This is about 3.5.
Some people in our gaming group/society ban ToB cause they say it is overpowered. I always played casters of some short, never fighter-like classes, but when ToB came out i thought of trying playing one of the classes in that book.
Attempt Nr.1: Early 2008. That campaign began at lvl 5 so I created a lvl 5 warblade. I picked survivability maneuvers for him(concentration instead of reflex or will saves) feats like steady concentration(so as to always take 10 on concentration checks) meaning that when he needed to make a save it was always a fixed 20+ check. Yes I know maneuvers need to be recovered, yes I know the only maneuvers that were readied where survivability ones meaning less contribution in combat to damage opponents but still helped that character a lot. And when an unavoidable condition "hurt him" Iron Heart Surge was there to save the day.
When Insightfull Strike came into play doing something like 27 or something like that per hit that was the time that so many started whinning.
"What? You don't even roll a save and get such a high result?"
"What? You just wish this (whatever condition) to be removed and you simply remove it?"
"What? You don't even roll for damage (after successful attack roll of course) and you roll that high damage?"
You get the picture I hope. Rest of group were 2 rogues(yeah 2 of them) a beguiler(yeah another rogue-like) and 2 clerics(yeah 2 of them). No arcane caster. Anyway that's another matter.
That campaign lasted for a month, a few sessions were played that lead us to lvl 7 and stopped all of a sudden due to DM's having to move out of town for job issues.
Attempt Nr.2 : A month or so later (still early 2008) a new campaign starts from lvl 1 and I create a new warblade. Worse die results than the previous one aka less powerful(we always roll dice for ability scores-default method).
Long story short-that was another DM,never heard of warblades before- I once rolled 17 damage to an orc(Sapphire Nightmare Blade) using bastared sword (yes I wasted a feat to be proficient with it,that's another matter) and everyone was like "Oh yeah the imba here did 17 damage with 1h! Oh My God!" Rest of group was a fighter a rogue and a cleric. That happened at 1st level and group stayed for 5-6 sessions at level 1 and then campaign suddenly stopped for unknown reasons to me. The fighter in this group was the beguiler in the previous campaign I mentioned.
Attempt Nr.3 : This happened a month or so ago. Another guy wants to be the DM(nothing to do with the previous 2 campaigns). After a year and half or so I have the chance to play a warblade again. He says that he will run the return to the temple of elemental evil. I had heard some of that but not much in detail. I roll (crappy rolls) and create the warblade. We all started at level 4.
The previous beguiler/fighter joins this group as a fighter/swasbuckler now. He never stopped whinning during gameplay about both me and another guy in the group who created a crusader "Yeah sure. ToB classes. Lame, imba. Why am I even here?" The other members were a fighter/rogue and a barbarian. That's right no casters. Needless to say DM got influenced a lot by the whinner and started whinning himself. Especially when crusader used maneuvers like crusader's strike to heal someone or grant DR to someone.
His whine was more like "When I played that campaign as a player we had the core party - fighter cleric wizard rogue - plus a barbarian. You know how hard it was for us? And you just go in and make it seem like a walk in the park."
Since both me and the crusader had Mountain Hammer known you can imagine the DM's whinning about that. "What? At only 3 level you can hit someone and not only ignore his DR but also do extra damage? And you are telling me that this is not imba? AHAHAHHAHAHAHA! Never will I allow someone to play something like this again." Needless to say that when our characters died both him and the other whinner(the previous beguiler) were soooooooooo relieved that they got rid of them. As such we rolled new non ToB characters.
Now of course someone might say that the DM is free to ban whatever material he doesn't see fit in his campaign. It has been stated in the forums dozens of time already. I watch the forums for a few years now but rarely post. But allowing EVERYTHING except one specific book? Because it is overpowered? Is it? I doubt it.
I made a google search. Tome of battle overpowered. Lots of threads about it and looked at many of them. So many people giving reasonable arguments that this is a myth. Yet the narrowminded people still insist that ToB is overpowered and as such banned. "I don't care what these Fanboys say in the forums, ToB is overpowered and banned."
Another thing they whine about(I am referring to the previous beguiler and the last DM). It is overpowered because according to their sayings :
These characters get maneuvers which work like feats which means other characters(non martial adepts) have to spend feats to do what martial adepts do for free by learning maneuvers.(Thins like the strike that allows you to make two attacks at seperate targets and the like)
They get 4 skill points while others get 2 per level.
Warblade gets Uncanny dodge, some benefits based on intelligence and weapon aptitude " Who on earth can change his weapon feats? Oh yeah he simply wakes up on morning and says "Hmmm I like the (other weapon) better I change feats to match this" AHAHAHAHAHAHA". You get the picture I hope.
Some other things that I can't remember right now. It frustrated me a bit this "narrowmindedness" and even if I addressed them to the forums to see other people's opinions on this subject, they are not influenced at all. Isn't this a game we are supposed to play to have fun? Is ToB so overpowered that ruins this fun? Seriously I don't know what to think, how to convince them and I really don't like me being the whinner this time about it.
The funny part is with all the other splats about ToB doesn't really add all that much powerwise. It adds some fun options and doesn't force you to super op your item selection, but that's about it. Judging from your post though you seem to have a lot of people who can't optimize out of a paper bag, so expect things that are new and different to be deemed broken. They are unused to be completely overshadowed by these new classes, unlike the core casters who've been better then them since forever and thus get a free pass.
If I ever play 3.5 again it will be with a class from that book, probably the crusader since I liked the random powers each battle.
The ToB classes are a lot better than the core fighter type classes partly because from what I have heard ToB was in some ways a transitional book from 3.5 to 4th to try to experiment with ways of giving melee characters interesting and useful things to do from start to finish that put them on par with casters. It is not that those classes are overpowered, but that the other melee classes are underpowered. You can stick with ToB classes from level 1-20 without needing a prestige class or multiclassing.
There are lots of ways to build fun, powerful melee characters that don't involve Tome of Battle. ToB is actually a limiting factor, in most cases; players that feel reasonably satisfied with their fun, flexible ToB character aren't motivated to go looking for serious, game-busting optimization.
Honestly, though, there's often no getting around that kind of unreasonable position. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are, because the other side regards the argument as clearly settled; from their position, you and the other ToB player are the whiners. As I see it, you have a handful of real options:
1) Build a meek, vanilla fighter-type, and play along with their silly prejudice until they've forgiven you.
2) Build a spellcaster, which circumvents the silly prejudice. You can even go with a melee-styled cleric (check Complete Divine for prestige classes), which can play a lot like a regular fighter-type... except with buffs and heals.
3) Build an optimized melee character without ToB. I'm not suggesting that you set out to break the game, but you are entitled to a character you enjoy playing, and doing that with melee characters can take some tinkering. This won't change anyone's mind, and you'll be forever derided as a power gamer with no respect for game balance, but you'll have fun for a while.
4) Find a new group that doesn't believe that fighters should sit at the bottom of the D&D totem pole and like it. If you like martial characters and Tome of Battle, you may enjoy 4e.
Not at all in relation to the base classes of Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
Yes it was made with some "pre 4e" concepts, expressly as a test for giving martial characters "spells" and to determine which system worked better (random? determined 1/encounter? 1/encounter with a recharge mechanism?). Edit: Also as a test for "What would happen if players could use cool powers without having to sleep every other encounter?"
If you use Tome of Battle and everyone else is only using the Player's Handbook, then you will blow their melee characters out of the water, period. You'll also blow the casters out of the water, at levels 1-4ish and maybe a bit more (but then so can a lucky Fighter around that time). Then it sort of evens out, and eventually the casters overtake you in power.
This is similar to Psionics -- an alternate game mechanic that profoundly affects the game it's used in. If everyone uses Tome of Battle, then there's no problem. If only 1 person uses Tome of Battle, then he's in a league of his own.
Now, you could do all sorts of crazy stuff with multiclassing your Fighter/Rogue/Frenzied Berserker/Power Attack etc. etc. but to make such a powerhouse in 3rd and 3.5 required a lot of research, and general optimization. And then those characters were kind of one trick ponies.
With ToB, you didn't have to pore over 18 splatbooks to make a functional melee character. You could stick within just that one book, maybe a feat or two from the PHB.
Simply put, core 3.5 melee sucks. Splatbook'd 3.5 melee sucks, but slightly less. Tome of Battle doesn't suck. Thus, Tome of Battle is "overpowered" in comparison.
But yes, the theory is 'fighters can't have nice things'. A Tiger Claw warblade can get a save-or-die, oh no! Meanwhile, wizards have had save or dies since first bloody level.
If you serously think the Tome of Battle is cool then why didn't you encourage the other players to play PC's from the book? Or lend it to the Dm so he could make foes that have the class levels? There are even feats for the regular fighter can take to gain maneuvers as well. I think you (again not necessiarly you) would be singing another tune when the Warblade Ogre starts wupping your ass. ;)
That said, compared to the fighter and other melee types, the clases are more powerful. It even says it in the book itself that the power level will rise. They are suppose to be that way.
I have yet to use the classes (will be once my 4e campaign finishes) but plan to with a few restrictions. My game is not so combat heavy, so being able to kick butt is secondary.
1) Cannot Multiclass. Once you leave the TOB class you can't gain any more levels, just like a Pally. Nor can they multiclass into a different ToB class.
2) Probably have them all have alignment restricted to lawful.
3) Have them only PrC into classes in the Tome of Battle.
Fighters become the dipping class, which was they are basically reduced to, but very veristile for multiclass.
;)
I just showed the whinners the thread and still insist on their "these are fanboys" approach on the matter, selectively picking quotes from the threads so as to further insist on their part of the matter.
Nothing persuades them and their new counterargument is "casters have limited spells per day, martial adepts can do their maneuvers all day long"
"they do their maneuvers very often not once per encounter" etc.
They even stand next to me right now as I am typing. Pointless.
Thanks for the replies.
TLDR version : Yes I ban ToB from my campaigns
First of all @ DaidojiTaidoru no I am not a player who cannot optimize out of a paper bag, I almost always bring optimization concepts into every character I build, and I know the game mechanics perfectly. As a matter of fact I am the usual DM for the last 4 years, I just took a brake this last semester since I gotta leave for army and wanted to play some.
Anyway yes I ban ToB from any of my following campaigns after I've seen what my warblade friend and his crusader apprentice were doing and sue me for that.
Reasons?
I consider them cheating in comparison with the other similar role classes. They are able to do way too many things, especially the crusader. It just isn't fair from my point of view.
Underpowered compared to casters ? Oh really ?
I would like to see a wizard or sorcerer end fights in 1-2 hits, limitless times per day and all these in d12,heavy armor,healing themselves and having so many other versatility and survivability options (uncanny dodge,defensive stance etc) at levels 1-10 or even more. And don't give me crap about the random recovery of crusader's manuevers, he took that feat which grants him another manuever and essentialy he started each encounter with 3/5 of his readied. And all of them were equally overpowered.
Mountain Hammer ?? Come on ridiculous, totally ignore DR ??Hello I am adamantite golem or whatever with my fancy 40/- DR... No the evil level 5 crusader can bypass every single point of it ! Epic, silver, cold iron, vile you name it , we can just ignore it. Unlimited times per day. Yes that sounds pretty fair. The +2d6 is just cherry I guess. And this is no way compared to DD spells since they require a save which is way better defense than the crusader's/warblade's attack roll. Not to mention the energy resistances of foes.
Crusader's Strike which they were using in combination with martial spirit is also lame beyond imagination. I mean we were dungeon crawling all day long with virtually no other healing resources lost. Technically you can hit a door all day long and heal millions of points if needed.
And of course Iron Heart Surge... this is the most ridiculous ability I ever saw in 3.5 ever. It's not even a feat or a high level spell .. Remove every single condition with a touch on yourself ?? Wtf even a cleric can't do that?
And they get it from level 5 ? Negative levels ? No. Ray of enfeeblements? No.
Disease,poison,curse ? No no. Shaken,sickened ? Of course not. And they even get a +2 bonus haha ! I can imagine the playtesters when they were designing that :
-Hmm that new manuever, it can remove almost anything but I think it's not good enough already.
-Yeah I have a feeling noone will be choosing it as known it's a bit subpar.
-Exactly, don't forget they have to wait a whole round (!) to use it again.
-Why don't we give them a minor attack bonus then to compensate for it ?
... **sighs**...
And anyway, yes clerics and druids especially are kinda more flexible at low levels but you're all missing the point when comparing different roles. All this reminds me of wow's forums. "We are not OP, just look what the X class can do". It's just not right. Wizards, druids and clerics were there from start and they are fulfilling their roles as they should. Fighters and other meleers may seem a bit subpar but personally I don't think they are as bad as people keep suggesting. They got their weaknesses but with access to the right books they can pull really powerful builds if that's all about.
To sum it up I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions, nor I'm trying to convince my players that I'm right and they're wrong. I just have my reasoning and thus I cannot allow them to use this book at my campaigns.
And this comes from a really experienced player as I said before and many times played invincible optimized characters. Like a snowcasting enchanter at gemsna's campaign he might remember her and how broken casters can be. But these are optimized builds not "I just blindfold my eyes and pick random stances and strikes from the book" build and rule everything.
That's all for now .
I consider them cheating in comparison with the other similar role classes. They are able to do way too many things, especially the crusader. It just isn't fair from my point of view.
I don't consider myself the most eloquent of posters here, but here I go nevertheless.
I would like to see a wizard or sorcerer end fights in 1-2 hits, limitless times per day and all these in d12,heavy armor,healing themselves and having so many other versatility and survivability options (uncanny dodge,defensive stance etc) at levels 1-10 or even more. And don't give me crap about the random recovery of crusader's manuevers, he took that feat which grants him another manuever and essentialy he started each encounter with 3/5 of his readied. And all of them were equally overpowered.
I fail to see how maneuvers can ever equal spells of the same level.
The sorry fact is that wizards are ending battles with a single spell application, without the need for d12s, heavy armour or other misc defenses such as uncanny dodge.
At 1st lv, the astute wizard uses sleep or colour spray to neutralize his foes. At 3rd lv, he gets web/glitterdust. At 5th lv, the wizard is locking down the battlefield with sculpted glitterdusts. At 7th lv, he gets to do it without the need to check for saves or sr (solid fog/black tentacles/polymorph).
Mountain Hammer ?? Come on ridiculous, totally ignore DR ??Hello I am adamantite golem or whatever with my fancy 40/- DR... No the evil level 5 crusader can bypass every single point of it ! Epic, silver, cold iron, vile you name it , we can just ignore it. Unlimited times per day. Yes that sounds pretty fair. The +2d6 is just cherry I guess. And this is no way compared to DD spells since they require a save which is way better defense than the crusader's/warblade's attack roll. Not to mention the energy resistances of foes.
This appears to be a strawman argument, unless you actually plan on regularly throwing foes with dr40+ at your party (in which case, I think the warblade being able to overcome dr is really the least of their worries). The highest dr a non-epic foe has is 15 (and prior to lv10, just 5, if at all).
In the same vein, I fail to see how dr/epic can possibly be an issue at such low levels. Silver, adamantine and cold iron perhaps, but melee types have been able to consistently overcome them with a careful selection of spells/weapons.
Likewise, unless the majority of your foes happen to have dr, the effective damage boost resulting from mountain hammer penetrating dr seems fairly negligible. Yes, it would be nice to have at times, but still far from gamebreaking. More like a minor convenience at best.
Crusader's Strike which they were using in combination with martial spirit is also lame beyond imagination. I mean we were dungeon crawling all day long with virtually no other healing resources lost. Technically you can hit a door all day long and heal millions of points if needed.
Ever since spell compendium was released, wands of vigor has pretty much been a staple of adventuring parties. So at best, you save a few thousand gp (split amongst your party) by spamming crusader's strike/martial spirit. Yes, I am sure that extra gold sure would go far in upgrading your PC's gear...
All ToB does is to make melee fun again by giving options to fighter-types. Melee is no longer reduced to having to decide between move+attack or full attack, dreading to make will saves he knows he will surely fail or being stymied by obstacles such as difficult terrain or annoying status effects like maze/forcecage.
Instead, they are now able to choose from a variety of attacks (each with their own unique rider-on effects). If you must argue, the fighter and barb actually outdamage the warblade a little, large due to the warblade's inability to make full attacks when using standard action strikes.
To sum it up I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions, nor I'm trying to convince my players that I'm right and they're wrong. I just have my reasoning and thus I cannot allow them to use this book at my campaigns.
Then let us engage in civil and meaningful debate and then really decide for yourself if your views are indeed justified or not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps what is needed is simply a change in mindset? Like any class, the warblade is sure to have situations in which he excels and those which he is less strong in. Maybe tweak the makeup of your encounters to better cater to the strengths and weaknesses of your party.
And this comes from a really experienced player as I said before and many times played invincible optimized characters.
I am trying not to come across as being snarky, but if you feel that ToB results in invincible optimized characters, then perhaps you may wish to evaluate your own optimization capabilities.
I am the whiner who gemsna keeps mentioning, and I just made an account to answer to all his accusations. Sorry for the long post.
TLDR version : Yes I ban ToB from my campaigns
First of all @ DaidojiTaidoru no I am not a player who cannot optimize out of a paper bag, I almost always bring optimization concepts into every character I build, and I know the game mechanics perfectly. As a matter of fact I am the usual DM for the last 4 years, I just took a brake this last semester since I gotta leave for army and wanted to play some.
Anyway yes I ban ToB from any of my following campaigns after I've seen what my warblade friend and his crusader apprentice were doing and sue me for that.
Reasons?
I consider them cheating in comparison with the other similar role classes. They are able to do way too many things, especially the crusader. It just isn't fair from my point of view.
Fair enough, it's your campaign after all, but you seem to be a bit confused over just some of the ToB Classes can actually do.
Underpowered compared to casters ? Oh really ?
I would like to see a wizard or sorcerer end fights in 1-2 hits, limitless times per day and all these in d12,heavy armor,healing themselves and having so many other versatility and survivability options (uncanny dodge,defensive stance etc) at levels 1-10 or even more.
First of all you've mixed up the Warblade and the Crusader and lumped them together here. For clarity's sake, The Warblade has the D12 HP and Uncanny Dodge, but is limited to Medium armour and cannot heal himself. The Crusader has D10 HP, Heavy armour and the ability to heal herself, and can delay damage that she takes.
And don't give me crap about the random recovery of crusader's manuevers, he took that feat which grants him another manuever and essentialy he started each encounter with 3/5 of his readied. And all of them were equally overpowered.
Very well, how about the fact that the Crusader cannot recover her manuvers until she has spent all of them or the combat's over? If she wants to re-use her mighty Mountain Hammer ability she has to burn through all her other manuevers in order to have the chance of gaining it back again, admittedly the odds of her getting it are good but it still gets annoying when it fails.
But you seem more hung up about the actual manuevers themselves so let's move on to them shall we?
Mountain Hammer ?? Come on ridiculous, totally ignore DR ??Hello I am adamantite golem or whatever with my fancy 40/- DR... No the evil level 5 crusader can bypass every single point of it ! Epic, silver, cold iron, vile you name it , we can just ignore it. Unlimited times per day. Yes that sounds pretty fair. The +2d6 is just cherry I guess. And this is no way compared to DD spells since they require a save which is way better defense than the crusader's/warblade's attack roll. Not to mention the energy resistances of foes.
Okay, I'll be honest here. My first reaction was similar to yours. But after seeing it in action though, although only at the lower levels I must admit, it doesn't really bother me too much.
An attack roll always has a 5% chance of always missing, trust me I roll enough of them to know :P . Also, something with a DR 40/- probably has an AC comparable to that so the Warblade probably has his work cut out for him to actually hit it. Especially if he's only level 5! (Unless of course he rolls a 20 and then he'll get a hit in before he gets squashed).
Of course most monsters usually have at least one terrible Save score, if the PC's know this they're likely to exploit that weakness and have the same odds of taking it down that way. I find energy resistance a joke as most PC's prepare different types of energy spells to get around it if they encounter it. Just as the Warblade prepares his Mountain Hammer in case the enemy has DR. When fighting an enemy without DR it becomes laughable.
Crusader's Strike which they were using in combination with martial spirit is also lame beyond imagination. I mean we were dungeon crawling all day long with virtually no other healing resources lost. Technically you can hit a door all day long and heal millions of points if needed.
