and only he, could lend to the party in their journeys. Yes, there are overlaps between party members, but each class (especially in the Core) has its own unique claim to fame. In the instances where there are overlaps, they are at least in similar categories; for instance, a Sorcerer and a Wizard overlap in their casting of arcane spells, but BOTH are d4 HD magic practitioners. Imagine how strange it would be if the massive Barbarian encroached on the Sorcerer and Wizard niche. Certainly in the context of the Core, this would be odd. Multiclassing provides a way to do this, but this entails a separate advancement, not a simultaneous advancement.
ToB appears to give the "mundane" combat classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc.) a spellcaster-esque advancement. Not a separate one. A simultaneous one. Yes, there are SEVERELY limited in the number of "spells" they can employ as compared to their more magically dedicated counterparts. But as everyone on the CO boards knows (or would prefer not to admit), trading lots of unused abilities for a few power-boosting abilities does not balance out the equation.
Sword magic also does not feel, at least to me and players in my campaigns, like 3.5 D&D. Many attack maneuvers, as this is where my biggest complaint lies, specify in exacting detail what your character is doing during the attack. ToB thus eliminates a huge creative aspect of combat, and, by my view, degenerates it from a pen and paper RPG to a computer game. What's more, it rewards the "uncreative" player with a boost in in-game power. A more creative character might discover a far more interesting way of delivering the attack then just you "leap into the air and lift your weapon high over-head." But their attack is still just a regular d20 roll and a regular damage roll (perhaps with a few DM discretion rewards, but that is it).
These are my two major complaints with ToB:
1) Allows melee combat classes to gain the best of spellcasting abilities without the worst. (Lesser complaint)
2) Lowers creativity (Greater complaint)
I would love to hear well-formulated and coherent responses to these viewpoints, and I would also enjoy hearing if this coincides with Crowley's views on the matter.
(Psionics, as you might imagine, cannot fall to the above two complaints. It is a separate kind of power than magic, and is no less creative than spellcasting).
-ktkenshinx-
In many respects, I share the opinions of Mister_Crowley in regards to the Tome of Battle. Admittedly, I am far less vehement towards psionics than he appears to be (and if that is an unfair categorization of you, then I apologize), but I believe in both instances, I understand where Crowley is coming from.
It is not necessarily a matter of raw, numeric power. Imagine a D&D campaign where all characters in the party played the strictly, scientifically, most "powerful" characters. Assuming that some bizarre formula could be concocted to find the most powerful class, and assuming it was correctly constructed, then players would have undeniable proof about the most numerically powerful class. A game in which everyone rolled up characters of this class would hardly be an exciting one. And players KNOW this, just as much as DMs do. No one plays the strictly most absurdly powerful character available to them, just as it is very rare to find campaigns full of players running with the same classes.
To me and others, and perhaps to Crowley, the issue is one of D&D flavor. Again, this is primarily in reference to ToB, and not to psionics. Here is one way of viewing D&D that I find is within the spirit of the game.
Classes and characters are supposed to have niches. Wizards designed the game so each player would have his own particular set of talents and skills that he, and only he, could lend to the party in their journeys. Yes, there are overlaps between party members, but each class (especially in the Core) has its own unique claim to fame. In the instances where there are overlaps, they are at least in similar categories; for instance, a Sorcerer and a Wizard overlap in their casting of arcane spells, but BOTH are d4 HD magic practitioners. Imagine how strange it would be if the massive Barbarian encroached on the Sorcerer and Wizard niche. Certainly in the context of the Core, this would be odd. Multiclassing provides a way to do this, but this entails a separate advancement, not a simultaneous advancement.
ToB appears to give the "mundane" combat classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc.) a spellcaster-esque advancement. Not a separate one. A simultaneous one. Yes, there are SEVERELY limited in the number of "spells" they can employ as compared to their more magically dedicated counterparts. But as everyone on the CO boards knows (or would prefer not to admit), trading lots of unused abilities for a few power-boosting abilities does not balance out the equation.
Sword magic also does not feel, at least to me and players in my campaigns, like 3.5 D&D. Many attack maneuvers, as this is where my biggest complaint lies, specify in exacting detail what your character is doing during the attack. ToB thus eliminates a huge creative aspect of combat, and, by my view, degenerates it from a pen and paper RPG to a computer game. What's more, it rewards the "uncreative" player with a boost in in-game power. A more creative character might discover a far more interesting way of delivering the attack then just you "leap into the air and lift your weapon high over-head." But their attack is still just a regular d20 roll and a regular damage roll (perhaps with a few DM discretion rewards, but that is it).