You've got this one wrong. No, you cannot simply hit a door all day long in order to provide free healing. The text for the maneuver clearly states that: The foe must pose a threat to either you or your allies in some direct, immediate way. Also, remember what I said above, a Crusader cannot recover a maneuver until she has spent all of them. And D6+ Initiator Level to a max of 5 every five or six rounds is really only good at Levels 1 - 3 max, maybe 4 if they're hanging out near the Arcane Casters. Expecially if you follow the rules as written and don't let them keep hitting doors with it.
And of course Iron Heart Surge... this is the most ridiculous ability I ever saw in 3.5 ever. It's not even a feat or a high level spell .. Remove every single condition with a touch on yourself ?? Wtf even a cleric can't do that?
And they get it from level 5 ? Negative levels ? No. Ray of enfeeblements? No.
Disease,poison,curse ? No no. Shaken,sickened ? Of course not. And they even get a +2 bonus haha ! I can imagine the playtesters when they were designing that :
-Hmm that new manuever, it can remove almost anything but I think it's not good enough already.
-Yeah I have a feeling noone will be choosing it as known it's a bit subpar.
-Exactly, don't forget they have to wait a whole round (!) to use it again.
-Why don't we give them a minor attack bonus then to compensate for it ?
One condition, they can remove One condition from themselves when they use the maneuver. Then the Warblade has to ready the maneuver again. Admittedly he can do it very, very easily which is my major beef with him but hit him with two conditions and he's out of the fight for a couple of turns while he heals up.
... **sighs**...
Ifpeople would read the rules correctly in the ToB they'd see that it isn't half as overpowered as it seems to be. Of course, this is D&D, some things are overpowered but a bit of common sense applied liberally can rectify the problems.
And anyway, yes clerics and druids especially are kinda more flexible at low levels but you're all missing the point when comparing different roles. All this reminds me of wow's forums. "We are not OP, just look what the X class can do". It's just not right. Wizards, druids and clerics were there from start and they are fulfilling their roles as they should. Fighters and other meleers may seem a bit subpar but personally I don't think they are as bad as people keep suggesting. They got their weaknesses but with access to the right books they can pull really powerful builds if that's all about.
The main problem with the cleric is that, unfortunately, he can often do a Fighter's job better than him if designed that way. But that's an argument hashed out many times on these boards and I don't wish to discuss it in depth.
To sum it up I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinions, nor I'm trying to convince my players that I'm right and they're wrong. I just have my reasoning and thus I cannot allow them to use this book at my campaigns.
And this comes from a really experienced player as I said before and many times played invincible optimized characters. Like a snowcasting enchanter at gemsna's campaign he might remember her and how broken casters can be. But these are optimized builds not "I just blindfold my eyes and pick random stances and strikes from the book" build and rule everything.
That's all for now .
Fair enough, as I stated in my first paragraph, it is your Campaign and if you feel uncomfortable running something you're entitled to say 'no.' But a couple of the problems you seem to have seems to come from a simple mis-reading of the rules. Ask your player if you can borrow the book and read them up yourself and come and ask on the forums if you're still unclear on their wording.
I am the whiner *snip*
post snipped for brevity.
Letting people play classes not designed to be incorporated into the campaign you're running (i.e. most established adventures) is a mistake. It's not his mistake, it's yours. You do come across as a whiner, though, so at least the OP has that part right.
Secondly, if you don't like an ability, grow a pair and house rule it.
Lastly, thank you for your service to our country.
I fail to see how maneuvers can ever equal spells of the same level.
The sorry fact is that wizards are ending battles with a single spell application, without the need for d12s, heavy armour or other misc defenses such as uncanny dodge.
At 1st lv, the astute wizard uses sleep or colour spray to neutralize his foes. At 3rd lv, he gets web/glitterdust. At 5th lv, the wizard is locking down the battlefield with sculpted glitterdusts. At 7th lv, he gets to do it without the need to check for saves or sr (solid fog/black tentacles/polymorph).
Agreed maybe they can do that. That is IF opponents fail their saves which is way more likely to happen than a martial adept missing an attack roll, and how many times per day can they do that ? Level 1 ? 3 sleeps ? Then gg all day just cantrips or 1d8 crossbow attack wow. Same with level 5 glitterdusts and 7 polymorphs etc. That's what I was saying martial adept's abilities are at will which is a really big deal.
This appears to be a strawman argument, unless you actually plan on regularly throwing foes with dr40+ at your party (in which case, I think the warblade being able to overcome dr is really the least of their worries). The highest dr a non-epic foe has is 15 (and prior to lv10, just 5, if at all).
In the same vein, I fail to see how dr/epic can possibly be an issue at such low levels. Silver, adamantine and cold iron perhaps, but melee types have been able to consistently overcome them with a careful selection of spells/weapons.
Likewise, unless the majority of your foes happen to have dr, the effective damage boost resulting from mountain hammer penetrating dr seems fairly negligible. Yes, it would be nice to have at times, but still far from gamebreaking. More like a minor convenience at best.
Never said it was gamebreaking by its own. I used the adamantite golem and epic DR examples to emphasize the fact that they bypass a core mechanism such as being able to do damage to anything with any kind of weapon. And metalline enchantment last time I checked was +2 or +3 enchantment? I fail to see how this is consistent before mid levels and even then not everyone is able to afford it ?
Ever since spell compendium was released, wands of vigor has pretty much been a staple of adventuring parties. So at best, you save a few thousand gp (split amongst your party) by spamming crusader's strike/martial spirit. Yes, I am sure that extra gold sure would go far in upgrading your PC's gear...
So it's fair for a frontliner melee class to heal at will (situational and little damage yes but still) and negate much of the need for tranditional healing?
All ToB does is to make melee fun again by giving options to fighter-types. Melee is no longer reduced to having to decide between move+attack or full attack, dreading to make will saves he knows he will surely fail or being stymied by obstacles such as difficult terrain or annoying status effects like maze/forcecage.
Instead, they are now able to choose from a variety of attacks (each with their own unique rider-on effects). If you must argue, the fighter and barb actually outdamage the warblade a little, large due to the warblade's inability to make full attacks when using standard action strikes.
If one isn't having fun playing a traditional meleer and feels they are underpowered, then frankly don't. They can go and try wizards and whatever they feel like.
Then let us engage in civil and meaningful debate and then really decide for yourself if your views are indeed justified or not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps what is needed is simply a change in mindset? Like any class, the warblade is sure to have situations in which he excels and those which he is less strong in. Maybe tweak the makeup of your encounters to better cater to the strengths and weaknesses of your party.
Of course I am open to any suggestions but I'm not inclined to change mind about this one, since I've seen these guys in action so many times over the last year, it's not a call I made after a session or two.
I am trying not to come across as being snarky, but if you feel that ToB results in invincible optimized characters, then perhaps you may wish to evaluate your own optimization capabilities.
Misinterprented my words I'm afraid. I never played anything from ToB, I just said I made some casters which were invincible and broken compared to everyone else, but that's another story. And don't worry I'm quite confident of my optimizing capability. If there are a couple of things I am quite good at life, one of them is games ;)
Wizards are easy to make invulnerable.
Fair enough, it's your campaign after all, but you seem to be a bit confused over just some of the ToB Classes can actually do.
First of all you've mixed up the Warblade and the Crusader and lumped them together here. For clarity's sake, The Warblade has the D12 HP and Uncanny Dodge, but is limited to Medium armour and cannot heal himself. The Crusader has D10 HP, Heavy armour and the ability to heal herself, and can delay damage that she takes.
I knew someone would brought this up. Sorry it was bad editing from my behalf. Yes warblade can't wear heavy and can't heal and Crusader has d10 I'm perfectly aware of that. I was just outlining their combined strengths since I mostly saw ToB stuff when 2 of my coplayers were having this lame combo.
Very well, how about the fact that the Crusader cannot recover her manuvers until she has spent all of them or the combat's over? If she wants to re-use her mighty Mountain Hammer ability she has to burn through all her other manuevers in order to have the chance of gaining it back again, admittedly the odds of her getting it are good but it still gets annoying when it fails.
This is not what our crusader used to do I'm afraid. He didn't have to expend every other manuever in order to get a new one. Instead every round after the first he was gaining one random from the ones he hasn't been granted yet. So it was like use one-get one all the time. If he was playing it wrongly then I'm sorry for not having checked the rule. But he said and explained to dm as well that it works like this so I just believed him.
Okay, I'll be honest here. My first reaction was similar to yours. But after seeing it in action though, although only at the lower levels I must admit, it doesn't really bother me too much.
An attack roll always has a 5% chance of always missing, trust me I roll enough of them to know :P . Also, something with a DR 40/- probably has an AC comparable to that so the Warblade probably has his work cut out for him to actually hit it. Especially if he's only level 5! (Unless of course he rolls a 20 and then he'll get a hit in before he gets squashed).
Agreed but it's a fact that we usually play campaigns which are low-medium levels mostly. And as I said above I used the DR 40 example to throw some emphasis on how unstoppable they are. But trust me I've also rolled enough to know how powerful defense is DR for many monsters and overcoming this at will is just unfair imo.
Of course most monsters usually have at least one terrible Save score, if the PC's know this they're likely to exploit that weakness and have the same odds of taking it down that way. I find energy resistance a joke as most PC's prepare different types of energy spells to get around it if they encounter it. Just as the Warblade prepares his Mountain Hammer in case the enemy has DR. When fighting an enemy without DR it becomes laughable.
Mm well in theory yes they can do that, but we're trying to be in character as in characters haven't read and learned by heart the monster manual so they wouldn't know the weak saves or resistances of every opponent. And as I said many times in my arguments, a caster maybe can do that but how many times ? 3 ? 5 ? 10 ? Still very far from Unlimited!
You've got this one wrong. No, you cannot simply hit a door all day long in order to provide free healing. The text for the maneuver clearly states that: The foe must pose a threat to either you or your allies in some direct, immediate way. Also, remember what I said above, a Crusader cannot recover a maneuver until she has spent all of them. And D6+ Initiator Level to a max of 5 every five or six rounds is really only good at Levels 1 - 3 max, maybe 4 if they're hanging out near the Arcane Casters. Expecially if you follow the rules as written and don't let them keep hitting doors with it.
Well I told you our crusader was using the recovery system a bit different, I don't know which one is right since I don't have the book but I'll check it out soon. And in any case I know about the foe required, which can be interpreted in many ways if they want to be really lame.
One condition, they can remove One condition from themselves when they use the maneuver. Then the Warblade has to ready the maneuver again. Admittedly he can do it very, very easily which is my major beef with him but hit him with two conditions and he's out of the fight for a couple of turns while he heals up.
So you're saying that being able to remove 2 harmful conditions in 3 rounds is fair and not at all overpowered ? And hit in between with +2 morale to attack ! Then we have different opinions about balance sorry :p It's as I was saying , a warblade with a ring of sustenance(or outsider even better), mountain hammer and ironheart surge can literally destroy a planet.
"Fatigue" ? What is that ? I simply touch my self . Mighty warblade ftw!"
Ifpeople would read the rules correctly in the ToB they'd see that it isn't half as overpowered as it seems to be. Of course, this is D&D, some things are overpowered but a bit of common sense applied liberally can rectify the problems.
Well again sorry if they were playing some rules wrong. But it's the players responsibility if they bring such an exotic class into the table to be sure how to play correctly.
The main problem with the cleric is that, unfortunately, he can often do a Fighter's job better than him if designed that way. But that's an argument hashed out many times on these boards and I don't wish to discuss it in depth.
Yes clerics and even more so druids are powerful, but there are limits. And agreed it's another story.
Fair enough, as I stated in my first paragraph, it is your Campaign and if you feel uncomfortable running something you're entitled to say 'no.' But a couple of the problems you seem to have seems to come from a simple mis-reading of the rules. Ask your player if you can borrow the book and read them up yourself and come and ask on the forums if you're still unclear on their wording.
Will do that to check out the crusader's recovery mechanism. Other than that I don't think I got anything wrong. Still find them quite OP and banned. Over and out
post snipped for brevity.
Letting people play classes not designed to be incorporated into the campaign you're running (i.e. most established adventures) is a mistake. It's not his mistake, it's yours. You do come across as a whiner, though, so at least the OP has that part right.
Secondly, if you don't like an ability, grow a pair and house rule it.
Lastly, thank you for your service to our country.
And how high exactly do you think is your divine rank you to tell people what's a mistake or not ?
Thanks but no, I know better ways of solving d&d issues with my friends and players than listening to random forum guys.
Unfortunately, comparing a spellcaster to a melee of any type is a mistake, and saying you have a "nigh invincible wizard" is akin to saying you have an average wizard.
Wizards are easy to make invulnerable.
Yes at high teens maybe and anyway I'm not the one who started the 'melee were underpowered vs casters' argument at all. I was the first one saying everyone has their role and can't be compared to each other. kthx!
Very well, how about the fact that the Crusader cannot recover her manuvers until she has spent all of them or the combat's over? If she wants to re-use her mighty Mountain Hammer ability she has to burn through all her other manuevers in order to have the chance of gaining it back again, admittedly the odds of her getting it are good but it still gets annoying when it fails.
Not exactly true. The crusader's maneuvers automatically refresh when you cannot grant him any more new ones (which works out to be every 3 rounds, assuming extra maneuver is taken), regardless of how many maneuvers you have actually initiated.
Agreed maybe they can do that. That is IF opponents fail their saves which is way more likely to happen than a martial adept missing an attack roll, and how many times per day can they do that ? Level 1 ? 3 sleeps ? Then gg all day just cantrips or 1d8 crossbow attack wow. Same with level 5 glitterdusts and 7 polymorphs etc. That's what I was saying martial adept's abilities are at will which is a really big deal.
I wasn't aware of martial adepts having access to a maneuver which caused all foes to fall asleep if he hit...;)
So what if their maneuvers are at-will? You don't see people complaining about the fighter being able to full-attack at-will, do you?
Never said it was gamebreaking by its own. I used the adamantite golem and epic DR examples to emphasize the fact that they bypass a core mechanism such as being able to do damage to anything with any kind of weapon. And metalline enchantment last time I checked was +2 or +3 enchantment? I fail to see how this is consistent before mid levels and even then not everyone is able to afford it ?
And I am asking if it is really such a big deal? Gone are the days of 3e where monsters can have outrageous dr values such as 50/+7. Is being able to overcome dr5/whatever in your games really that overpowering?
So it's fair for a frontliner melee class to heal at will (situational and little damage yes but still) and negate much of the need for tranditional healing?
I don't really see it as problematic. Seems more a holdover from earlier editions, where infinite healing appeared to be game-breaking. Like you said, it is fairly slow, situational and gradual, so it won't really let you cheat death during combat, not when foes should be doing much more damage than what you are healing (and there is an opportunity cost in using crusader's strike, in that you aren't using another maneuver with a different effect, such as aforementioned mountain hammer).
I am not sure if martial spirit was intended by the designers to be abused with bag of rats (or the equivalent thereof in your games) or if that was simply a design oversight though. Maybe they had wanted it to be usable only during combat (and only on targets which pose a definite and immediate threat).
If one isn't having fun playing a traditional meleer and feels they are underpowered, then frankly don't. They can go and try wizards and whatever they feel like.
And what if one wishes to have fun playing a traditional melee character and not feel underpowered? Why does it have to be one or the other (suck at melee or rock at casting)? Your response echoes that of many before you. What justification is there for fighters evidently not being allowed decent stuff (apparently, being able to deal crappy fire damage is too good for them) while casters breaking the game with overpowered spells being seen as expected and necessary?
Of course I am open to any suggestions but I'm not inclined to change mind about this one, since I've seen these guys in action so many times over the last year, it's not a call I made after a session or two.
Which is funny. My impression of the martial adepts is that while they have moments during combat where they can really shine, they will rarely ever have a chance to actually dominate fights.
And how high exactly do you think is your divine rank you to tell people what's a mistake or not ?
Thanks but no, I know better ways of solving d&d issues with my friends and players than listening to random forum guys.
Yes at high teens maybe and anyway I'm not the one who started the 'melee were underpowered vs casters' argument at all. I was the first one saying everyone has their role and can't be compared to each other. kthx!
My divine rank is exactly 12.
Your inability to admit a mistake won't serve you well in the military. I suggest you learn to pony up and take criticism like a man.
Yes warblade can't wear heavy and can't heal and Crusader has d10 I'm perfectly aware of that. I was just outlining their combined strengths since I mostly saw ToB stuff when 2 of my coplayers were having this lame combo.
To be fair, warblades can access martial spirit and crusader's strike at 1st lv by taking martial study and martial stance feats (assuming you can get 2 starting feats). But there would still be no heavy armour (unless you spend another feat, or MC into fighter).
Instead every round after the first he was gaining one random from the ones he hasn't been granted yet. So it was like use one-get one all the time. If he was playing it wrongly then I'm sorry for not having checked the rule. But he said and explained to dm as well that it works like this so I just believed him.
That is indeed the way it works for a crusader. What's the issue here?
So you're saying that being able to remove 2 harmful conditions in 3 rounds is fair and not at all overpowered ?
Considering that it takes a standard action to initiate IHS, not really. Especially when it means that those 2 rounds you spend removing 2 conditions are 2 rounds that you are not attacking.
It's as I was saying , a warblade with a ring of sustenance(or outsider even better), mountain hammer and ironheart surge can literally destroy a planet.
So? Hunger/thirst hardly ever gets enforced ingame anyways. What does a PC have to gain from being able to bore his way to the earth's crust with a spoon? The roleplaying ramifications may be huge (your 3rd lv dwarven warblade tunnels his way out of the adamantine cell by using mountain hammer on his fists), but the actual mechanical impact seems fairly minimal.
Oh another one, let's see !
I knew someone would brought this up. Sorry it was bad editing from my behalf. Yes warblade can't wear heavy and can't heal and Crusader has d10 I'm perfectly aware of that. I was just outlining their combined strengths since I mostly saw ToB stuff when 2 of my coplayers were having this lame combo.
Could you clarify what that lame combo was?
This is not what our crusader used to do I'm afraid. He didn't have to expend every other manuever in order to get a new one. Instead every round after the first he was gaining one random from the ones he hasn't been granted yet. So it was like use one-get one all the time. If he was playing it wrongly then I'm sorry for not having checked the rule. But he said and explained to dm as well that it works like this so I just believed him.
Yes but he looses unused manouvers every couple of rounds.
Agreed but it's a fact that we usually play campaigns which are low-medium levels mostly. And as I said above I used the DR 40 example to throw some emphasis on how unstoppable they are. But trust me I've also rolled enough to know how powerful defense is DR for many monsters and overcoming this at will is just unfair imo.
So house rule it can ignore up to 15/whayever points of damage reduction. No ones going to complain and yes it is stupid that a third level character can overcome the damage reduction of a god. (Can't hit it, but still)
Mm well in theory yes they can do that, but we're trying to be in character as in characters haven't read and learned by heart the monster manual so they wouldn't know the weak saves or resistances of every opponent.
Not ToB fault. I often make small mechanical changes or major consmetic ones to stop players from doing this.
And as I said many times in my arguments, a caster maybe can do that but how many times ? 3 ? 5 ? 10 ? Still very far from Unlimited!
Irrelivant. How uneless the games survival. How often do mages run out of spells? Plus with reserve feats they don't even need to worry about that.
Well I told you our crusader was using the recovery system a bit different, I don't know which one is right since I don't have the book but I'll check it out soon. And in any case I know about the foe required, which can be interpreted in many ways if they want to be really lame.
No, it needs to be a foe and pose a threat in an immediate way. If a door constitutes that to a playerm, then that game is messed up.
So you're saying that being able to remove 2 harmful conditions in 3 rounds is fair and not at all overpowered ? And hit in between with +2 morale to attack ! Then we have different opinions about balance sorry :p It's as I was saying , a warblade with a ring of sustenance(or outsider even better), mountain hammer and ironheart surge can literally destroy a planet.
"Fatigue" ? What is that ? I simply touch my self . Mighty warblade ftw!"
Old age will stop him. Plus just use logic against iron heart surge. My DM had the same reaction, but allowed me to use it. He never had a problem because i never used it stuppidly.
Well again sorry if they were playing some rules wrong. But it's the players responsibility if they bring such an exotic class into the table to be sure how to play correctly.
Its also the DMs responsability to double check. One person can missread something, two people rarely will. Your saying you don't read splat books beofre aproving them?
Yes clerics and even more so druids are powerful, but there are limits. And agreed it's another story.
You can't complain about the power levels of ToB and ignore the fact clerics, druids and wizard can beat ANY martial adept character.
Will do that to check out the crusader's recovery mechanism. Other than that I don't think I got anything wrong. Still find them quite OP and banned. Over and out
Overpowered compared to what? And yes, you can compare melee and casters. The latter win, ToB or not.
It could be the most fun thing to play. Really cool abilities and all. But ToB is NOT needed to play DnD. The PHB is. ToB = optional. PHB = mandatory. For an optional book to overshadow material in a mandatory book is pretty imba to me.
The way I see it, people only defend it as "balanced" because they like it better. As well you should. Its overpowered.
And I know I'm going to get comments like "Well fighters suck by themselves". Well in my experience, fighters can play their role just fine. If you expect a fighter to beat down an enemy before a caster can take him out, then you're playing them for the wrong reasons. The way I play fighters is as "tanks" (you know what I mean if you play mmorpg's) that keep an enemies attention so it doesnt go beat down your glass cannon of a wizard.
In short, if any optional material makes you say "Well why the hell do I need to use the PHB anymore?" its overpowered IMHO.
Not exactly true. The crusader's maneuvers automatically refresh when you cannot grant him any more new ones (which works out to be every 3 rounds, assuming extra maneuver is taken), regardless of how many maneuvers you have actually initiated.
Yeah that's the way our guy used to play. I don't have access to the book right now but I will check it out soon anyway.
I wasn't aware of martial adepts having access to a maneuver which caused all foes to fall asleep if he hit...;)
So what if their maneuvers are at-will? You don't see people complaining about the fighter being able to full-attack at-will, do you?
And I don't see people whining about the all-so mighty sleep either... Which can be totally negated by the way from one guy making a save and just waking up his comrades, happens more often than not from my experience.
Full attack means little at low levels and there are restrictions as you of course are aware to it.And full attack is just that. No glamorous or exotic effects just roll d20 and damage.
And I am asking if it is really such a big deal? Gone are the days of 3e where monsters can have outrageous dr values such as 50/+7. Is being able to overcome dr5/whatever in your games really that overpowering?
I don't really see it as problematic. Seems more a holdover from earlier editions, where infinite healing appeared to be game-breaking. Like you said, it is fairly slow, situational and gradual, so it won't really let you cheat death during combat, not when foes should be doing much more damage than what you are healing (and there is an opportunity cost in using crusader's strike, in that you aren't using another maneuver with a different effect, such as aforementioned mountain hammer).
Yes I agree with your facts they are not problematic on their own. But when a pc has access to all of these things at will plus d12, plus that dreaded aptitude, 4 skill points and uncanny dodge and their other goodies then yes it does make a difference.
And what if one wishes to have fun playing a traditional melee character and not feel underpowered? Why does it have to be one or the other (suck at melee or rock at casting)? Your response echoes that of many before you. What justification is there for fighters evidently not being allowed decent stuff (apparently, being able to deal crappy fire damage is too good for them) while casters breaking the game with overpowered spells being seen as expected and necessary?
Well frankly neither me or our community here thinks fighters are that underpowered as everyone is suggesting. And by fighter I mean multiclass and prc meleers, no sane person usually plays a straight fighter. On the contrary, old classic power attack has been the mvp damage dealing ability at low levels for everyone many many times. So I wouldn't exactly agree that traditional fighters are not fun or cannot deal decent damage.
Which is funny. My impression of the martial adepts is that while they have moments during combat where they can really shine, they will rarely ever have a chance to actually dominate fights.
You're right it's mostly annoying for me and the others that they get so many cool abilities which noone else can follow and when put together make them a league of their own.
Yes at high teens maybe and anyway I'm not the one who started the 'melee were underpowered vs casters' argument at all. I was the first one saying everyone has their role and can't be compared to each other. kthx!
So your saying that "ToB is overpowered compared to the core fighter. The fact that caster are far more powerful isn't here or there because these are different roles" ?
I'm inclined to side with the "whiner" here. If anything is introduced into the game that makes things similar useless in comparison, its overpowered.
It could be the most fun thing to play. Really cool abilities and all. But ToB is NOT needed to play DnD. The PHB is. ToB = optional. PHB = mandatory. For an optional book to overshadow material in a mandatory book is pretty imba to me.
The way I see it, people only defend it as "balanced" because they like it better. As well you should. Its overpowered.
And I know I'm going to get comments like "Well fighters suck by themselves". Well in my experience, fighters can play their role just fine. If you expect a fighter to beat down an enemy before a caster can take him out, then you're playing them for the wrong reasons. The way I play fighters is as "tanks" (you know what I mean if you play mmorpg's) that keep an enemies attention so it doesnt go beat down your glass cannon of a wizard.
In short, if any optional material makes you say "Well why the hell do I need to use the PHB anymore?" its overpowered IMHO.
So your saying that it is impossible that WoTC can improve on the PHB? And anything more powerful it overpowered? Please. Sneaky is a weak feat. So now every feat more powerful that sneaky is overpowered and needs to be banned? Have fun playing D&D.
So your saying that it is impossible that WoTC can improve on the PHB? And anything more powerful it overpowered? Please. Sneaky is a weak feat. So now every feat more powerful that sneaky is overpowered and needs to be banned? Have fun playing D&D.
It can be improved. Thats what 4E is ;)
Bottom line is, a DM has every right to ban ToB. But seriously what would you say if he tried to ban the PHB?
There isnt too much wrong with the core classes. People just get greedy. Thats what ToB is in my eyes. Scratching the itch of the greedy person.
Edit: youre also comparing apples to oranges. Sneaky is the same weakness as the other bullcrap feats that give you +2 to skills. Now if someone came along and made a feat that gave +6 to skills, yes. Its overpowered.
You're right it's mostly annoying for me and the others that they get so many cool abilities which noone else can follow and when put together make them a league of their own.
Dusblade is as good as any martial adept. So is a factotum (in versatility, not direct combat). Wizards, cleric and sorceror is above, fighter and CW samurai is below. They aren't in a leage of their own.
- if the DM thinks something is overpowered, instead of outright banning it he should do what he can to accomodate in a modified fashion
- when in doubt, say yes and houserule it later.
OR
- when players are overpowered, use their own tricks against them.
It can be improved. Thats what 4E is ;)
Bottom line is, a DM has every right to ban ToB. But seriously what would you say if he tried to ban the PHB?
There isnt too much wrong with the core classes. People just get greedy. Thats what ToB is in my eyes. Scratching the itch of the greedy person.
No, fighter get tired doing 100 damage per round at level 20 when wizards are literarily reworking the fabric of the univers and calling angels to be their b****. Thats whats wrong. And the fact that wizards get a load of cool falavourful spells and fighters get "I full attack" and "I tricp" every round. thats what Tob DOES. mAKE MARTIAL CHARACTER MORE FUN TO PLAY.
The way I look at it is this:
- if the DM thinks something is overpowered, instead of outright banning it he should do what he can to accomodate in a modified fashion
- when in doubt, say yes and houserule it later.
OR
- when players are overpowered, use their own tricks against them.
Exactly. Can you slaughter characters with ToB NPCs? No? Maybe it isn't over powered than.
Well frankly neither me or our community here thinks fighters are that underpowered as everyone is suggesting. And by fighter I mean multiclass and prc meleers, no sane person usually plays a straight fighter. On the contrary, old classic power attack has been the mvp damage dealing ability at low levels for everyone many many times. So I wouldn't exactly agree that traditional fighters are not fun or cannot deal decent damage.
Good. Then if you took the time to read the book and understand it you'd catch on that NOTHING in the entire ToB is as powerful as Shock Trooper or Kharmic Strike.
You're right it's mostly annoying for me and the others that they get so many cool abilities which noone else can follow and when put together make them a league of their own.
Those 'cool abilities' are the only reason to play the class. A ToB character is weaker in terms of max damage output, their DR bypass can be accomplished with a low level magic item, and their healing is suck. And there's pages upon pages in the old 3.5 CharOp boards to prove it.
No, fighter get tired doing 100 damage per round at level 20 when wizards are literarily reworking the fabric of the univers and calling angels to be their b****. Thats whats wrong. And the fact that wizards get a load of cool falavourful spells and fighters get "I full attack" and "I tricp" every round. thats what Tob DOES. mAKE MARTIAL CHARACTER MORE FUN TO PLAY.
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
Could you clarify what that lame combo was?
The lame combo was crusader/warblade.
Yes but he looses unused manouvers every couple of rounds.
Our guy was just keeping every unused one indefinitely.
So house rule it can ignore up to 15/whayever points of damage reduction. No ones going to complain and yes it is stupid that a third level character can overcome the damage reduction of a god. (Can't hit it, but still)
My idea of houseruling that was that your weapon takes some damage as well when you're using that. An amount equal to the DR or hardness you overpass. Maybe to keep them from spamming it to whatever. If I ever have martial adepts in my campaign I will probably do something like that.
Irrelivant. How uneless the games survival. How often do mages run out of spells? Plus with reserve feats they don't even need to worry about that.
A lot of times. Especially in low levels. Some adventures are not encounter and rest , they are whole dungeon levels with multiple encounters and no space for rest at all. And ok reserves are brilliant and fix the crappy crossbow usage for the caster but it's low damage with a save and range is usually short which means you have to go dangerously close to opponents.
No, it needs to be a foe and pose a threat in an immediate way. If a door constitutes that to a playerm, then that game is messed up.
No but summoned creatures or animal companions can be ordered to pose threat for example. And you can always hit for nonlethal. I know it's lame but there are many ways to abuse stuff if you want.
Old age will stop him. Plus just use logic against iron heart surge. My DM had the same reaction, but allowed me to use it. He never had a problem because i never used it stuppidly.
Our guy didn't want to tunnel across the earth either I just used that as an example of what they can achieve. It's still ridiculous imo, noone has never been able to do that with a standard action at will every 2 rounds or get even close.
Its also the DMs responsability to double check. One person can missread something, two people rarely will. Your saying you don't read splat books beofre aproving them?
100% Agreed . I'm saying that our DM hasn't probably read correctly their mechanics or something. I was a player in that campaign along with the martial adepts, if I ever use stuff like that in my game trust me I always try to learn them better than the player.
You can't complain about the power levels of ToB and ignore the fact clerics, druids and wizard can beat ANY martial adept character.
We don't justify a class by its ability to rule in pvp. That's WoW or something for you :p
Overpowered compared to what? And yes, you can compare melee and casters. The latter win, ToB or not.
Well I tend to disagree with that. Casters are casters, skillmonkeys are skillmonkeys and frontliners are frontliners. It's like comparing a plane to a car they are both vehicles but can't make any valid comparison since they serve different purposes.
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
Okay, fine. If you think playing a character who hits people with a weapon for times per round at level 20 is just as fun as rewoking fabric of the univers, more power to you. You clearly don't need Tome of Battle. If however you don't find full attacking every round all that exciting, give Tome of Battle a try.
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
Except the purpose of the Fighter is to be a meatshield / damage output device. And the Wizard does both better with Polymorph/Summon Monster. And the Cleric does it better with Divine Power. And the Druid does it better with an animal companion and or wildshape.
So since melee is worthless anyway you might as well let them have some fun.
Okay, fine. If you think playing a character who hits people with a weapon for times per round at level 20 is just as fun as rewoking fabric of the univers, more power to you. You clearly don't need Tome of Battle. If however you don't find full attacking every round all that exciting, give Tome of Battle a try.
But our point is that this isn't a level 20 game only.
And last time I checked reworking the fabric of universe or messing with outsiders is far from available at low-mid level wizards.
And as I suggested earlier, if someone feels underpowered by playing a fighter or whatever and thinks wizards are way more OP even than martial adepts, then by all means go play one!
These kind of arguments really remind me of warcraft nerf cry threads at class forums and then a river of replies from class members who try to explain why it shouldn't get nerfed. It doesn't have to be that way for d&d
Every class has their strengths and weaknesses and there isn't such a thing as balance in an rpg because there are really lots of other things beyond just battle options that define a character.
But when almost everyone in a game group thinks something is disturbing then taking actions against it is a legal option imo.
Okay, fine. If you think playing a character who hits people with a weapon for times per round at level 20 is just as fun as rewoking fabric of the univers, more power to you. You clearly don't need Tome of Battle. If however you don't find full attacking every round all that exciting, give Tome of Battle a try.
My point is that every class has a weakness in the core rules. Wizards are cool at high levels, but without fighters at low levels, that orc cheiftan is just going to walk up to you and bash your face in with a club.
The problem is, a lot of people dont want to play the class role. Just because its not laid out like in 4E, doesnt mean its not there. Anyone with tactical knowledge will tell you, Ranged is your damage dealer, Melee is your meat shield. Boring? Maybe to some, but thats how it works best. Take away your meat shield and your damage dealer with only a d4 hit dice gets beat down.
But then introduce optional material that makes the "meat shield" better...Who wouldnt want that? Like I said, optional material shouldnt overshadow core material. It should just be different; optional.
ToB is pretty much a book of pre-made gestalt characters in my eyes.
And YES you have to get DM permission to play gestalt.
The lame combo was crusader/warblade.
How was that lame? You could just rule that initatior level between martial adepts don't stack.
Our guy was just keeping every unused one indefinitely.
Rules don't allow it.
My idea of houseruling that was that your weapon takes some damage as well when you're using that. An amount equal to the DR or hardness you overpass. Maybe to keep them from spamming it to whatever. If I ever have martial adepts in my campaign I will probably do something like that.
Just don't. The situations in which its problomatic are really really rare.
A lot of times. Especially in low levels. Some adventures are not encounter and rest , they are whole dungeon levels with multiple encounters and no space for rest at all. And ok reserves are brilliant and fix the crappy crossbow usage for the caster but it's low damage with a save and range is usually short which means you have to go dangerously close to opponents.
If the party isn't retreating in between fights they have only themselves to blame. In my expirience of DMing, catsers hardly ever run out of spells. Beside, 9th level manouvers are at best 6th levels spells, and more often 5th.
No but summoned creatures or animal companions can be ordered to pose threat for example. And you can always hit for nonlethal. I know it's lame but there are many ways to abuse stuff if you want.
No they cant/ You control summoned monster. They cannot be a threat to you. If the DM allows that kinda backwards logic then...sorry?
Our guy didn't want to tunnel across the earth either I just used that as an example of what they can achieve. It's still ridiculous imo, noone has never been able to do that with a standard action at will every 2 rounds or get even close.
Logics defeats it. The core books don't say I can't continue fighting after I'm dead. I've never had a problem with that ommission though.
100% Agreed . I'm saying that our DM hasn't probably read correctly their mechanics or something. I was a player in that campaign along with the martial adepts, if I ever use stuff like that in my game trust me I always try to learn them better than the player.
That and logic defeats most problems you've raised against ToB.
We don't justify a class by its ability to rule in pvp. That's WoW or something for you :p
Not just pvp. Practically anything. Monster killing, out of combat research/transport. Wizards win. Hands down.
Well I tend to disagree with that. Casters are casters, skillmonkeys are skillmonkeys and frontliners are frontliners. It's like comparing a plane to a car they are both vehicles but can't make any valid comparison since they serve different purposes.
Then you can't claim ToB is overpowered. Firstly, fighters are prefered to martial adepts by powergamers when flavour is important. And at higher levels a wizard doesn't need a tank, so this role issue isn't an argument.
My point is that every class has a weakness in the core rules. Wizards are cool at high levels, but without fighters at low levels, that orc cheiftan is just going to walk up to you and bash your face in with a club.
Its not about machanical weakness, its about a flavour weakness to be fun to play. And not if he fails his will (bad) save against sleep. Then even the wizard beast him.
The problem is, a lot of people dont want to play the class role. Just because its not laid out like in 4E, doesnt mean its not there. Anyone with tactical knowledge will tell you, Ranged is your damage dealer, Melee is your meat shield. Boring? Maybe to some, but thats how it works best. Take away your meat shield and your damage dealer with only a d4 hit dice gets beat down.
The problem is they want variety. Not just "I full attack" every round. Wizards get indevidual spells, why shouldn't fighters get indevidual attacks.
But then introduce optional material that makes the "meat shield" better...Who wouldnt want that? Like I said, optional material shouldnt overshadow core material. It should just be different; optional.
I wizard can tank. In more ways than one. Summoning is the most important. They can also substitue most skillmonkey tasks. Did someone mention taking over roles?
ToB is pretty much a book of pre-made gestalt characters in my eyes.
And YES you have to get DM permission to play gestalt.
Fighters can outdamage ToB characters.
But our point is that this isn't a level 20 game only.
And last time I checked reworking the fabric of universe or messing with outsiders is far from available at low-mid level wizards.
And as I suggested earlier, if someone feels underpowered by playing a fighter or whatever and thinks wizards are way more OP even than martial adepts, then by all means go play one!
Okay, what if your the DM and a player wants to play a character with attacks with varrying effects that uses their martial training? Without ToB thats really hard. You decide whether the request was unreasonable.
These kind of arguments really remind me of warcraft nerf cry threads at class forums and then a river of replies from class members who try to explain why it shouldn't get nerfed. It doesn't have to be that way for d&d
Every class has their strengths and weaknesses and there isn't such a thing as balance in an rpg because there are really lots of other things beyond just battle options that define a character.
Yes, your right. You cannot balance casters and martial characters. But ToB helped. Also, compare the weaknesses of a caster to that of the weaknesses of a martial character. Last time I did that, there was one long list and one short list.
But when almost everyone in a game group thinks something is disturbing then taking actions against it is a legal option imo.
It is legal, but people make mistakes, even whole groups. I just go to sleep feelign better I've liberated another group from the crushing bordom of the "I full attack every round, no variation" fighter concept. The Fighter class.
The problem is they want variety. Not just "I full attack" every round. Wizards get indevidual spells, why shouldn't fighters get indevidual attacks.
If you cant find enough fighter feats and special combat attacks in the PHB (or any other optional books offering prestige classes) then you haven't looked very hard. You don't have to just roll 4d20 every time.
Then you can't claim ToB is overpowered. Firstly, fighters are prefered to martial adepts by powergamers when flavour is important. And at higher levels a wizard doesn't need a tank, so this role issue isn't an argument.
At higher levels a wizard doesnt need a tank, but they need a tank to get to higher levels.
At higher levels, a tank doesnt necessarily need a wizard, but they were really usefull at lower levels.
Hell even at low levels, 2 fighters will most likely be able to scrape by until higher levels. Throw 2 1st level wizards at the same encounters and good luck. If you survive to level 20, your DM was going easy on you.
But like I said, if its REALLY about flavor, you can always multiclass, take prestige classes, get clever. But I distinctly remember peoples arguments being "But the core fighter sucks and these dont". That looks like a power issue to me.
How was that lame? You could just rule that initatior level between martial adepts don't stack.
I mean the player combo was lame for the rest of us. One crusader + one warblade pc, not a single pc with multiclass.
Just don't. The situations in which its problomatic are really really rare.
Disagree, in that campaign more often than not we fought monsters which relied on their DR to justify their CR and so often doors and walls and whatever got destroyed to make pass which gave access to the party to stuff they shouldn't have so early/fast. And before you can counterargue with stone shape or whatever I'll remind you again that these are expendable spells not at will powers , which brings us to ...
If the party isn't retreating in between fights they have only themselves to blame. In my expirience of DMing, catsers hardly ever run out of spells. Beside, 9th level manouvers are at best 6th levels spells, and more often 5th.
Retreating is always an option ? What if you're in a hurry to save someone? Or hunting the big villain who's gonna leave the place soon ? Or you're in totally hostile environment where you can't find a haven to retreat? Maybe it's just the way we play adventures but in my d&d experience it happens quite often to reach your limits in a single day full of encounters before finding a place to rest.
No they cant/ You control summoned monster. They cannot be a threat to you. If the DM allows that kinda backwards logic then...sorry?
Well its RAI you can technically order the monster or companion which is an npc to be hostile.
That and logic defeats most problems you've raised against ToB.
Not just pvp. Practically anything. Monster killing, out of combat research/transport. Wizards win. Hands down.