These are my two major complaints with ToB:
1) Allows melee combat classes to gain the best of spellcasting abilities without the worst. (Lesser complaint)
2) Lowers creativity (Greater complaint)
I would love to hear well-formulated and coherent responses to these viewpoints, and I would also enjoy hearing if this coincides with Crowley's views on the matter.
(Psionics, as you might imagine, cannot fall to the above two complaints. It is a separate kind of power than magic, and is no less creative than spellcasting).
-ktkenshinx-
What he said
1) Allows melee combat classes to gain the best of spellcasting abilities without the worst. (Lesser complaint)
I would argue that the abilities that the TOB-classes gain are no where near the best of spellcasting abilities. Now mechanically they do adopt a similar mechanic to spellcasters but the actual abilities are severely less powerful than traditional spells. Off the top of my head the only schools that deal with significant supernatural effects are shadow hand & desert wind. The rest perform what could be said to be battle techniques.
Maneuvers within combat are sort of like a classic 2d fighter game. You can jump around kicking & punching but you also have special moves that spice up combat and make your character different from your opponents. If that makes any sort of sense...?
And I can see where you would be coming from but I don't think the abilities are too powerful. In a party with a wizard who can gate in a titan (who can do my job better than I can), what does it matter on the power scale if I can do some small tricks? I'm not stretching the bounds to which a warrior could potentially achieve. Who's to say the Spartans weren't a bunch of crusaders or Achilles wasn't a warblade?
2) Lowers creativity (Greater complaint)
I can also see where you are coming from with this but I believe maneuvers actually significantly help a distinct problem in DnD combat. It rewards players for attacking in different ways. It attempts to overcome the hum-drum style of combat in which two people just swing away at one-each other.
And I agree with you that a creative player can turn a standard attack into something descriptively beautiful but without mechanics to support that awesome attack it just becomes another d20 roll. I can describe my fighter doing amazing things but they bare no significance on the mechanics of the game. What maneuvers grant you is a non-standard & creative way of attacking and additional mechanics to back them up.
In addition, we all know you can wave away flavor for anything you desire so the desire for creativity is still available.
It is not necessarily a matter of raw, numeric power.
It never was. If it were, we'd all be playing CoDzillas.
A game in which everyone rolled up characters of this class would hardly be an exciting one. And players KNOW this, just as much as DMs do. No one plays the strictly most absurdly powerful character available to them, just as it is very rare to find campaigns full of players running with the same classes.
If you are implying that games in which everyone played the same class can't be fun, then I'd (strongly) disagree. I've had great fun running games with an all-rogue and all-cleric group. With versatile classes (and creative roleplaying) it's no problem to still have diversity nonetheless.
To me and others, and perhaps to Crowley, the issue is one of D&D flavor.
This is a common argument vs. ToB and Psionics (and several other D&D rules). I prefer to distinguish mechanics from flavor, though.
Classes and characters are supposed to have niches. Wizards designed the game so each player would have his own particular set of talents and skills that he, and only he, could lend to the party in their journeys. Yes, there are overlaps between party members, but each class (especially in the Core) has its own unique claim to fame. In the instances where there are overlaps, they are at least in similar categories; for instance, a Sorcerer and a Wizard overlap in their casting of arcane spells, but BOTH are d4 HD magic practitioners.
I strongly question this assertion. Wizards did not design the classes that way. Several classes can not only encroach on other classes' "claim to fame", they can even do it better. Clerics can easily out fight/tank/defend a fighter/barbarian. In addition, they are still full casters. And druids can cover the divine caster, fighter and skill monkey role very well.
In fact, the situation seems to be quite the opposite of what you are saying. All (good) classes have some form of flexibility that makes them useful outside their niche. Fighters, on the other hand, have little to offer outside of combat.
Of course, roleplaying can make them interesting, but then again that is true for all classes.
Imagine how strange it would be if the massive Barbarian encroached on the Sorcerer and Wizard niche. Certainly in the context of the Core, this would be odd. Multiclassing provides a way to do this, but this entails a separate advancement, not a simultaneous advancement.
Even in core, there's the Eldritch Knight who allows you to do just that.
The Mystic Theurge is another example, and non-core is full of other examples.