Your kind of logic maybe , but try to understand this is not mathematics nor physics ;) People have their opinions and thoughts according to what they've experienced so try not to be that objective on this matter.
Then you can't claim ToB is overpowered. Firstly, fighters are prefered to martial adepts by powergamers when flavour is important. And at higher levels a wizard doesn't need a tank, so this role issue isn't an argument.
Again if this is how you're used to play the game fine
But please consider that each group may have slightly different pursues and expectations of the roles and flavor than those of yours.Okay, what if your the DM and a player wants to play a character with attacks with varrying effects that uses their martial training? Without ToB thats really hard. You decide whether the request was unreasonable.
That's what feats (and even skill tricks) and magic items are for ?
It is legal, but people make mistakes, even whole groups. I just go to sleep feelign better I've liberated another group from the crushing bordom of the "I full attack every round, no variation" fighter concept. The Fighter class.
Haha you really seem to have bigger issues vs the fighters than me vs the martial adept (swordsage is more fair btw, recovery is logical at least). And anyway if that is the case you'll be having hard time sleeping till you liberate us :p
You're a tough argument buddy, but feels like recycling the same things all the time by quoting and counterquoting. In the end nothing changes though ;)
Well frankly neither me or our community here thinks fighters are that underpowered as everyone is suggesting. And by fighter I mean multiclass and prc meleers, no sane person usually plays a straight fighter. On the contrary, old classic power attack has been the mvp damage dealing ability at low levels for everyone many many times. So I wouldn't exactly agree that traditional fighters are not fun or cannot deal decent damage.
You were the first person on this thread to object to ToB. You main evidence against it? It was overpowered. Fighters with feats from splat books are more powerful.
And being able to deal damage doesn't make a character fun. If you could play with a 10th level character who could deal 50 points of damage per round with a standard action would you play it? I wouldn't. What about a character who can use standard action to inflict conditions on the opponent and other interesting affects, even if it was far less powerful? I know I would.
Thanks but no, I know better ways of solving d&d issues with my friends and players than listening to random forum guys.
Obviously it's your call. However, I thought I'd point out that you're not listening to "random forum guys": most of the people on this thread are pretty well-known around here. When you're reading someone who's literate, thoughtful, and has excellent rules knowledge, you might consider that he or she has a point.
When several of those someones are telling you that you're clearly in the wrong, you need to seriously reconsider your position.
Yes at high teens maybe and anyway I'm not the one who started the 'melee were underpowered vs casters' argument at all. I was the first one saying everyone has their role and can't be compared to each other. kthx!
Underlying a lot of your logic is the idea that being able to use abilities that refresh between encounters is fundamentally unbalanced. Consider, however, that the party isn't facing an unlimited number of encounters per day. The poor little Wiz1 with his sleep, color spray, and mage armor can literally end two encounters with area save-or-die spells, which in most normal situations is plenty.
Melee characters are underpowered versus casters, unless the melee character is extremely well optimized (and even then, only when compared to an un-optimized caster). You're worried about a 5th-level warblade bypassing DR on a golem, without taking into account that the 5th-level wizard has half a dozen spells that can effect the golem just fine--anything that deals energy damage and doesn't allow SR.
You don't know how to handle the Tome of Battle classes, because they're more caster-like than fighter-like. They're nearly as flexible as casters (although they're not as powerful), and they can do interesting things in combat. However, I'd argue that that's a strength of the book, not a weakness, and strongly urge you to reconsider your ban.
I mean the player combo was lame for the rest of us. One crusader + one warblade pc, not a single pc with multiclass.
If it was lame for the rest of you you were doing something realy, really wrong. I've played non-ToB classes with warblades and crusadors, and i managed to contribute.
Disagree, in that campaign more often than not we fought monsters which relied on their DR to justify their CR
Look through the templates on crystalkeep. There are countless CR:+1 templates that offer damage reduction and other abilities that are far more powerful. A monster's CR is hardly ever justified by its damage reduction.
and so often doors and walls and whatever got destroyed to make pass which gave access to the party to stuff they shouldn't have so early/fast. And before you can counterargue with stone shape or whatever I'll remind you again that these are expendable spells not at will powers , which brings us to ...
A reserve acid feat will accomplish the same thing.
Besides, a martial adept can use any manouver once, then they need to recover it, which means either gimping their combat output or waiting. Wizards can often one spell K.O. an enemy. Spells are fewer but more powerful. Warblade can use his manouvers more often but their weaker. Balances out.
Retreating is always an option ? What if you're in a hurry to save someone?
Wears thin if over used.
Or hunting the big villain who's gonna leave the place soon ?
Again not to common. Plus against a big villain, PCs generally need to be rested, otherwise the villain is weak compared to them.
Or you're in totally hostile environment where you can't find a haven to retreat?
2nd level spell rope trick. A 50th level warblade cannot do anything near that.
Maybe
it's just the way we play adventures but in my d&d experience it happens quite often to reach your limits in a single day full of encounters before finding a place to rest.
You described a serioes of not so common situation. What about prebattle scounting? Wizard shines. Escape? Wizard shines? First few battles? Wizard shines. 4th and 5th battle of the day? Warblade shines. That a problem why exactly?
Well its RAI you can technically order the monster or companion which is an npc to be hostile.
Then you'd need to hurt them. Do damage to them.
Your kind of logic maybe , but try to understand this is not mathematics nor physics ;) People have their opinions and thoughts according to what they've experienced so try not to be that objective on this matter.
Your thoughts are:
An ally who you order to be hostile constitutes a threat.
Sorry, your view is that of the minority.
Again if this is how you're used to play the game fine
Name me one thing good thing about playing a fighter that isn't true for a warblade.
And anyway you're a tough argument buddy, but feels like recycling the same things all the time by quoting and counterquoting. In the end nothing changes though ;)
Once I found someone deathly opposed to ToB. Then he realized he counld just rename the warblade as fighter. And now he likes it. Since then I don't give up so easily.
Obviously it's your call. However, I thought I'd point out that you're not listening to "random forum guys": most of the people on this thread are pretty well-known around here. When you're reading someone who's literate, thoughtful, and has excellent rules knowledge, you might consider that he or she has a point.
When several of those someones are telling you that you're clearly in the wrong, you need to seriously reconsider your position.
Well said Mr Mccowen, but I replied likewise to the guy which felt he was trying to be smartass with me and my real life issues. His post at least seemed offensive and by all means if that wasn't the intentions I'm sorry for any inconvenience. And do I seem I'm not considering their points ? Of course I do, but I happen to be literate and have excellent rule knowledge myself too (thoughtful too I think :p) and I'm more convinced from actual playtest we've been having rather than forum discussions. As I said people tend to have different experiences with their game groups depending on each one's playstyles. I'm not trying to sound cocky or anything and sorry if I do , I'm just outlining the fact that opinions on stuff like d&d classes are totally subjectional and dependent on one's individuality. That and I'm used to more intense arguments from warcraft forums so please bear with me :p
Underlying a lot of your logic is the idea that being able to use abilities that refresh between encounters is fundamentally unbalanced. Consider, however, that the party isn't facing an unlimited number of encounters per day. The poor little Wiz1 with his sleep, color spray, and mage armor can literally end two encounters with area save-or-die spells, which in most normal situations is plenty.
Normal situations maybe. We're used on more sophisticated encounters such as fighting vs bigger groups of monsters which are far apart from each other or even creatures immune to such spells (skeletons zombies anyone?)
And I was not talking about unlimited number of encounters. More like a chain of them. In any case not just 1 or 2 before rest.
Melee characters are underpowered versus casters, unless the melee character is extremely well optimized (and even then, only when compared to an un-optimized caster). You're worried about a 5th-level warblade bypassing DR on a golem, without taking into account that the 5th-level wizard has half a dozen spells that can effect the golem just fine--anything that deals energy damage and doesn't allow SR.
Which doesn't happen more often than not, and again it's an expendable slot. Which makes a huge difference from at will power. As I said before.
You don't know how to handle the Tome of Battle classes, because they're more caster-like than fighter-like. They're nearly as flexible as casters (although they're not as powerful), and they can do interesting things in combat. However, I'd argue that that's a strength of the book, not a weakness, and strongly urge you to reconsider your ban.
In fact I'm already keen on allowing the OP to try his warblade again, but that won't change my opinion as a 'cheating' book. I'll just bring all kinds of suggestions for houseruling and rp restrictions on players for discussions and we'll make it work somehow all right.
I realized I was mainly arguing against melee being underpowered (and I will still argue that), but in retrospect, I think I would probably allow ToB if someone wanted to use it.
After reading through the whole post a second time, re-reading some ToB material, and examining my own arguments, I have changed my mind somewhat.
I realized I was mainly arguing against melee being underpowered (and I will still argue that), but in retrospect, I think I would probably allow ToB if someone wanted to use it.
Thank you. You have made my day.
Well said Mr Mccowen, but I replied likewise to the guy which felt he was trying to be smartass with me and my real life issues. His post at least seemed offensive and by all means if that wasn't the intentions I'm sorry for any inconvenience. And do I seem I'm not considering their points ? Of course I do, but I happen to be literate and have excellent rule knowledge myself too (thoughtful too I think :p) and I'm more convinced from actual playtest we've been having rather than forum discussions. As I said people tend to have different experiences with their game groups depending on each one's playstyles. I'm not trying to sound cocky or anything and sorry if I do , I'm just outlining the fact that opinions on stuff like d&d classes are totally subjectional and dependent on one's individuality. That and I'm used to more intense arguments from warcraft forums so please bear with me :p
Be fair on liquid150. I think he got board having to explain the sames things to anti-ToBers for the fiftieth time. Your very reasonably and his words were unneccissarily harsh, but i can understand them.
Normal situations maybe. We're used on more sophisticated encounters such as fighting vs bigger groups of monsters which are far apart from each other or even creatures immune to such spells (skeletons zombies anyone?)
And I was not talking about unlimited number of encounters. More like a chain of them. In any case not just 1 or 2 before rest.
Lets say theres 5 encounters per day. That means that at first the wizard will rule, then latter on the martial adept will. Wheres the problem? And yes, skeletons and zombies can be annoying to casters, just like flying creatures are annoying to warblades.
Which doesn't happen more often than not, and again it's an expendable slot. Which makes a huge difference from at will power. As I said before.
Yes, an expendable slot that it war war more powerful than an almost at will ability. It balances out.
In fact I'm already keen on allowing the OP to try his warblade again, but that won't change my opinion as a 'cheating' book. I'll just bring all kinds of suggestions for houseruling and rp restrictions on players for discussions and we'll make it work somehow all right.
So its fine that wizards can cheat by doing practically everything, but god forbid a tank be able to do anything meaningful in damage aside neglegably hitpoint damage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed you'd allow ToB a second chance, I just think your "its a cheater book" attitude is unfounded.
If it was lame for the rest of you you were doing something realy, really wrong. I've played non-ToB classes with warblades and crusadors, and i managed to contribute.
Personally I rarely make characters who don't contribute, but as I said before I always bring optimized ones into the game. In that campaign I was playing a Fghter/Sw/Champion of corellon with 36 AC when dodging and fighting defensively with combat expertise and touch AC of around 30 as well as early as level 6. Which practically meant they were hitting with just natural 20s. And of course Int+Dex+Str applied to my damage as well. Was a nice build but really optimized. On the contrary martial adepts can do their parts from just picking a simple class, no multiclassing, no feats from a million books, standard magical equipment etc. At least that's the way it felt.
They can do it once, then they need to recover, which means gimping themselves. Wizards can often one spell K.O. an enemy. Spells are fewer but more powerful. Warblade can use his manouvers more often but their weaker. Balances out.
Take a whole round (which isn't really wasted as they use that single attack in between recoveries) to refresh my abilities ? I'd take that anytime thanks! Wouldn't feel gimping at all.
2nd level spell rope trick. A 50th level warblade cannot do anything near that.
Now now .. why you had to say that ? 1 hour/level means effectively it means you can't recover spells this way below level 8.I am a huge fan of rope trick anyway, I always pick it even with sorcerers but it's useful after mid-levels for refreshing your spells. And no matter how common or bland may seem to you that the party might be in a hurry when adventuring in a hostile area it just happens. From our point of view it seems a bit lame to retreat and rest every 2-3 encounters just to replenish your high level spells and spam them again, that's more like a computer game.
You described a serioes of not so common situation. What about prebattle scounting? Wizard shines. Escape? Wizard shines? First few battles? Wizard shines. 4th and 5th battle of the day? Warblade shines. That a problem why exactly?
Agreed here wizard can do these things as can a skillmonkey but as I said before I'm won't compare different class roles in any situation sorry! This is not a wizard v warblade fight for me, it never was.
Your thoughts are:
An ally who you order to be hostile constitutes a threat.
Sorry, your view is that of the minority.
It's not mine, I just say someone could use it with RAI.
Once I found someone deathly opposed to ToB. Then he realized he counld just rename the warblade as fighter. And now he likes it. Since then I don't give up so easily.
Well this one won't go down so easily I assure you :p
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
By two different roles, do you mean one has the role of sucking and one has the role of being good? In 3e there is no reason to play a melee character (outside of tomb of battle) in comparison to the options available to spellcasters. Hell, I can make a druid that is better in melee than a fighter can ever hope to be, AND has powerful long range spells. The whole "they have different roles so its ok that the spellcaster totally overshadows melee/martial characters" argument is really lame. Its one of the reasons I much prefer 4e. Finally a D&D game where "different role" means "different role," not "I can totally overshadow the other guy."
My point is that every class has a weakness in the core rules. Wizards are cool at high levels, but without fighters at low levels, that orc cheiftan is just going to walk up to you and bash your face in with a club.
The "a wizard needs a fighter to protect him so that the wizard can then totally overshadow the fighter later in life" argument is not a good one. Its an example of bad game design.
The problem is, a lot of people dont want to play the class role. Just because its not laid out like in 4E, doesnt mean its not there. Anyone with tactical knowledge will tell you, Ranged is your damage dealer, Melee is your meat shield. Boring? Maybe to some, but thats how it works best. Take away your meat shield and your damage dealer with only a d4 hit dice gets beat down.
There are no class roles in 3e. There is an intent to have them, I admit, but the game is not actually worked out in a manner that supports the intent mechanically. Fighters have nothing but hit points to support the role of a meat shield. They have no ability that will make monsters want to strike at the fighter instead of the character that is dealing the most damage. Indeed, as the fighter in 3e has nothing to make him sticky, from a tactical point of view, it is smarter for monsters to ignore the fighter and instead concentrate on the lower HP/more dangerous opponents. The fighter can do nothing about it. Likewise, many spellcasters can buff themselves into opponents that are far more dangerous in melee than a fighter ever was. The only "roles" in 3e are those that suck, and those that don't. Unfortunately, most of the non-magic martial type characters (and even some with a smattering of magic, such as rangers or paladins) are flat out in the suck camp. ToB does a bit to fix this (though not enough to make me want to play 3.5 edition again).
At higher levels a wizard doesnt need a tank, but they need a tank to get to higher levels.
As I said before, this is not an example of good game design.
At higher levels, a tank doesnt necessarily need a wizard, but they were really usefull at lower levels.
No they were not. At lower levels a wizard is virtually a worthless party member. It is not until level 5 that a wizard starts to hold their own in a group.
Hell even at low levels, 2 fighters will most likely be able to scrape by until higher levels. Throw 2 1st level wizards at the same encounters and good luck. If you survive to level 20, your DM was going easy on you.
Which does not mean that the game is designed well, or that things are balanced. If one class is clearly better at low levels, and another class is clearly better at higher levels, the game is still broken at all levels.
Be fair on liquid150. I think he got board having to explain the sames things to anti-ToBers for the fiftieth time. Your very reasonably and his words were unneccissarily harsh, but i can understand them.
Lets say theres 5 encounters per day. That means that at first the wizard will rule, then latter on the martial adept will. Wheres the problem? And yes, skeletons and zombies can be annoying to casters, just like flying creatures are annoying to warblades.
Yes, an expendable slot that it war war more powerful than an almost at will ability. It balances out.
So its fine that wizards can cheat by doing practically everything, but god forbid a tank be able to do anything meaningful in damage aside neglegably hitpoint damage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed you'd allow ToB a second chance, I just think your "its a cheater book" attitude is unfounded.
It's a first chance actually never allowed it before , and I'm just doing it because OP is whining nonstop and I kinda like him and we've been d&d buddies for many many years so I'm mostly doing it for his sake. That's another story, the day the sun rises from the west is the day I'll consider ToB fair !
And again wizards are fine (l2p, no offense j/k :p).
Just pointing out for the 100th time today I'm not justifying my opinions by comparing two different roles, so I'm kinda immune to arguments about casters vs warblades;)
Personally I rarely make characters who don't contribute, but as I said before I always bring optimized ones into the game. In that campaign I was playing a Fghter/Sw/Champion of corellon with 36 AC when dodging and fighting defensively with combat expertise and touch AC of around 30 as well as early as level 6. Which practically meant they were hitting with just natural 20s. And of course Int+Dex+Str applied to my damage as well. Was a nice build but really optimized. On the contrary martial adepts can do their parts from just picking a simple class, no multiclassing, no feats from a million books, standard magical equipment etc. At least that's the way it felt.
They can't, trust me. A swordsage can do dex+strength, but with limited weapons, only one type of stance and they can't wear heavy army and have medium BAB. Crusadors and warblades are stuck to only strengths.
Take a whole round (which isn't really wasted as they use that single attack in between recoveries) to refresh my abilities ? I'd take that anytime thanks! Wouldn't feel gimping at all.
You do that, and I'll kill the monster with one spell, thereby saving you some damage. Then when I run out of spells -if I do- you can save me. Teamwork.
Now now .. why you had to say that ? 1 hour/level means effectively it means you can't recover spells this way below level 8.I am a huge fan of rope trick anyway, I always pick it even with sorcerers but it's useful after mid-levels for refreshing your spells. And no matter how common or bland may seem to you that the party might be in a hurry when adventuring in a hostile area it just happens.Depends. Complete mage and you only need 3 or 4 hours sleep.From our point of view it seems a bit lame to retreat and rest every 2-3 encounters just to replenish your high level spells and spam them again, that's more like a computer game.
Its common sense. Your allowing the party to fight at their best abilties. Maybe you think its lame, but unless I have a pretty good reason not to, I recomend retreating after the wizard has lost most of their spells.
And, even if their are six encounters per day and the wizard has run out of spells, he was still the one shining in the first few encounters. Warblades are late bloomers. For the third time why is that a problem?Agreed here wizard can do these things as can a skillmonkey but as I said before I'm won't compare different class roles in any situation sorry! This is not a wizard v warblade fight for me, it never was.
So you have a problem with ToB because you can cover multiple roles with it, but not with wizard even though you acknowledge they can cover multiple roles. I finding this strange.It's not mine, I just say someone could use it with RAI.
So an idiot can come up with a stupid way to bend the rules in his favour that other idiots might accept. Not too worried.Well this one won't go down so easily I assure you :p
I'll just have to keep on trying.
It's a first chance actually never allowed it before , and I'm just doing it because OP is whining nonstop and I kinda like him and we've been d&d buddies for many many years so I'm mostly doing it for his sake. That's another story, the day the sun rises from the west is the day I'll consider ToB fair !
So, your 100% sure your right, theres no possibly way your wrong. Thats just arrogant.
I like ToB, but the day someone proves to me that it breaks the game, by doing so with multiple build from ToB, I won't try and shove it down other people's throats. Untill then...
And again wizards are fine (l2p, no offense j/k :p).
Just pointing out for the 100th time today I'm not justifying my opinions by comparing two different roles, so I'm kinda immune to arguments about casters vs warblades;)
No your not. Define the wizards roll. You'll notice it comes quite close to: Winning at everything. Does the warblade? Not if your sane.
By two different roles, do you mean one has the role of sucking and one has the role of being good? In 3e there is no reason to play a melee character (outside of tomb of battle) in comparison to the options available to spellcasters. Hell, I can make a druid that is better in melee than a fighter can ever hope to be, AND has powerful long range spells. The whole "they have different roles so its ok that the spellcaster totally overshadows melee/martial characters" argument is really lame. Its one of the reasons I much prefer 4e. Finally a D&D game where "different role" means "different role," not "I can totally overshadow the other guy."
If you are biased towards non-melee then theres nothing i can do. But logic tells me at least that if someone has MAGIC at their disposal, they can cause more havoc on the battle field. The downside is they are glass cannons. Solution? Melee characters to keep the enemy occupied.
The "a wizard needs a fighter to protect him so that the wizard can then totally overshadow the fighter later in life" argument is not a good one. Its an example of bad game design.
Your game might be different where the person who wins initiative kills all the enemies, but that isnt very fun to me. Just because there arent laid out "roles" in 3.5 doesnt mean they arent there. I personally go by these roles when I play and everyone has fun.
There are no class roles in 3e. There is an intent to have them, I admit, but the game is not actually worked out in a manner that supports the intent mechanically. Fighters have nothing but hit points to support the role of a meat shield. They have no ability that will make monsters want to strike at the fighter instead of the character that is dealing the most damage.
No ability to keep the monsters occupied? Trip Sunder and Disarm are a few of my favorites.
Which does not mean that the game is designed well, or that things are balanced. If one class is clearly better at low levels, and another class is clearly better at higher levels, the game is still broken at all levels.
I never said one class is better than the other. You did. In my opinion (and experience), if the players play the roles of their class, everyone has fun. If everyone doesnt have fun, then maybe the player isnt suited to play that role and I would encourage them to try a different one.
In summary, if you play every class the same (attack to kill, lets see who gets the most head counts) then yes. Melee classes will not be as powerful. But if you play certain roles on the battle field (Damage Dealers and Tanks) then each class can excel at its own thing.
You do that, and I'll kill the monster with one spell, thereby saving you some damage. Then when I run out of spells -if I do- you can save me. Teamwork.
Oh jesus! You keep mentiong this wizard build that keeps oneshooting stuff at even low-mid levels! Please by all means can you share it with the rest of us ?
Depends. Complete mage and you only need 3 or 4 hours sleep.
We're using the phb variant normally.
Its common sense. Your allowing the party to fight at their best abilties. Maybe you think its lame, but unless I have a pretty good reason not to, I recomend retreating after the wizard has lost most of their spells.
It's fine as long as the monsters bring their own reinforcements as well in the meantime. It sounds a bit unfair otherwise and not at all realistic from my point of view. Which is common sense around here :p
And, even if their are six encounters per day and the wizard has run out of spells, he was still the one shining in the first few encounters. Warblades are late bloomers. For the third time why is that a problem?
And for the 103rd time I'm not interested in wiz vs warblade comparisons :p
So you have a problem with ToB because you can cover multiple roles with it, but not with wizard even though you acknowledge they can cover multiple roles. I finding this strange.
No I have a problem with ToB because they can do unfair things. Like the ones I mentioned at my first post. Magic is magic, it is supposed to have exotic effects anyway, and I'm mostly saying this from flavor perspective. From mechanics and gameplay scope yes I agree wizards are extremely powerful but this is D&D. Everyone plays whatever they feel fun mostly rp-wise not battle wise.
My opinion is my opinion , I totally comply by the DM's calls when I'm playing and I expect players to do so as well when it's my campaign
So, your 100% sure your right, theres no possibly way your wrong. Thats just arrogant.
Not at all I'm way more humble than that. I'm saying there is no right or wrong. You find warblades fine and I don't. You find wizards problematic and I don't. It's just different opinions. You can't be just wrong or right about such a thing, you can only be wrong or right about facts.Like that level 2 is at 1,000 xp for example.
I like ToB, but the day someone proves to me that it breaks the game, by doing so with multiple build from ToB, I won't try and shove it down other people's throats. Untill then...
Again this is personal preference, I'm not trying to convince anyone about warblades being op , you can believe whatever you want and I'm fine with that. That's democracy for you. Just making counterarguments to backup my own thoughts which you warblades fans are trying to violate :p
No your not. Define the wizards roll. You'll notice it comes quite close to: Winning at everything. Does the warblade? Not if your sane.
I'd say more like winning at more things than the average joe.
Oh jesus! You keep mentiong this wizard build that keeps oneshooting stuff at even low-mid levels! Please by all means can you share it with the rest of us ?
Save or suck spells. Unless the party has absolutly no idea wehat its up against, the wizard can prepare sleep/colour spray/glitterdust. At 5th level it doesn't even need to do that. Great thunderclap. Make a ref, fort and will save. See if you can make all three.
We're using the phb variant normally.
One less tactic for the pre-8th level wizard. They still have so many more.
It's fine as long as the monsters bring their own reinforcements as well in the meantime. It sounds a bit unfair otherwise and not at all realistic from my point of view. Which is common sense around here :p
Obviously, if the monsters can summon reinforcements I won't recommend retreating. Camp of ogres? Hit and run. Fortress in the middle of nowhere? Hit and run. Wel lsupplied lawful evil city? Something more is required.
And for the 103rd time I'm not interested in wiz vs warblade comparisons :p
Try and come up with something more creative than "Your argument doesn't count," You need to compare classes to get a sense of relativity, otherwise how do you know which class is the best for what?
I'm not interested in warblades being compared to fighters, because fighters are dull.
No I have a problem with ToB because they can do unfair things. Like the ones I mentioned at my first post. Magic is magic, it is supposed to have exotic effects anyway, and I'm mostly saying this from flavor perspective.
Core: A 9th level ranger with homebred item that gives him a +2 on a survival can by taking a 10, without failure, track a frog across solid rock after an hour of rain, when the frog is trying to cover its footsteps. Are you telling me that is more realistic than manouvers?
From mechanics and gameplay scope yes I agree wizards are extremely powerful but this is D&D. Everyone plays whatever they feel fun mostly rp-wise not battle wise.
I don't enjoy playing a class that it outshined by its party memebers. In a low magic core only game, I can have fun with a fighter. With others in the party, I feel useless and can't have fun.
My opinion is my opinion , I totally comply by the DM's calls when I'm playing and I expect players to do so as well when it's my campaign
Really? I argue if the DM doesn't allow my character concept. If he doesn't yield after a reasonable amount of time I either fold or find a new game. Blindly obeying my orders was never my style.
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
But, you *can* expect a wizard (or cleric, or druid) to do the things a fighter does? Because they can, and in many cases, they do them considerably better.
I mean, as long as you magically impose an arbitrary limit of "no classes stepping on each others' toes", the fighter *does* have a comparative advantage, as clerics are more better at healing, wizards are more better at battlefield control, and druids don't exist at all in this hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't change the fact that a party of 4 clerics has a better fighter than the party with a fighter, even if it's a non-optimal use of the scope of the cleric's abilities.
Not at all I'm way more humble than that.
Humble people lay out situation in which they change thier opinions.
I'm saying there is no right or wrong. You find warblades fine and I don't. You find wizards problematic and I don't. It's just different opinions. You can't be just wrong or right about such a thing, you can only be wrong or right about facts.Like that level 2 is at 1,000 xp for example.
Yes, and if your friend says "You play D&D? I thought only losers play that," techniqually he isn't wrong, yet I gues you'd try and perwaude him to think change his mind.
Again this is personal preference, I'm not trying to convince anyone about warblades being op , you can believe whatever you want and I'm fine with that.
But I'm not fine with you throwing away an exelent martial resource book for no good reasons.
That's democracy for you. Just making counterarguments to backup my own thoughts which you warblades fans are trying to violate :p
No, we're trying to convince you your wrong. Thats democracy aswell.
I'd say more like winning at more things than the average joe.
Yes, average joe being most other classes aside the cleric, druid, artificer and arcivist. I don't have a problem with those classes, they have thier moments. As you said, they will run out of spells. I have a problem when theres no feasibly martial alternative if you want to be able to do something flashy. Power attacking just doesn't cut it.
Oh jesus! You keep mentiong this wizard build that keeps oneshooting stuff at even low-mid levels! Please by all means can you share it with the rest of us ?
Sure I can, take one level of wizard. Keep taking levels of wizard after that. Build complete.
*snipped post again*
My opinion is my opinion , I totally comply by the DM's calls when I'm playing and I expect players to do so as well when it's my campaign
And my opinion is MY opinion, and since you're not the boss of me nor my DM, it's as valid as yours or anybody. But since we're not playing a play by post game and this is a discussion board you're just gonna have to accept that a LOT of people think your position is completely absurd.
Yes, average joe being most other classes aside the cleric, druid, artificer and arcivist. I don't have a problem with those classes, they have thier moments. As you said, they will run out of spells. I have a problem when theres no feasibly martial alternative if you want to be able to do something flashy. Power attacking just doesn't cut it.
Just to play the devil's advocate, I didn't know people actually RAN OUT of spells. I mean sure, the mechanic is there to run out of spells. I don't ever actually see it HAPPEN in a game though, unless the player is a fool and thinks that every encounter he comes across is a reason to go nova.
Casters basically pick a round, and once the most opportune round presents itself, the caster says "I win, this battle is over."
Just to play the devil's advocate, I didn't know people actually RAN OUT of spells. I mean sure, the mechanic is there to run out of spells. I don't ever actually see it HAPPEN in a game though, unless the player is a fool and thinks that every encounter he comes across is a reason to go nova.
Casters basically pick a round, and once the most opportune round presents itself, the caster says "I win, this battle is over."
Obviously depending on your play style this will happen either never, sometimes or commonly. personally I think it wears thin when used all the time, but i good DM should design at least one or two situation when the wizard will run out of spells.
But, you *can* expect a wizard (or cleric, or druid) to do the things a fighter does? Because they can, and in many cases, they do them considerably better.
I mean, as long as you magically impose an arbitrary limit of "no classes stepping on each others' toes", the fighter *does* have a comparative advantage, as clerics are more better at healing, wizards are more better at battlefield control, and druids don't exist at all in this hypothetical scenario, but that doesn't change the fact that a party of 4 clerics has a better fighter than the party with a fighter, even if it's a non-optimal use of the scope of the cleric's abilities.
Druids are a different cup o' tea in my eyes. They can pretty much be a hybrid between support and tanks since they also have spells summons and companions. But the crossover into different classes leaves them lacking in specialization. Same goes for rangers. a first level ranger cant fight as well as a first level fighter, cant fill every skill roll a rogue has, but it can do both to an extent.
Basically if you look at a traditional party and their roles, you have:
Fighter (Tank)
Wizard (Damage Dealer)
Rogue (Skill Monkey)
Cleric (Support)
Now you can make ANY character overlap some of these when made certain ways, but in doing so, you sacrifice specialization. A druid can tank or support, but it wont be as specialized. A ranger can tank (twf) or deal damage (bow) and also be a slight skill monkey, but it wont be as effective as a specialized character in each of those areas.
Thats how it plays out in my experience. Like I said before, if you play for a headcount, then yes you will notice one class is more powerful than another. but if you play their roles like I do, you'll notice there is more balance and fun.
That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Need more coffee. :P :D
Save or suck spells. Unless the party has absolutly no idea wehat its up against, the wizard can prepare sleep/colour spray/glitterdust. At 5th level it doesn't even need to do that. Great thunderclap. Make a ref, fort and will save. See if you can make all three.
That's a guaranteed fail for wizards to oneshoot everything as you keep suggesting.They are save or suck but in no means that powerful as you want to make them look. Because of one word : save. And then it's gone. For the rest of the day. And I think I already mentioned counter-tactics like immunities to such effects, being out of range, being scattered etc etc. Don't get me wrong they're nice spells, but in no way make wizardry a god mode.
Unless you provide a more solid build by level-level selection of spells and feats sorry it's not convincing.
Obviously, if the monsters can summon reinforcements I won't recommend retreating. Camp of ogres? Hit and run. Fortress in the middle of nowhere? Hit and run. Wel lsupplied lawful evil city? Something more is required.
Agreed but still rp-wise it seems a bit off to fight for 5 minutes then spend the rest of the day doing nothing waiting for new spells.
Try and come up with something more creative than "Your argument doesn't count," You need to compare classes to get a sense of relativity, otherwise how do you know which class is the best for what?
I'm not interested in warblades being compared to fighters, because fighters are dull.
Do I really need to ? Says who ? I'm not R&D neither a playtester. We just play the game to enjoy it. Since the majority of our party thinks ToB is not fun we leave it out. Simple as that.
Core: A 9th level ranger with homebred item that gives him a +2 on a survival can by taking a 10, without failure, track a frog across solid rock after an hour of rain, when the frog is trying to cover its footsteps. Are you telling me that is more realistic than manouvers?
No but it's not as threatening as being able to rule a combat.
Really? I argue if the DM doesn't allow my character concept. If he doesn't yield after a reasonable amount of time I either fold or find a new game. Blindly obeying my orders was never my style.
Well good for you
We have things running another way around here though. If the DM doesn't allow anything and doesn't yield in the end, we play something else. It's not about obeying orders , it's about playing a social game.Humble people lay out situation in which they change thier opinions.
I just said I'm more humble than you thought I was. I'll change my opinion the day someone plays such a character and I personally find them fair and square.
Yes, and if your friend says "You play D&D? I thought only losers play that," techniqually he isn't wrong, yet I gues you'd try and perwaude him to think change his mind.
If I had a nickel every time I heard such comments. Certainly I invite them to watch a session and explain to them the rules and the concept of the game if they want to, but just that. Really, I am not some kind of fanatical preacher trying to convert everyone towards my lifestyle and opinions. It's not my fault if anyone is ignorant or misinformed about the game or anything for that matter.
But I'm not fine with you throwing away an exelent martial resource book for no good reasons.
I hate making people frustrated over things but you'll have to live with it sorry
No, we're trying to convince you your wrong. Thats democracy aswell.
Of course! This is fun! You can try all day it's fine by me
We'll get plenty of material to talk about my coplayers as well !Yes, average joe being most other classes aside the cleric, druid, artificer and arcivist. I don't have a problem with those classes, they have thier moments. As you said, they will run out of spells. I have a problem when theres no feasibly martial alternative if you want to be able to do something flashy. Power attacking just doesn't cut it.
Yes but as I said earlier most people play martial characters cause they like the coolness of being a tough sword wielding guy, not to compare powers with casters. I've played both overpowered wizards and underpowered melee combatants and they are both satisfying for their own different reasons.
With that said though,
It far outshines the core martial classes. They're better, stronger, leaner, and typically more awesome. They are and that isn't readily denied by many from the research I did on it. I'm not surprised that many DM's didn't allow it.
It should be noted though that it is a great book and has lots of flavor to it. But I would recommend going Core or ToB for Balances sake. Lose the Fighter and the Barb and the Paladin and Cleric in the latter option.
Sure I can, take one level of wizard. Keep taking levels of wizard after that. Build complete.
*snipped post again*
So a wizard with any possible combination of spells/feats can subdue everything if he wants to at any possible level ? Come on enough with the irony
And my opinion is MY opinion, and since you're not the boss of me nor my DM, it's as valid as yours or anybody. But since we're not playing a play by post game and this is a discussion board you're just gonna have to accept that a LOT of people think your position is completely absurd.
Yes but making comments and assumptions about me and questioning how I'm gonna do in the army or whatever is out of the subject and not contributing in any other purpose other than pure trolling.
On the contrary I'm really open to on-topic arguments and glad to discuss stuff with fellow d&d fans which just happen to have different views than mine on a game aspect.
ew, I think Trash just called wizards damage-dealers....
That leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Need more coffee. :P :D
What would you call them? Tanks? Support? Skill Monkeys?
You must have a very unique sense of tactics.
All I originally said was that you made a mistake letting the guy play a warblade in a campaign not designed to accommodate them. Generally speaking, published campaigns seem to do best when PC's are limited to near-core only material. You refused to admit that this was a mistake, since obviously you can't make any
ToB isn't overpowered. It's more powerful than the campaign you are running. There is an important difference between the two. If you can't see that for what it is, then no amount of discussion on the boards is going to make you see it any other way (although you don't really seem to have any plans on understanding what's written in the first place).
What would you call them? Tanks? Support? Skill Monkeys?
You must have a very unique sense of tactics.
They're better defined as controllers, they can control the battlefield with cc spells, finish opponents with damage spells, debuff them and negate their strenghts and of course offer other kind of utility to themselves and the party.
They're better defined as controllers, they can control the battlefield with cc spells, finish opponents with damage spells, debuff them and negate their strenghts and of course offer other kind of utility to themselves and the party.
Well a rose by another name...
"Damage" on the battlefield can be interpreted many ways. At any rate, Wizards are the ones who cause the most havoc, fighters (tanks) prevent anyone from getting to them, rogues pass the skill test, and clerics buff/heal.
This is basic rpg tactics that I'm suprised to find a lot of people dont follow.
This is basic rpg tactics that I'm suprised to find a lot of people dont follow.
those were the tactics the game was designed and playtested around.
unfortunately the designers and play-testers didn't actually understand what would be truly effective. it's one of the reasons 3.5 is the way it is.
those were the tactics the game was designed and playtested around.
unfortunately the designers and play-testers didn't actually understand what would be truly effective. it's one of the reasons 3.5 is the way it is.
It works in games my group has played in...we dont have any issues. I guess it depends on your group.troll and proud.
All I originally said was that you made a mistake letting the guy play a warblade in a campaign not designed to accommodate them. Generally speaking, published campaigns seem to do best when PC's are limited to near-core only material. You refused to admit that this was a mistake, since obviously you can't make any
ToB isn't overpowered. It's more powerful than the campaign you are running. There is an important difference between the two. If you can't see that for what it is, then no amount of discussion on the boards is going to make you see it any other way (although you don't really seem to have any plans on understanding what's written in the first place).
Hah ! You're the one mistaken I'm afraid if you read carefully the OP, and my first post it's clear that I never allowed any ToB in any campaign ever. I just stated that I'm not allowing it. The examples me and the OP are referring happened to a campaign when another guy was DM and allowed everything (even saints) to play in a published campaign. I was just a mere player.
And I'm not running any campaign atm, please read more carefully! You're the one misinterpreting my otherwise clearly stated posts.
So to sum it up for you in this post:
In the campaign all of these happened :
OP = player (warblade)
Me = player (fght/sw/coc)
DM = random friend who hasn't even an account on this forum
My statement = I won't allow any ToB in my next campaign, or I'll do so after houseruling the things that annoy us. I'm experienced enough to adjust my adventures to any class but that's not the point.
So again please before making insulting comments about anyone at least take a better look at what they're writing.
I'd rather be wrong and mistaken than be a whiner, which you have already admitted you are.
That blurb I said about the army also applies to whiners.
Druids are a different cup o' tea in my eyes. They can pretty much be a hybrid between support and tanks since they also have spells summons and companions. But the crossover into different classes leaves them lacking in specialization. Same goes for rangers. a first level ranger cant fight as well as a first level fighter, cant fill every skill roll a rogue has, but it can do both to an extent.
Enh, I would say that the Druid suffers from being a very poor attempt at creating a hybrid class, just in the opposite manner that the Bard or Monk does. Where the monk was given like-a-fighter-but-weaker traits and like-a-rogue-but-weaker traits, and accordingly ends up being less effectual than either of them, the druid was given good BAB, full spellcasting, a free set of polymorph spells in wildshape, and a secondary tank to tail it around in its animal companion. Taken together, it looks more like a particularly synergistically-built gestalt character, rather than a single class: the animal companion even gets its own set of actions!
Basically if you look at a traditional party and their roles, you have:
Fighter (Tank)
Wizard (Damage Dealer)
Rogue (Skill Monkey)
Cleric (Support)
I would contest those somewhat; the Wizard's main power lies in his ability to use spells like Save or Dies or Save or Sucks to completely bypass "damage" to end encouters, starting with first-level spells like Sleep, Charm Person, and Color Spray, and just spiraling out of control from there. And sneak attack is at least somewhat of an integral part of what rogues do, particularly with the capacity for adamantine weapons and scrolls of low-level utility spells (*cough* Find Traps) to completely obviate most of what the rogue does, skill-wise.
Now you can make ANY character overlap some of these when made certain ways, but in doing so, you sacrifice specialization. A druid can tank or support, but it wont be as specialized. A ranger can tank (twf) or deal damage (bow) and also be a slight skill monkey, but it wont be as effective as a specialized character in each of those areas.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here by "sacrificing specialization", here. A modestly-built cleric or druid is about as good at tanking as at least *two* fighters, and a ranger makes a far better ranged weapon specialist than any of the other classes (except for a specialized cleric, that is).