ToB appears to give the "mundane" combat classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, etc.) a spellcaster-esque advancement. Not a separate one. A simultaneous one. Yes, there are SEVERELY limited in the number of "spells" they can employ as compared to their more magically dedicated counterparts. But as everyone on the CO boards knows (or would prefer not to admit), trading lots of unused abilities for a few power-boosting abilities does not balance out the equation.
I think it's a misconception that "mundane" combat classes are less powerful compared to ToB classes. A well-optimized fighter or barbarian can be more effective in combat (i.e., at their "niche"), that has been shown on these boards before.
The issue is options. Fighters and barbarians (to stick with those) have very few options, even within their niche. They are basically reduced to either "full attack" or "move and attack" in combat. But options are fun. This is what ToB addresses primarily, and it does a good job in that respect, IMHO.
Sword magic also does not feel, at least to me and players in my campaigns, like 3.5 D&D. Many attack maneuvers, as this is where my biggest complaint lies, specify in exacting detail what your character is doing during the attack. ToB thus eliminates a huge creative aspect of combat, and, by my view, degenerates it from a pen and paper RPG to a computer game. What's more, it rewards the "uncreative" player with a boost in in-game power. A more creative character might discover a far more interesting way of delivering the attack then just you "leap into the air and lift your weapon high over-head." But their attack is still just a regular d20 roll and a regular damage roll (perhaps with a few DM discretion rewards, but that is it).
I don't follow. One the one hand, you want your character to do interesting things in combat, on the other you don't want those to be mechanically represented?
If your core barbarian/fighter specializes in a 2-weapon fighting style, and wants to charge the opponent, leap into the air and bring down both his weapons on him simultaneously, you do - what? Charge and make a single attack (with which weapon?)? What do you do if you want to catch your opponent off guard and hit him so hard it leaves him staggered, stunned, or blind (seeing stars)?
Again, you are confusing flavor text and rules. The flavor text is not important, it's merely one way to describe how a maneuver could look like. What counts are the mechanics. You can still be as creative as you want with maneuvers, but that way your creativity actually has meaning.
These are my two major complaints with ToB:
1) Allows melee combat classes to gain the best of spellcasting abilities without the worst. (Lesser complaint)
I'd argue that the question is flawed. What is the "best of spellcasting"? In terms of power, it would be high level spells. However, maneuvers compare in no way to spells of the same level. If you mean choices/options, then yes, they do that. And it's a good thing.
What is the "worst"? The lower hit dice? Not true for Swordsages, and the difference between a cleric and ToB classes is minor.
That full spellcasters are frail is a misconception. I see you are new to the boards, and perhaps you are not aware of the spectacular difference in power between full casters (cleric, wizard, even sorcerer) and - basically everything else. Nothing ToB does closes this gap. It might make it a little less severe, but it's still there. So "best/worst of spellcasting" is a misnomer.
2) Lowers creativity (Greater complaint)[/b]
How more options stifle creativity is beyond me.
The hyperbole would be to play a D&D without any rules at all - ultimate creativity!
I see you are new to the boards
I wouldn't exactly say that ktkenshinx is 'new' to the boards, his black blood cultist guide is quite phenomenal if I had to give him props.
Tytalus: Interesting points that you have raised, and I will respond to each of them. To begin, psionics are not my problem; I preface everything I say with this statement. Psionics are creative, interesting, powerful, balanced, and flavorful D&D mechanics that I enjoy having in my games (for the most part…). My words below refer predominantly to ToB mechanics.
1. My reference to raw numeric power and a formulaic assessment of classes was in response to an earlier post.
2. The implication is not that an “all class X” party is not fun. The implication is that an “all one powerful build” party is less fun than the alternatives.
3. Historically, this branching out of class abilities is a function of optimization, experimentation, and tweaking, not of the game at its core. When Cleric was first introduced almost ten years ago, everyone viewed him as a healer and undead combatant. They did not know all that he was capable of from an optimization perspective, nor would they have the resources to use him as such for years to come. The Cleric, and other classes, evolved past its humble beginnings, but those beginnings are still relevant.
I agree that Fighters have little to offer outside of combat. That is why they are called Fighters. This is a roleplaying choice a player should feel free to make.
4. The simultaneous advancement of the Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Fochlucan Lyrist, and many others is a specific path followed in a Prestige Class, with prerequisites and entry requirements that reflect such a dual progression. ToB base classes have no such requirements, and allow effective dual advancement of a melee front line fighter alongside a virtual caster whose magic only effects damage and combat.