What I meant by "comparative advantage" is that, in a group that consisted of one figher, one wizard, one rogue and one cleric, yes, those are the roles that each class would fall into. Basically, the Cleric is better at both tanking and support as the fighter, *however*, given the choice, the optimal solution for the cleric is to specialize in support, and to let the fighter pick up the slack in tanking, because the fighter is less worse than the cleric at that.
In economics, the typical illustration is the doctor and the carpenter. Even if the doctor's *better* at making cabinets than the carpenter, it's still more productive for him to go out and cure cancer, because he's *more* better at that.
The place where this breaks is if we assume that we're filling the society at whim with either doctors or carpenters. In this case, having two doctors (or four clerics, for the sake of this argument) *is* preferable to having one doctor and one carpenter, because the overall productivity will be much higher, even if it forces one of the doctors into carpentry, which isn't the thing he's the best at.
Thats how it plays out in my experience. Like I said before, if you play for a headcount, then yes you will notice one class is more powerful than another. but if you play their roles like I do, you'll notice there is more balance and fun.
Druids are a different cup o' tea in my eyes. They can pretty much be a hybrid between support and tanks since they also have spells summons and companions. But the crossover into different classes leaves them lacking in specialization. Same goes for rangers. a first level ranger cant fight as well as a first level fighter, cant fill every skill roll a rogue has, but it can do both to an extent.
Druids lacking in specialization? They are better tanks than fighters, AND have long ranged high damage area of effect attack spells. They don't lack anything. They are hands down better than any non-magic oriented character.
Basically if you look at a traditional party and their roles, you have:
Fighter (Worthless space filling character)
Wizard (Damage dealer, controller, and spellcaster capable of overcoming the need for skills with spells that automatically achieve the same effect without a skill check)
Rogue (Skill Monkey and sub-par damage dealer)
Cleric (Tank and support)
I fixed your "role-spread sheet" for you.
Now you can make ANY character overlap some of these when made certain ways, but in doing so, you sacrifice specialization. A druid can tank or support, but it wont be as specialized.
A druid can tank better than a fighter and STILL have decent support capabilities.
A ranger can tank (twf) or deal damage (bow) and also be a slight skill monkey, but it wont be as effective as a specialized character in each of those areas.
A ranger is also one of the classes that falls into the "suck" role in 3e.
Thats how it plays out in my experience. Like I said before, if you play for a headcount, then yes you will notice one class is more powerful than another. but if you play their roles like I do, you'll notice there is more balance and fun.
In my experience, once people started to understand the game, three classes were played from the core rulebook: Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. With those three classes, EVERYTHING that any other class could do could be done, and could be done better.
Also, what was the problem with weapon aptitude? So my warblade can change his specialization...assuming he even bothered wasting precious feat slots on the weapon spec tree. And what is the big deal about being able to use a different weapon each day? The traditional fighter being locked into the 1 weapon he specialized was a limitation, not a feature...
Full attack means little at low levels and there are restrictions as you of course are aware to it.And full attack is just that. No glamorous or exotic effects just roll d20 and damage.
But damage-wise, they pretty much amount to the same thing. One side effect of strikes being standard action is that you cannot make a full attack, much less benefit from the extra attack granted by haste (which is a fairly standard buff in my party past lv5). For example, consider a warblade6 vs fighter6. The fighter can make 3 attacks at +6/+6/+1 with haste, the warblade is still limited to a single strike at +4d6. The static damage modifiers which get multiplied more than offset the extra damage dice said maneuver grants.
So I wouldn't exactly agree that traditional fighters are not fun or cannot deal decent damage.
I wouldn't say that fighters cannot deal decent damage (they actually outdamage warblades a little), just that damage is really all they are good for, and they lack versatility to deal with a variety of other problems. Warblade is more well-rounded in this aspect. It does not have as many glaring shortcomings which foes can take advantage of (or at least, they must be prepared to go that extra step to do so).
In my experience, once people started to understand the game, three classes were played from the core rulebook: Cleric, Druid, and Wizard. With those three classes, EVERYTHING that any other class could do could be done, and could be done better.
Then I'm happy I haven't experienced players like you have who try to break the game and steal the spotlight from other characters. My group finds it fun to play any character and we are all about even.
http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-935882
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
If the wizard (or cleric, or druid) does the fighter's role better than the fighter does, or otherwise renders them obsolete (and they did), then something is wrong.
The cleric and the druid are better fighters than the fighter.
The wizard renders the fighter obsolete by being able to demolish anything without even a die roll.
I did, in fact, do a game where I banned the PHB. It was one of the best games I've ever had. No broken clerics and druids and wizards, no useless fighters and monks.
It could be the most fun thing to play. Really cool abilities and all. But ToB is NOT needed to play DnD. The PHB is. ToB = optional. PHB = mandatory. For an optional book to overshadow material in a mandatory book is pretty imbalanced to me.
Fixed
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Then I'm happy I haven't experienced players like you have who try to break the game and steal the spotlight from other characters.
Its not that people want to steal the spotlight, its that once they realize that the "role" they wanted to fill could have been better filled by making a druid, cleric, or wizard, there is no longer any reason to play other classes ever again.
And for the 103rd time I'm not interested in wiz vs warblade comparisons :p
That's because they defeat your arguements...
Some other things that I can't remember right now. It frustrated me a bit this "narrowmindedness" and even if I addressed them to the forums to see other people's opinions on this subject, they are not influenced at all.
I smell hypocrisy.
Banning and/or not liking a certain class, or splat book, because it outshines another class is perfectly legitimate. DnD is about fun, if you remove the fun from the other player's, then what's the point? ToB is really one of those books where everyone has to be a class from it, or the people who are not playing out of it will not have fun.
ToB is really just geared around pumping up the power of the character. The overpowered caster argument does not work here, because you don't have to take all those overpowered options. But with ToB, no matter what you take you'll be doing something outrageous.
But with ToB, no matter what you take you'll be doing something outrageous.
I guess outrageous is relative then, since I have never found them at all overpowering.
Its not that people want to steal the spotlight, its that once they realize that the "role" they wanted to fill could have been better filled by making a druid, cleric, or wizard, there is no longer any reason to play other classes ever again.
Unless of course a player wants to roleplay a character of a certain class and isn't concerned with which class may be the "best" or "better"
I guess outrageous is relative then, since I have never found them at all overpowering.
It's relative? What exactly are you comparing it to? A normal player's character or a power gamer's?
Well that's just ignorance.
So because someone disagrees with your opinion that must mean that they're just ignorant?
So because someone disagrees with your opinion that must mean that they're just ignorant?
Haha, I pulled the trigger too quick, I retract that statement.
Unless of course a player wants to roleplay a character of a certain class and isn't concerned with which class may be the "best" or "better"
Which has always been a hollow argument, especially in a thread about whether or not ToB is overpowered. The argument that ToB is overpowered rests on the shoulders of the comparison of ToB classes against other weapon combatant classes. When it is pointed out that ToB classes are nicely balanced against classes like the druid, wizard, or cleric, the counter claim "that that is not a fair comparison, because the two types of classes have a different 'role'" is used. Except, that counterclaim is null and void. Role doesn't equal balance, it equals a designation of intent. There is no designation of intent that can not be more adequately preformed by the cleric, druid, or wizard, in comparison to any other 3e PHB class. The cleric, druid, and wizard, cover every "role" better than any other class in the PHB. They are not classes that have a "different role," they are simply better classes. The ToB does a little to alleviate this problem, that is all.
The cleric, druid, and wizard, cover every "role" better than any other class in the PHB. They are not classes that have a "different role," they are simply better classes. The ToB does a little to alleviate this problem, that is all.
Ah, I see your point, but wouldn't limiting how powerful the cleric/wizard/druid can get be a better solution?
Which has always been a hollow argument, especially in a thread about whether or not ToB is overpowered. The argument that ToB is overpowered rests on the shoulders of the comparison of ToB classes against other weapon combatant classes. When it is pointed out that ToB classes are nicely balanced against classes like the druid, wizard, or cleric, the counter claim "that that is not a fair comparison, because the two types of classes have a different 'role'" is used. Except, that counterclaim is null and void. Role doesn't equal balance, it equals a designation of intent. There is no designation of intent that can not be more adequately preformed by the cleric, druid, or wizard, in comparison to any other 3e PHB class. The cleric, druid, and wizard, cover every "role" better than any other class in the PHB. They are not classes that have a "different role," they are simply better classes. The ToB does a little to alleviate this problem, that is all.
It seems you may have missed the point. By roleplaying I meant picking a character class that best fits the character concept that a person has in mind, regardless of whether that class may be the "best" or "better."
People do play other classes for other reasons than just being powerful, etc.
Example: If my latest character concept is a woodsman who is skilled with a bow, I'm going to go ahead and pick a ranger(specialising in archery) regardless of whether or not it may "suck" in 3.5. Or another class may be a "better" archer.
It seems you may have missed the point. By roleplaying I meant picking a character class that best fits the character concept that a person has in mind, regardless of whether that class may be the "best" or "better."
People do play other classes for other reasons than just being powerful, etc.
Example: If my latest character concept is a woodsman who is skilled with a bow, I'm going to go ahead and pick a ranger(specialising in archery) regardless of whether or not it may "suck" in 3.5. Or another class may be a "better" archer.
Sorry, I was in the middle of writing that post when someone in my house started playing with the circuit breaker. I don't know how, but the post got posted in that process. I think I posted part of it, and then went back into it to edit in a more complete answer (when I realized that I had not fully responded to what you said). Anyway, when the computer got turned back on, I totally forgot that I had not finished writing what I wanted to write. Let me continue:
There is nothing about what you just said which justifies stopping people from playing ToB classes. The argument that ToB classes should not be allowed was never about role-playing in the first place, it is about mechanical balance (as I illustrated in my last post). If you are ok with a situation in which there are sub-par classes which people play for the sake of role-playing, there is still no good reason to disallow ToB classes. All those classes do is offer a weapon combatant set of class options which are slightly better balanced against the druid, cleric, and wizard, for those who do not want to be mechanically penalized for their choice to role-play a weapon combatant.
And, for the record, I detest games in which a "role-playing" choice equals a mechanical penalty. All that does is mechanically punish people for role-playing. Seems like a sort of silly thing to do if what you want to foster is role-playing. People generally tend to not do what they are punished for doing.
Ah, I see your point, but wouldn't limiting how powerful the cleric/wizard/druid can get be a better solution?
Yeah, there's really not much you can do for most of them except ban them.
Druids passable for a while if you loot his animal companion and wildshape, but that just makes him a badly oped wizard really. Still goes from 0 to God in 17 levels.
Cleric? Um, well you can force him to healbot so no one wants to play him, but other then that it'd require a full rewrite of the entire divine spell section.
Wizard? Can't be helped. When you're done banning the spells that can be abused you've basically got 2/3rds of a warmage. Might as well grab the Psion. He'd still make melee worthless 70% of the time, but 30% of the time he needs the meat sheild very badly.
Really though the ToB classes do less damage then an passibly OPed Barbarian of equal level. CharOp did the math. They do WAY less damage then an OPed Paladin. The Crusaders a little sturdier and tanky, and the Warblade isn't as cripplingly item dependant, and the Swordsage is better then the Monk but that takes NO effort. But there's nothing they can't do which can't be done better by someone who isn't deliberately making sub op choices (CW Samurai levels?) and who knows thier item requirements as a meleer.
Ah, I see your point, but wouldn't limiting how powerful the cleric/wizard/druid can get be a better solution?
No, because that requires house ruling, which can in and of itself be botched pretty badly. Not to mention, limiting the power of the cleric, wizard, and druid, requires not just house ruling but MAJOR house ruling. It pretty much requires that you rewrite some of the largest chapters of text in the PHB. It is far easier to simply allow people to use ToB classes (which still won't really fix the problem. It will just make weapon oriented characters a little more fun to play). Or, if you are like me, and balance is very important to you, you can always migrate to 4e. That is what I did.
Ah, I see your point, but wouldn't limiting how powerful the cleric/wizard/druid can get be a better solution?
Not really, because it still won't resolve the shortcomings of fighter classes. So in the end, everyone loses.
It's relative? What exactly are you comparing it to? A normal player's character or a power gamer's?
I have never really thought of myself as a powergamer, though I profess to liking to optimize my PCs within the boundaries delineated by my DM. It would be fair to compare martial adepts to normal characters. I find them quite well rounded, able to perform admirably in a variety of situations, and having few real weaknesses the foes can take advantage of. Sheer elegance in design, IMO.
It seems you may have missed the point. By roleplaying I meant picking a character class that best fits the character concept that a person has in mind, regardless of whether that class may be the "best" or "better."
People do play other classes for other reasons than just being powerful, etc.
Example: If my latest character concept is a woodsman who is skilled with a bow, I'm going to go ahead and pick a ranger(specialising in archery) regardless of whether or not it may "suck" in 3.5. Or another class may be a "better" archer.
Where does it stipulate that I must use only 1 class?
Classes are in essence building blocks (aka lego bricks), tools you use to flesh out whatever character concept you wish to emulate. If you can do so satisfactorily using just a single class, good for you. But if you need to mix and match multiple classes and prcs together to achieve the desired result, I see no reason whatsoever why you should not be allowed to do so.
In the same vein, if you needlessly restrict yourself to just 1 class, and end up with a character who cannot do whatever his flavour/backstory suggests he ought to be capable of (or cannot do them well enough to contribute meaningfully to the party), then it seems to run counter to the spirit of roleplaying, does it not?
If I want to be an archer, why can't I build a decent archer build, rather than limit myself to the ranger class, which may not be all that great? In the end, they still do the same things, and have similar capabilities.
Sorry, I was in the middle of writing that post when someone in my house started playing with the circuit breaker. I don't know how, but the post got posted in that process. I think I posted part of it, and then went back into it to edit in a more complete answer (when I realized that I had not fully responded to what you said). Anyway, when the computer got turned back on, I totally forgot that I had not finished writing what I wanted to write. Let me continue:
There is nothing about what you just said which justifies stopping people from playing ToB classes. The argument that ToB classes should not be allowed was never about role-playing in the first place, it is about mechanical balance (as I illustrated in my last post). If you are ok with a situation in which there are sub-par classes which people play for the sake of role-playing, there is still no good reason to disallow ToB classes. All those classes do is offer a weapon combatant set of class options which are slightly better balanced against the druid, cleric, and wizard, for those who do not want to be mechanically penalized for their choice to role-play a weapon combatant.
And, for the record, I detest games in which a "role-playing" choice equals a mechanical penalty. All that does is mechanically punish people for role-playing. Seems like a sort of silly thing to do if what you want to foster is role-playing. People generally tend to not do what they are punished for doing.
I am simply pointing out that people may play a class for other reasons than because it is the "best" or is "better" than another class, and/or that not everyone chooses a class for it's power. That is all. Again, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant or the point I was attempting to get across, and may be reading a bit too much into my posts.
No where in my posts have I once mentioned ToB.
Also a roleplaying choice does not have to equal a mechanical penality, yes my example may have given that impression, but that wasn't the intent.
As another example: Another character concept could be a mage of nature, who cares for and protects the natural world through his use of divine magic and with the help of a grizzly who he has formed a friendship with. Well then; the likely class choice that best fits this concept is probably a druid, and again it will be picked regardless of whether the class is the "best" or "better."
Where does it stipulate that I must use only 1 class?
Classes are in essence building blocks (aka lego bricks), tools you use to flesh out whatever character concept you wish to emulate. If you can do so satisfactorily using just a single class, good for you. But if you need to mix and match multiple classes and prcs together to achieve the desired result, I see no reason whatsoever why you should not be allowed to do so.
In the same vein, if you needlessly restrict yourself to just 1 class, and end up with a character who cannot do whatever his flavour/backstory suggests he ought to be capable of (or cannot do them well enough to contribute meaningfully to the party), then it seems to run counter to the spirit of roleplaying, does it not?
If I want to be an archer, why can't I build a decent archer build, rather than limit myself to the ranger class, which may not be all that great? In the end, they still do the same things, and have similar capabilities.
The quoted example, was just that: a single example. An example with the intent to illistrate that people may pick a class(or classes) based on a character concept they have in mind regardless of whether or not that class(or those classes as the case may be) is the "best," "better," or "most powerful" class.
I never stated that a person needed or had to pick a single class for their concept, honestly people need to stop reading too much into what people post.
Of course your concept of an archer may be different from mine, you might have in mind a more militristic archer, etc. That would better fit with another class(or class conbination), there are many different ways to build an archer. One should always build a character that bests fits the concept in their mind.
For me and the above example, the concept was/is a woodsman archer, so in my opinion, for my concept, I feel the archery style ranger is the best fit. And as stated previously, the class will be choosen whether or not it is the "most powerful" or the "best" or "better" archer class.
And in fact I do plan to multiclass the ranger in the above example as a Justice of Weald and Woe(refluffed for wood-elves as more protecters of the forest rather than elven terrorists).
I am simply pointing out that people may play a class for other reasons than because it is the "best" or is "better" than another class, and/or that not everyone chooses a class for it's power. That is all. Again, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant or the point I was attempting to get across, and may be reading a bit too much into my posts.
No where in my posts have I once mentioned ToB.
I am not reading too much into your posts. The first post of yours I have responded to (and every subsequent post) was a response to something I posted earlier (which was in turn a response to TrashCan). Your post may not have mentioned ToB, may not have been about ToB, but mine was. My postings were a direct response to the notion that ToB classes are more powerful than classes like the fighter from the PHB, and therefore are overpowered, despite the fact that they are very clearly balanced against classes like the cleric, wizard, or druid. My point was that classes like the fighter are drastically underpowered compared to classes like the druid, cleric, or wizard, and there is really no mechanical reason to play anything but the druid, cleric, or wizard, if one allows only classes from the PHB, when factoring nothing but mechanical effectiveness into the equation. Comparing something to a fighter when trying to gauge balance is a very poor move, because the fighter is (mechanically speaking) a class that no optimized character should play. It is good for nothing but a couple levels of level dip. If one wants to find out whether classes from the ToB are balanced, and should be allowed in play, they should be compared to the cleric, druid, or wizard. Compared to the cleric, druid, or wizard, those classes are not overpowered in any shape or form. They should be allowed in play.
Now, you responded to what I was saying by saying that there is a reason to play something like a fighter: role-playing. Absolutely, that is a reason to play something like a fighter. But, I intentionally ignored anything but mechanical effectiveness in my analysis. That was for a reason. That reason is because a) choosing to play a class that is sub-par to a cleric, druid, or wizard, for the sake of role-playing, is not a good reason to not allow someone else to play a new class that is (a little more) up to par (if just barely) with the cleric, druid, or wizard. What is more, the notion that anyone who wants to play a weapons oriented character should not be allowed to play a character that is up to par with the cleric, druid, or wizard is ridiculous (and I realize that you never suggested this, but I think some others might be of this opinion). That notion implies that one must be penalized, punished, for a role-playing choice, for the desire to role-play a weapon user. But, people (generally speaking) don't usually do what they are punished for doing. Punishing someone for role-playing is antithetical to fostering the desire that one role-play. Its an awful mechanic.
So, you were not talking about the ToB, but you were responding to me, and I was. When I responded to your response to me, I was just saying that your response (while true) was irrelevant to the point I was making (or at least trying to make). We on the same page yet?
Originally Posted by Cyber-Dave
Its not that people want to steal the spotlight, its that once they realize that the "role" they wanted to fill could have been better filled by making a druid, cleric, or wizard, there is no longer any reason to play other classes ever again.
Originally Posted by Shadow_Viper
Unless of course a player wants to roleplay a character of a certain class and isn't concerned with which class may be the "best" or "better"
--------------------------------------------------
As you can see I was simply pointing out that there still is a reason that players would/may want to play other classes.
And in my above post, by "roleplay" I mean: playing a certain character concept, like a hardened veteran, a knowledgeable mage, a sly thief, a middle-aged man of faith, a kind storyteller, etc, etc, the list goes on and on.
By "roleplay", I did not me a class' role, like fighter, priest, scout, mage(EQ2 archtypes for examples), etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber-Dave
Its not that people want to steal the spotlight, its that once they realize that the "role" they wanted to fill could have been better filled by making a druid, cleric, or wizard, there is no longer any reason to play other classes ever again.
Originally Posted by Shadow_Viper
Unless of course a player wants to roleplay a character of a certain class and isn't concerned with which class may be the "best" or "better"
--------------------------------------------------
As you can see I was simply pointing out that there still is a reason that players would/may want to play other classes.
And in my above post, by "roleplay" I mean: playing a certain character concept, like a hardened veteran, a knowledgeable mage, a sly thief, a middle-aged man of faith, a kind storyteller, etc, etc, the list goes on and on.
By "roleplay", I did not me a class' role, like fighter, priest, scout, mage(EQ2 archtypes for examples), etc.
I understood what you meant by role-play. It was sort of obvious to be honest. I am not quite sure why you think I would have trouble understanding the concept, considering its importance to the nature of the game. I understand what you were pointing out. As I have already mentioned/pointed out in my above post, my point is that your point was irrelevant to the context of the discussion between me and TrashCan. Your quote from me, the one with the highlighted red letters, was a direct response to TrashCan, and is framed by the context of the my ongoing discussion with TrashCan. Yes, there is always the "role-playing" reason. But, as I was specifically discussing a mechanical reason, because of the context of the discussion between me and TrashCan, the context I rehashed and clarified in my above post, a context that gravitates around the mechanical capabilities of PHB classes and ToB classes, your point was/is irrelevant. A role-playing reason is not a mechanical reason, and trying to attempt to justify sub-par mechanics via role-playing is hollow. Moreover, nor does a role-playing reason imply that one should not allow ToB classes (on the premise of imbalance). That is the context of the discussion. That is what matters. You were not talking to me, you were talking around me. I have been trying to point that out to you, but I sort of feel like I am talking around you as well; you don't seem to understand what I am saying. I am not sure what you are not getting, or where I am being unclear... are we on the same page yet? Do you understand that I have agreed with what you said, but that it is irrelevant to the point of what I was saying in response to TrashCan? Do you understand that I was intentionally ignoring the "role-playing" reason, because the role-playing reason has nothing to do with stealing the mechanical spotlight, or reasons to or not to include ToB classes?
A particular basketball player might be able to sink a freethrow every ten seconds, all day long. That doesn't mean that he's going to score a thousand points and blow everyone else out of the water. A game is still only 48 minutes long, and there are still only so many freethrows per game.
It brings fighters back to being true tanks who can soak spells and attacks, thanks to Moment of Perfect mind, and an assortment of other defensive powers. And you also get an assortment of interesting abilities, instead of being relegated to just spamming full attacks every round.
It makes warriors fun to play.
Really, I consider ToB to be like another Core rulebook, simply because it's that important to adding more options for people to play. As far as I'm concerned, the warblade is the fighter, and the swordsage is the rogue/monk.
Really though the ToB classes do less damage then an passibly OPed Barbarian of equal level. CharOp did the math. They do WAY less damage then an OPed Paladin. The Crusaders a little sturdier and tanky, and the Warblade isn't as cripplingly item dependant, and the Swordsage is better then the Monk but that takes NO effort. But there's nothing they can't do which can't be done better by someone who isn't deliberately making sub op choices (CW Samurai levels?) and who knows thier item requirements as a meleer.
Yes, but that's when those classes are optimized. The ToB classes have high power, but require little optimization. And when they are optimized, be afraid.
No, because that requires house ruling, which can in and of itself be botched pretty badly. Not to mention, limiting the power of the cleric, wizard, and druid, requires not just house ruling but MAJOR house ruling. It pretty much requires that you rewrite some of the largest chapters of text in the PHB. It is far easier to simply allow people to use ToB classes (which still won't really fix the problem. It will just make weapon oriented characters a little more fun to play). Or, if you are like me, and balance is very important to you, you can always migrate to 4e. That is what I did.
Which requires less effort then writing a whole new book, ToB. But I guess it would be pointless for a company to fix old material for free then to make money off of new material.
Also, I play both systems.
Yes, but that's when those classes are optimized. The ToB classes have high power, but require little optimization. And when they are optimized, be afraid.
Care to give me an example of a ToB build I should be afraid of? I know of a couple of examples, and they require a mishmatch of abilities from several different sourcebooks that no sane DM would allow. Apart from them, its hard to optomize ToB.
Which requires less effort then writing a whole new book, ToB. But I guess it would be pointless for a company to fix old material for free then to make money off of new material.
Also, I play both systems.
Actually the fighter class concept was so flawed that ToB was an easier solution. Just look at the fighter fix threads if you don't believe me.
That's a guaranteed fail for wizards to oneshoot everything as you keep suggesting.They are save or suck but in no means that powerful as you want to make them look. Because of one word : save. And then it's gone. For the rest of the day. And I think I already mentioned counter-tactics like immunities to such effects, being out of range, being scattered etc etc. Don't get me wrong they're nice spells, but in no way make wizardry a god mode.
Unless you provide a more solid build by level-level selection of spells and feats sorry it's not convincing.
Even if a wizard 1st level wizard can put no more than 14 points into his primary state and doesn't spend any feats to boost the DC, the save is still 13, meaning that at first level, the majority of monsters are going to make the save less than 50% of the time. Translations: the majority of monsters are dead more than 50% of the time.
Compare that to a first level martial adept (14 strength, +1 BAB, +1 MW) and he's not going to hit monsters all that more often than they fail their save against a wizards spells.
If the monsters are scattered? Then theres lots of them, which means their weak. And then its up to the wizards adventuring companions to round them together. Team work.
As for immunities: did the immune monsters just pop up out of no where? Was there no warning? The party can usually scount.gather information on what lies ahead and then the wizard can prepare his spells based on that.
And I'm only about 5/10 at optomizing. This is just basic knowledge of game mechanics.
Agreed but still rp-wise it seems a bit off to fight for 5 minutes then spend the rest of the day doing nothing waiting for new spells.
Its also wierd to press things and fight when your weakened if you aren't in a hurry. But yes, I get your point. Fighting for 5% of the day and resting for the remainder doesn't give the game a very heroic feel.
Do I really need to ? Says who ? I'm not R&D neither a playtester. We just play the game to enjoy it. Since the majority of our party thinks ToB is not fun we leave it out. Simple as that.
You need to compare classes. Thats how you came to the conclusion was ToB rendered the fighter obsolete. By comparing the two.
No but it's not as threatening as being able to rule a combat.
But its the wizards to rule in combat, not the martial adept. Does he rule in the 6th encounter of the day? No. but if there was a 6th encounter there would have been a 1st, 2nd and 3rd in which the caster would have.
Well good for you
I know. Its also about having fun, meaning I will briefly try and press an argument for a rejected character concept if I would have fun playing it. But your right, its a social game, so if the Dm objects with valid reasons ("Necromancery is outlawed, so playing a dread necromancer would be problomatic") I'll listen to him. If he says "Tome of Battle steals the spotlight from others martial charatcers" I'll argue that they a better replacement.
I just said I'm more humble than you thought I was. I'll change my opinion the day someone plays such a character and I personally find them fair and square.
Shame you've never played in the game group of any of the pro-ToB posters on this sight. On a side note they appear to be in a majority.
If I had a nickel every time I heard such comments. Certainly I invite them to watch a session and explain to them the rules and the concept of the game if they want to, but just that. Really, I am not some kind of fanatical preacher trying to convert everyone towards my lifestyle and opinions. It's not my fault if anyone is ignorant or misinformed about the game or anything for that matter.
See, just because a opinion can't be wrong doesn't mean others can't try and change it.
I hate making people frustrated over things but you'll have to live with it sorry
Or keep trying.
Of course! This is fun! You can try all day it's fine by me
Do your co-players have accounts on this sight aswell?
Yes but as I said earlier most people play martial characters cause they like the coolness of being a tough sword wielding guy, not to compare powers with casters.
Your 100%. What we disagree on is that I think ToB allows a player to be far far cooler with his sword than core or any other supplamant ever did.
I've played both overpowered wizards and underpowered melee combatants and they are both satisfying for their own different reasons.
Yeah, but playing not-so-underpowered melee-ers is more satisfying than playing underpowered ones.
We've been quoting and countering each other for so long I think its time we summed up why we are arguing with each other.
I like Tome of Battle because:
1. Its allow martial characters to do things aside soak up damage or do damage to enemies. This is a problem because until a monster is reduced to 0 hp or lower, it makes no difference how much hp it has. A dragon with 50hp can do just as much on its turn as it could when it had maximum hit points. Tome of Battle allows martial characters to partially debuff monsters in addition to deal hitpoint damage.
2. It fixes the lack of flavour fighters had. All they could do was full attack:
"I swing my great sword at the ork barbarian, forcing him to drop to keep his head on his shoulders, then thrust at him in before he can stand up straight" (9th level fighter missing with his first attack, but hitting which his second)
"I slam my great club into the ogre’s leg, aiming for the area just above the knee. The attack damages the joint, and strains the tendon, hampering him while the injured companion falls back out of melee" (9th level warblade successfully attacking with the stone dragon maneuver that stops the opponent from moving for 1 round on a failed save)
The second one has so many more opportunities for rp and fun IMO.
Do you understand that I was intentionally ignoring the "role-playing" reason, because the role-playing reason has nothing to do with stealing the mechanical spotlight, or reasons to or not to include ToB classes?
I think this quote can end our disagreement to some extent.
I have since retracted my opinion on ToB being overpowered (you can reread my posts to confirm this). I found a flaw in my previous arguments that I was only arguing that I believe the core classes to be reasonably balanced for the roles I use them in. Examining this, I found that just because there is already balance for me, doesnt mean that nothing can be added. I reviewed some ToB material, and decided that I wouldnt ban it.
Us arguing about the balance of the core classes is a little off topic in my eyes as it only indirectly relates.
In summary...
I think the core classes balance along with ToB. +1 for ToB.
(I believe) You think ToB replaces the non balanced classes from the PHB. +1 for ToB.
I WILL still argue that I think the core classes are fine the way they are if played correctly.
Edit: I also believe your statement about roleplaying not being an issue is unfair since a druid might be able to tank like a fighter, but it cant fill other party roles a fighter can as easily.
Yes, but that's when those classes are optimized. The ToB classes have high power, but require little optimization. And when they are optimized, be afraid.
Tome of Battle actually optimizes very poorly. I mean, there aren't many feats that synergize with manuvers, since standard attack is supposed to be the least used option. It doesn't combo well with other melee tricks like spiked chain tripping and charging. You can't just multiclass at whim, because you need to keep gaining manuvers to keep up. Most spells are designed to give full attackers a boost. Barring a few badly printed manuvers and one broken prestige class (Broken due to the Cleric portion I may add), ToB doesn't power up well.
Quick example: Turn a Uber Charger into a Dire Lion. His damage skyrockets. Turn a Warblade into a Dire Lion. He has to choose between the pounce multiattack or his good manuvers.
I think this quote can end our disagreement to some extent.
I have since retracted my opinion on ToB being overpowered (you can reread my posts to confirm this). I found a flaw in my previous arguments that I was only arguing that I believe the core classes to be reasonably balanced for the roles I use them in. Examining this, I found that just because there is already balance for me, doesnt mean that nothing can be added. I reviewed some ToB material, and decided that I wouldnt ban it.
Us arguing about the balance of the core classes is a little off topic in my eyes as it only indirectly relates.
In summary...
I think the core classes balance along with ToB. +1 for ToB.
(I believe) You think ToB replaces the non balanced classes from the PHB. +1 for ToB.
I WILL still argue that I think the core classes are fine the way they are if played correctly.
Edit: I also believe your statement about roleplaying not being an issue is unfair since a druid might be able to tank like a fighter, but it cant fill other party roles a fighter can as easily.
Ok, so, we are largely in agreement except with your last "edit." I don't undersand how "roleplaying" can be an issue when you are talking about "party roles," because the two are not really related. A "party role" (as I understand it) describes what a class is supposed to be doing, from a tactical point of view, in combat situations. Roleplaying is the act of taking on another "role," not a "party role," but rather another persona, and acting out/deciding that persona's actions (in some shape or form). I am not sure where the two relate, or how one helps the other. If a druid can tank better than a fighter, and act like a meat-shield better than a fighter, AND can do other stuff that a fighter cannot to boot, then what is the point of playing a tank to fill the "party role" of tank/defender? I can understand playing a fighter for role-playing reasons (though the fact that the game punishes you for this decision tends to push people away from playing this roleplaying decision in my experience), but how does role-playing effect the fact that it is a bad decision from the point of view of the classes mechanical ability to fill a "party role?"
...but how does role-playing effect the fact that it is a bad decision from the point of view of the classes mechanical ability to fill a "party role?"
Because just because a character *can* do something better, doesnt make it a better pick in terms of overall roleplaying. If you throw roleplaying out, then why wouldnt all the generals of all the nations be druids? It would be logical for them to pick druids since they would excel in battle more than a fighter (so you say). If the players played their charcter "role" correctly in the first place they would be roleplaying.
I understood what you meant by role-play. It was sort of obvious to be honest. I am not quite sure why you think I would have trouble understanding the concept, considering its importance to the nature of the game. I understand what you were pointing out. As I have already mentioned/pointed out in my above post, my point is that your point was irrelevant to the context of the discussion between me and TrashCan. Your quote from me, the one with the highlighted red letters, was a direct response to TrashCan, and is framed by the context of the my ongoing discussion with TrashCan. Yes, there is always the "role-playing" reason. But, as I was specifically discussing a mechanical reason, because of the context of the discussion between me and TrashCan, the context I rehashed and clarified in my above post, a context that gravitates around the mechanical capabilities of PHB classes and ToB classes, your point was/is irrelevant. A role-playing reason is not a mechanical reason, and trying to attempt to justify sub-par mechanics via role-playing is hollow. Moreover, nor does a role-playing reason imply that one should not allow ToB classes (on the premise of imbalance). That is the context of the discussion. That is what matters. You were not talking to me, you were talking around me. I have been trying to point that out to you, but I sort of feel like I am talking around you as well; you don't seem to understand what I am saying. I am not sure what you are not getting, or where I am being unclear... are we on the same page yet? Do you understand that I have agreed with what you said, but that it is irrelevant to the point of what I was saying in response to TrashCan? Do you understand that I was intentionally ignoring the "role-playing" reason, because the role-playing reason has nothing to do with stealing the mechanical spotlight, or reasons to or not to include ToB classes?
Aye, I understand, but really isn't a big deal, as I said, just simply pointing out something I thought was needed.
Because just because a character *can* do something better, doesnt make it a better pick in terms of overall roleplaying. If you throw roleplaying out, then why wouldnt all the generals of all the nations be druids? It would be logical for them to pick druids since they would excel in battle more than a fighter (so you say). If the players played their charcter "role" correctly in the first place they would be roleplaying.
And here in lies the problem, and the reason why I tossed role-playing out of the discussion. From the point of view of mechanics, all the generals in D&D SHOULD be playing druids. Nobody should ever be playing anything but a wizard, cleric, or druid (if you are using the core PHB classes only). Their "role," when defined as the intent of their mechanical tactical capabilities in combat, is not based on role-playing one way or another. A classes mechanical role is defined by their mechanical capability of fulfilling a given tactical role in combat. Role-playing has nothing to do with it. Mechanics has everything to do with it. I wanted to illustrate that a classes mechanical capability at fulfilling a tactical role is not based on role-playing and never will be. This aspect of the game is mechanical, and mechanical only.
But this is a role-playing game, and I mean that in the sense of acting, so lets add narrative role back into the equation. That means that the best generals should mechanically be those classes closest to this role, not in the sense of mechanical capability, but in the sense of their scripted narrative part. If a character's mechanical capability to fulfill a given role and narrative role do not match a problem arises. The best general, mechanically, should be a fighter in 3e terms. This is the class that best fits the scripted part of a warlord. This would ensure that picking a fighter would best fill the "role" of a fighter, of a general, in every possible meaning of the word role (both tactical mechanical role and narrative role). Mechanically, however, nobody who wants to fill an optimized general's part on the battlefield should ever play a fighter. They are better served playing a cleric or a druid. And that is my problem. It means that if someone wants to play a class closest to their narrative role they must shoot themselves in their mechanical foot, and if someone wants to play a class best suited to their character concept's tactical mechanical role, if they are only using classes from the PHB, they are best served ignoring the narrative descriptions of classes and instead building a cleric, wizard, or druid that fills the mechanical role (and then some).
My problem with 3e is that it outright punishes people mechanically for role-playing, which doesn't foster role-playing. ToB is one of the few books that offer weapons oriented characters a chance to step back up to the table with a class that is actually worth being played. You still won't be a druid, cleric, or wizard, but at least the gap won't be quite so large, and at least the classes narrative fluff will be a closer match to your desired narrative role. You no longer have to play a cleric or druid to be a decent melee warrior.
And a final added bonus, the classes from that book are actually fun to play. They don't sit back and move + attack or full attack every round.
Aye, I understand, but really isn't a big deal, as I said, just simply pointing out something I thought was needed.
Neat. All is holy again. We are on the same page.
Because just because a character *can* do something better, doesnt make it a better pick in terms of overall roleplaying. If you throw roleplaying out, then why wouldnt all the generals of all the nations be druids? It would be logical for them to pick druids since they would excel in battle more than a fighter (so you say). If the players played their charcter "role" correctly in the first place they would be roleplaying.
Well said.
Well said.
See my response. What he said illustrates my point, it does not nullify it. When you add role-playing back into the equation, all it does is illustrate the gap between a classes capability at filling a mechanical role, and a classes narrative role, and the manner in which 3e punishes you for role-playing. Thankfully ToB does a little to alleviate this problem (but not enough to make me ever want to play 3e again).
First of all, I want to apologize TrashCrap. I just realized that your handle is TrashCrap, not TrashCan... I didn't mean any offense by misnaming you earlier...
Lol none taken.
Mechanically, however, nobody who wants to fill an optimized general's part on the battlefield should ever play a fighter. They are better served playing a cleric or a druid. And that is my problem. It means that if someone wants to play a class closest to their narrative role they must shoot themselves in their mechanical foot, and if someone wants to play a class best suited to their character concept's tactical mechanical role, if they are only using classes from the PHB, they are best served ignoring the narrative descriptions of classes and instead building a cleric, wizard, or druid that fills the mechanical role (and then some).
I see where youre coming from now.
My problem with 3e is that it outright punishes people mechanically for role-playing, which doesn't foster role-playing. ToB is one of the few books that offer weapons oriented characters a chance to step back up to the table with a class that is actually worth being played. You still won't be a druid, cleric, or wizard, but at least the gap won't be quite so large, and at least the classes narrative fluff will be a closer match to your desired narrative role. You no longer have to play a cleric or druid to be a decent melee warrior.
And a final added bonus, the classes from that book are actually fun to play. They don't sit back and move + attack or full attack every round.
I think this is the only area we disagree in now. I am perfectly fine with the mechanics of a fighter when I play them without using ToB (although I now realize that ToB isnt too bad if the campaign is adjusted for it).
Eh, maybe this is just my developing distaste for little subsystems and unnecessary complexity in design coming out.
Ah, I see your point, but wouldn't limiting how powerful the cleric/wizard/druid can get be a better solution?
Not *better*, just a different soltution. The main problem being, that the sort of game D&D is, it's pretty much impossible to officially un-introduce options that were already written into the game: errata can only go so far, after all.
The only real suggestion WotC can give in that vein is what we saw with the PHB2: proposing "alternate class features/spells/etc" to replace the broken pieces of the those classes. Still, at the end of the day, that's just an alternate option, and it amounts to WotC asking those players to willingly de-power their characters voluntarily-- not something a lot of people are going to do.
Plus, I think it's safe to say that if clerics/wizards/druids were as limited in options and power as fighters or monks, it would upset a lot of people. Heck, they *didn't* go this far with 4e, and look at how many people complain about cleric's and wizards' newly limited options over there.
I think someone already mentioned how most spells, feats, PrCs, and typical D&D tactics just don't work that well with martial adepts.
Such as? A warblade20 is a perfectly viable career option. There aren't that many good feats floating around anyways (and if you are a swordsage, chances are that your 1st few feats are tied up in adaptive style, weapon finesse and shadow blade). As for spells, only haste comes to mind.
Tactics is even more ambiguous. What sort of tactics can a fighter do that a warblade can't?
Such as? A warblade20 is a perfectly viable career option.
Certainly true.
There aren't that many good feats floating around anyways (and if you are a swordsage, chances are that your 1st few feats are tied up in adaptive style, weapon finesse and shadow blade). As for spells, only haste comes to mind.