Up until now, we have been discussing the first of my points, that of niche encroachment. As I said, this is a lesser complaint; D&D is a dynamic game that allows endless customizability. Niches should not be so harshly defined, and although ToB classes do edge in a bit too close for my taste, I concede that others may be alright with it. Point two, however, is a big one.
I don't follow. One the one hand, you want your character to do interesting things in combat, on the other you don't want those to be mechanically represented?
ToB gives characters a finite list of “interesting things” to do in combat, one for each of their maneuvers and stances. It has a tendency to spoil players into only using those abilities and forgoing the creativity they had to use when they were just a fighter, a barbarian, a ranger, etc.
Again, you are confusing flavor text and rules. The flavor text is not important, it's merely one way to describe how a maneuver could look like. What counts are the mechanics. You can still be as creative as you want with maneuvers, but that way your creativity actually has meaning.
I disagree. In my experience, and I believe the experience of many ToB opponents (if such a word can be used), the move becomes a creative crutch that you can turn to time and time again. It bears a strong resemblance to 4th Edition, which I loathe for the very same reason. 3.5 feats are more than capable of fulfilling the effects of hitting an opponent so hard they see stars, knocking them over, throwing them through a window, disabling only their legs, etc. Yet, there is no creative crutch with “Improved Bull Rush” or the Ambush feats. It gives you a game effect and that is it. The rest is left to your imagination and creativity.
ToB mechanics may allow such freedom, but in practice they do not, and combat has a tendency to devolve into a 4th Edition fiasco. One might counter that 3.5 combat has a tendency to devolve into a boring dice game where players just say “I attack. I hit for X damage.” I counter that the openness of D&D as it stands without 4th Edition and ToB abilities fosters creativity in description and combative effectiveness.
Regarding your two concluding points:
1. I define the “best of spellcasting” abilities as the ones you want most. As a fighter, I want only “spellcasting” abilities that improve may combat ability (probably). ToB gives me this, without all the other stuff I am going to leave to other party members to handle.
HD was only a rudimentary example. Newness to these particular boards does not imply lack of knowledge of D&D or of character optimization (which is not to imply that was your accusation, so do not take this offensively). I am fully aware of their power relative to other classes, and was using “frailness” as defined by HD only as a Core example.
ToB allows fighters to simultaneously pick up the best of front line combat and the best of front line combat magic, without the excess.
AGAIN, this is not my main complaint about ToB, and I am willing to concede this as a matter of perspective.
2. More options clearly do not stifle creativity. Predefined options do. ToB flavor and mechanics are far more closely linked than Feat flavor and mechanics. When your arsenal of options in a battle consist of your ToB abilities, you tend to employ them in a uniform matter time and time again, without the creativity and ingenuity of a less-“magical”, so to speak, fighter class. (This is the impersonal “you,” and does not refer to anyone). As for a lack of rules being ultimate creativity, if anyone believes this to be my stance, I turn you to the Rules Compendium, wherein you can read my response verbatim on page 63.
I apologize if any of this was interpreted aggressively or negatively, as that is not my intent.
-ktkenshinx-
It has a tendency to spoil players into only using those abilities and forgoing the creativity they had to use when they were just a fighter, a barbarian, a ranger, etc.
I just don't get this point.
You're making a huge generalization about a population that, due to the nature of your lifestyle, you have only a very limited interaction with.
Sure, maneuvers give descriptions of what they do, but so do feats such as Leap Attack, for example, and I doubt very much if Leap Attack has been taking the creativity out of players.
You know what happens when you assume. You make an ass out of Uma Therma, and no one wants to see that.
maug 5/monk(cobra style) 2/drunken master 1/war hulk 10/hulking hurler 2
The less cool tanks are satisfied with being rock solid in just the metaphorical sense, but not you! +10 str racial, +20 war hulk. wield a 50-ft ladder(proficient, its improvised), combine it with massive swing, strength, and some heavily improved unarmed strike damage, and everybody within 50 ft is going to wet their pants! and did i mention? if some pesky mages are harrying you from more than 50 ft away, just hurl the damn thing(should be made from iron).
if your DM think this is a cool as i do, you might be able to hurl yourself. otherwise, buy some use-activated items of body outside body(and giant size).
but well... we could incarnate construct it. that means more wielding gazillion-feet ladders, but less rocking!
im going to pun hell...
Mineral warrior could even give you the rockiness.. But I do like the Maug too
Hmm. Bard tanks, have those been done?
Shooting Star Ranger is great, but where is Mystic Ranger from?
Dragon Magazine 336.