Tactics is even more ambiguous. What sort of tactics can a fighter do that a warblade can't?
1st and most importantly martial classes lose a lot when multiclassing. A non ToB meleer can be Ftr 2/Bar 2/Rng 2/PrcX 3/PrcY 4/PrcZ 7 and gain a significant boost. Martial adepts actually lose big for not taking the next level of their class. With most ToB prestigue classes being intresting, but gimmicky (some don't even advance manuvers!) there's really not much in the way of PRCs for the Martial Adept classes.
Any spell or feat that boosts the Full Attack option works better on an optimized non ToB build because manuvers boost standard action strikes mostly.
Any spell or feat that boosts the Charge option works better for standard builds unless the Warblade or Crusader makes a build focused on charging, sacrificing a great deal of their versitility.
Tactics wise Martial Adepts can't pull out the real cheese, like Spiked Chain uber trip, because then they aren't using their manuvers. Basically if you are trying for one of the uber Oped fighter builds your Warblade ends up with a whole lot of options you never use, and matures 5 levels later because you didn't get the 2 feat dip and the rage for Str boost.
Consider a warblade10/swordsage10. Assuming you alternate between lvs of the 2, you can still select a 8th lv maneuver at lv20. Or a warblade who splashes 2 lvs of swordsage. He gets more maneuvers, at the loss of -1IL, which simply means that he accesses higher lv maneuvers 1 lv later. Not really all that bad, considering what you get in return.
And if you know you will not get access to the higher lv maneuvers, then wise up and do the best with what you can. Ignore the weaker strikes, focus mainly on boosts and counters to support your character, while he relies on full attacks for his damage output.
ToB is that malleable. Easy to pick up, nigh impossible to master completely. There is no 1 best build. A warblade8/swordsage12 is no less viable than a warblade12/swordsage8, warblade20 or any other combination of warblade+swordsage. They each gain in some aspect and lose in the other, but it is difficult to say for certain which side gains more or loses less.
That is why I say it is sheer elegance.
Multiclassing adepts doesn't seem all that crippling, at least compared to say, spellcasters.
Consider a warblade10/swordsage10. Assuming you alternate between lvs of the 2, you can still select a 8th lv maneuver at lv20. Or a warblade who splashes 2 lvs of swordsage. He gets more maneuvers, at the loss of -1IL, which simply means that he accesses higher lv maneuvers 1 lv later. Not really all that bad, considering what you get in return.
And if you know you will not get access to the higher lv maneuvers, then wise up and do the best with what you can. Ignore the weaker strikes, focus mainly on boosts and counters to support your character, while he relies on full attacks for his damage output.
ToB is that malleable. Easy to pick up, nigh impossible to master completely. There is no 1 best build. A warblade8/swordsage12 is less viable than a warblade12/swordsage8, warblade20 or any other combination of warblade+swordsage. They each gain in some aspect and lose in the other, but it is difficult to say for certain which side gains more or loses less.
That is why I say it is sheer elegance.
Tell me about it. I'm currently at 12th level crusader 8/swordsage 2/master of nine 2, but at 18th character level my character will be crusader 11/swordsage2/master of nine 5. For my 19th and 20th levels I am agonizing whether to take crusader for more 9th level maneuvers and Mettle, swordsage so that my "spare meuvers" I have that helped qualify for master of nine, while still useful, can have a few level appropriate upgrades, or warblade to get some Iron Heart boosts and counters. Each option is equally good. I'll enjoy whatever I finally choose but will regret not taking the others. For now I have to hope as the campaign continues to progress the proper course will be shown.
But yeah, ever since ToB came, melee has become fun again. They get options, options that caster has held on to for so long. I am finally glad to kick the Fighter, Monk and Paladin to the curb to more interesting, balanced, and fun classes, ToB classes.
Him
"The 4e fighter is so weak, the class is a joke now comapred to how awesome it was in 3.5."
Me
"The 3.5 fighter was powerful? Compared to what?
Him
"Compared to any class, you just need to know how to use the feats!"
I swear this is what he said.
I recently got into a discusion with my friend who honestly thinks the 3.5 is a powerhouse. In his view the fighter is the thinking man's class that holds nigh untold power in the hands of an expert. He also plays a fighter in my 4E game although he does not care for the system. I respect his opinion and don't think less of him for this, likewise I play in his 3.5 game although its not my prefered edition. However when I heard his stated reason for dislikeing 4E (which he belives fervently with every fiber of his being), I was very hard pressed not to fall on the floor laughing. And I quote my dear friend's words
Him
"The 4e fighter is so weak, the class is a joke now comapred to how awesome it was in 3.5."
Me
"The 3.5 fighter was powerful? Compared to what?
Him
"Compared to any class, you just need to know how to use the feats!"
I swear this is what he said.
You do know the highest damage on record (or at least one of the highest, it might have been beaten since I last checked) is held by a fighter? If you are an incredably good optomizer, you can make some incredably builds with fighters. But yeah, for most of us, they weren't that strong.
Me
"The 3.5 fighter was powerful? Compared to what?
Him
"Compared to any class, you just need to know how to use the feats!"
There is a little truth behind this statement, in that the greatest challenge in building an effective fighter is sifting through the hundreds of feats available, managing to identify the truly useful ones from the useless ones, and making sure that those feats support your character concept while ignoring those which don't.
However, you can also point out to him that using the same amount of effort, a caster would trounce a fighter any time of the day. The most optimized fighter still can't hold a candle to the least optimized of wizards (assuming that the latter has an int score high enough to cast all his spells, the rest is really optional). This means that the most optimized of casters will be light years ahead of the highly optimized fighter in terms of capabilities.
A common complaint is it makes warriors into spellcasters. As opposed to what, make spellcasters into warriors like 4E? A number of maneuvers, yes, duplicate effects that seem magic-like. Swordsage has it the most, but the Swordsage is an "improved monk" and the monk has magic-like stuff already. The Crusader has the rest of the magic-like stuff. It's minute, dealing with healing and opposing alignment, but it's an "improved paladin" which has magic-like stuff of its own in regards to healing, opposing alignment, and actual if limited spellcasting. The Warblade has no magic-like stuff at all. It fights like a Fighter and/or Barbarian and/or Rogue. Focusing a bit more on White Raven it's more the pure martial aspect of Paladin or Bard.
That there are some maneuvers that are quasi-magical in nature without having the supernatural descriptor is a different complaint.
Personally I rarely make characters who don't contribute, but as I said before I always bring optimized ones into the game. In that campaign I was playing a Fghter/Sw/Champion of corellon with 36 AC when dodging and fighting defensively with combat expertise and touch AC of around 30 as well as early as level 6. Which practically meant they were hitting with just natural 20s. And of course Int+Dex+Str applied to my damage as well. Was a nice build but really optimized.
Not optimized, that's an illegal build at level 6. You don't even qualify for CoC at that point.
On the contrary martial adepts can do their parts from just picking a simple class, no multiclassing, no feats from a million books, standard magical equipment etc. At least that's the way it felt.
I'd argue that that is one of the advantages of the ToB classes: you can do something useful as a melee class without having to draw on material from dozens of splat books.
Basically if you look at a traditional party and their roles, you have:
Fighter (Tank)
Wizard (Damage Dealer)
Rogue (Skill Monkey)
Cleric (Support)
As Cyber-Dave pointed out, these are the roles as they may have been intended, but in practice it doesn't work so well.
Fighters have little to no means of actually tanking: they simply can't stop determined opponents from walking around them and attacking the other party members. If they are lucky, they can trip an opponent to stop them temporarily, but that's pretty much it. Knights are better at it, but the class that can really fill this role well are Crusaders.
Wizards are poorly used if they focus on direct damage. Battlefield control and save-or-suck/die spells are much more efficient in actual play. It's no accident that on the Character Optimization board, Evocation is the prime choice for a school to drop when playing a specialist wizard.
Rouges are skill monkeys. Sadly, though, the right selection of spells can cover this role very well. They can still deal some damage, but also nothing too impressive.
Clerics make better fighters than Fighters, and better tanks, too. Just a few choice buff spells, and you are stronger, hit better and harder, and are more durable. Plus, you are still a full spellcaster.
The fighter and barbarian can do as much/even more damage than a warblade, but there's more to the warblade's power (crusader and swordsage too) than damage.
+1
ToB isn't about power, it's about fun. It's fun to have options. It's fun to be able to deal with a variety of situations, as opposed to being a one (or two)-trick pony.
The fighter, despite all his feats, can't be good at more than a very few things in combat. Out of combat, his 2 skill points and the terrible skill list make him all but useless. Paladins have similar problems. Both pale in comparison to the "big three" (wizards, cleric, druid) because all they can do is hit something with a big stick, while those three can not only fill their own role(s), they can fill that of others as well. Their spells give them something useful to do in virtually every situation, combat or not.
I highly recommend this view of classes: Tier System for Classes.
. After many request i got my hand on the ToB and we tried playing 3 small campaign in it. As for personnal experience, I think each of my players played a ToB character at least once in those 3 campaign i allowed it. The most ToB char in 1 campaign i guess was 2 crusader 1 warblade the rest was core class. Each game ended the same way except the last which i decided to put an end to the ToB. The other games ended that the players playing the ToB character felt to powerful for their level. I was trying to convince them to continue a bit and it was maybe just really good build they made without knowing it, but further new character along those 3 campaigns shows the same issue and they didn't liked it. Mainly because throwing level 12 monsters vs lvl 8 party and having average challenge was too stupid in their minds and mine also.
This is why we removed that book from our game afterward. I think im privilege having such players at my table which want having fun instead of cheese. I even got one of my player asking to kill his character in a certain way he decided because he would like to play his young brother to avenge him. My player also sometime decide that they want a trap on X object so they have fun with it, what do i do ???? i put a trap.
I think the ToB bring fighter type to caster power level which is sometime overpower. But if everyone play overpower character it make things fair for every players and no one whine about someone being overpowered. As long things stayed balance between players fun will be there.
In my games my wiz/cleric/druid where always +/- equal to a barbarian in damage and utility wise.
How?
The other games ended that the players playing the ToB character felt to powerful for their level. I was trying to convince them to continue a bit and it was maybe just really good build they made without knowing it, but further new character along those 3 campaigns shows the same issue and they didn't liked it. Mainly because throwing level 12 monsters vs lvl 8 party and having average challenge was too stupid in their minds and mine also.
So your players can't optomize a caster for s***, but they can make ToB characters more powerful than almost any frequent poster of the charop boards?
This is why we removed that book from our game afterward. I think im privilege having such players at my table which want having fun instead of cheese.
You do know you can have fun with powerful characters, right?
I think the ToB bring fighter type to caster power
Your wrong. It narrows the gap slightly, but casters are still far far ahead.
level which is sometime overpower. But if everyone play overpower character it make things fair for every players and no one whine about someone being overpowered.
YOUR group is the anomily here, not everyone else. You're group is using underpowered characters compared to the standard D&D game. ToB is not overpowered.
It's not making the martial classes into spellcasters. ToB uses a system that's too close to the vancian spellcasting system for some people, including me. I think that it doesn't fit.
No one ever complaine about spellcasters being underpowered or no fun to play, but many complained that melee being no fun and underpowered, so yeah it makes absolutly no sense to redesign the melee classes using elements of the spell casting system.
That there are some maneuvers that are quasi-magical in nature without having the supernatural descriptor is a different complaint.
I am sick of repeating this: Core: A 9th level ranger with homebred item that gives him a +2 on a survival can by taking a 10, without failure, track a frog across solid rock after an hour of rain, when the frog is trying to cover its footsteps. Are you telling me that is more realistic than manouvers? D&D is not realistic. Get over it, or find another game.
However in my exprience cleric/druid/wizard overshadow everyone else, even when the player is not trying to, unless you use massive amounts of houserules (which I find then just creates other problems). I want my charecter (regradless of personality) to be a team player that contributes to the party and does not overshadow my friends. However if I play one of the big three I have to either be vastly overpowered or delibrately make mediocore build choices. But even then you can still break the game with just stuff out of the PHB.
Anyway I think TOB is fine I think one should either ban fighter/monk/ranager/rouge/paladin or cleric/druid/wizard/sorcerer.
No one ever complaine about spellcasters being underpowered or no fun to play, but many complained that melee being no fun and underpowered, so yeah it makes absolutly no sense to redesign the melee classes using elements of the spell casting system.
I simply say that the vancian mechanics don't fit melee characters thematically. Which can be house ruled quite easily, if you make them use a system like the sorcerer spellcasting. Still a spellcasting mechanic, but making more sense.
I am sick of repeating this: Core: A 9th level ranger with homebred item that gives him a +2 on a survival can by taking a 10, without failure, track a frog across solid rock after an hour of rain, when the frog is trying to cover its footsteps. Are you telling me that is more realistic than manouvers? D&D is not realistic. Get over it, or find another game.
And I'm sick of people that read something in my posts that is not there. Stop yourself before posting something, and count to ten. Then read the relevant post again, just to make sure you get the meaning right. Then answer.
I simply say that the vancian mechanics don't fit melee characters thematically. Which can be house ruled quite easily, if you make them use a system like the sorcerer spellcasting. Still a spellcasting mechanic, but making more sense.
Just to be clear, your saying that you'd be completely fine with ToB characters house ruled to be "spontenous initiators"?
And I'm sick of people that read something in my posts that is not there. Stop yourself before posting something, and count to ten. Then read the relevant post again, just to make sure you get the meaning right. Then answer.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you said that because you generally have no idea why I posted the ranger comment, and not because you realised I had a point and coulnd't think of anything to say back.
You said "some maneuvers that are quasi-magical in nature without having the supernatural". The tone of your post implied you thought it was a bad thing. Well, if any of the non-supernatural manouvers can be considered quasi-magical in nature without having the sup[ernatural descriptor, then surely so can the ranger example. And survival isn't labeled supernatural. Now do you understand why I posted that comment?
My duskblade player insisted that ToB was not overpowered. To teach him a lesson I made the BBEG of a particular story arc a Warblade. The final battle was the PCs (a group of 5 level 7s) against a level 9 Warblade.
The BBEG ended up having to retreat but not before wiping the floor with the duskblade. I knew I had won the argument when the PC complained with, "WTF was up with that NPC he was totally overpowered".
I don't run 3.5 anymore but if I did ToB would remain banned.
I had a similar problem with a campaign I was running about a year ago.
My duskblade player insisted that ToB was not overpowered. To teach him a lesson I made the BBEG of a particular story arc a Warblade. The final battle was the PCs (a group of 5 level 7s) against a level 9 Warblade.
The BBEG ended up having to retreat but not before wiping the floor with the duskblade. I knew I had won the argument when the PC complained with, "WTF was up with that NPC he was totally overpowered".
I don't run 3.5 anymore but if I did ToB would remain banned.
Any class can be broken. You going out of your way to do so proves nothing.
My duskblade player insisted that ToB was not overpowered. To teach him a lesson I made the BBEG of a particular story arc a Warblade. The final battle was the PCs (a group of 5 level 7s) against a level 9 Warblade.
The BBEG ended up having to retreat but not before wiping the floor with the duskblade. I knew I had won the argument when the PC complained with, "WTF was up with that NPC he was totally overpowered".
You know, it's funny because I did the exact same thing only I used a Wizard. The difference is that my wizard didn't need to retreat because it ended up being a TPK. :P
What's still funny though it that neither of our stories prove a thing. High level characters can take on multiple lower level characters with ease. What else is new?
My duskblade player insisted that ToB was not overpowered. To teach him a lesson I made the BBEG of a particular story arc a Warblade. The final battle was the PCs (a group of 5 level 7s) against a level 9 Warblade.
More details would be nice. What short of manouvers did the warblade use? What tactics did the party use?
The BBEG ended up having to retreat
So the party won? That proves ToB is overpowered how exactly?
but not before wiping the floor with the duskblade.
So the warblade was more powerful than an indevidual PC, but couldn't face the entire party? Like most BBEGs who CR is higher than the PCs level? Again, that proves ToB is overpowered how exactly?
Just to be clear, your saying that you'd be completely fine with ToB characters house ruled to be "spontenous initiators"?
More or less, yes. You may have to nerf the Swordmage's "spell slots" a bit, but otherwise, it should work fine.
You said "some maneuvers that are quasi-magical in nature without having the supernatural". The tone of your post implied you thought it was a bad thing. Well, if any of the non-supernatural manouvers can be considered quasi-magical in nature without having the sup[ernatural descriptor, then surely so can the ranger example. And survival isn't labeled supernatural. Now do you understand why I posted that comment?
The reason, yes. The tone, not so much.
Actually, I don't care if a character can track a moskito, or can hear fleas coughing. That's not supernatural, but extraordinary.
But if a character can make the earth shake by hitting it with a weapon, or gains immunity from harm by hitting an opponent, then it's an other quality. Abilities like these feel supernatural to me.
Fabius Maximus, what "quasi-magical" maneuvers are you talking about? Because so far as I've seen, all of the supernatural maneuvers are labeled as such. There are maneuvers that are very extraordinary, yes, but that doesn't automatically indicate supernatural.
The above-mentioned maneuvers from the Stone Dragon school, which is the worst offender.
Some of the throws of the Setting Sun school cross the border into supernatural, too. But since it's a Swordmage only school, something like that is to be expected, I guess.
Then there are Lightning Throw (the returning part), and Hunter's Sense.
There may be more, but that's all I could find for now.
I'm not saying that these maneuver should be banned. Stone Bones and family would make sense as counters, for example. The others should get the supernatural descriptor.
I am not sure I like the idea of "spontaneous initiators", or the idea of martial adepts spamming the same maneuver over and over again. At least now, the inability to ready a maneuver more than once "forces" you to get creative with the maneuvers you prepare. It would seem very boring if my warblade just used nothing but time stands still for the entire battle, for instance.
Spontenous does't have to mean that. Just houserule that they cannot use the same manouver twice without recovering it.
Play a Cleric with lots of self created wands, scrolls, and staffs.
ToB is only broken to people that think Casters should be the only party members that Matter.
More or less, yes. You may have to nerf the Swordmage's "spell slots" a bit, but otherwise, it should work fine.
With thier recovery mechanic I doubt they'd race ahead of the warblade and crusadors.
The reason, yes. The tone, not so much.
Sorry, I should have been more polite.
Actually, I don't care if a character can track a moskito, or can hear fleas coughing. That's not supernatural, but extraordinary.
Define the flavour difference between supernatural and extraordinary? Also, there are plenty of other examples. What about John, the core 9th level bard playing on a street corner and suddenly a genie appears and invites John to perform at his palace on the plane of air?
But if a character can make the earth shake by hitting it with a weapon,
He transfers his naturally occuring ki into the ground. Its an 8th level manouver. By that time most characters can survive terminal velocity.
or gains immunity from harm by hitting an opponent, then it's an other quality. Abilities like these feel supernatural to me.
That happens on a small scale in real life. It can be debated to what exstent (I'm a bit skeptical about people bending metal bars with their throats) but its hard to deny the fact that some people can harden their flesh to snap a sharp piece of wood.
Then there are Lightning Throw (the returning part),
Thats realism versus effect. Without the returning part it would be fine, but annoying since you'd have to use a secondary weapon.
and Hunter's Sense.
Hardly anything that strange here. There are people who can move the position of their heart. Besides, melee's need the occassinal trick that doesn't involve hitting someone hard with a weapon.
I'm not saying that these maneuver should be banned.
Good.
Stone Bones and family would make sense as counters, for example.
I think stone bones is fine as it is. The higher level ones should become DR: x/ -. They are all fine as strikes. The need to hit someone before readying your defenses its a nice idea.
The others should get the supernatural descriptor.
I'd like to hear why you think they are supernatural when hearing a flea sneeze and atracting the attention of a genie isn't.
Show them the meaning of true powergaming asshattery.
Play a Cleric with lots of self created wands, scrolls, and staffs.
Nope. That just a slightly optomized cleric AFAIK. DMM persist cleric 10 / dweomerkeeper 10 is more like it.
ToB is only broken to people that think Casters should be the only party members that Matter.
True.
More or less, yes. You may have to nerf the Swordmage's "spell slots" a bit, but otherwise, it should work fine.
The swordsage is the weak(est) one.
They have a sustainability that 3.X classes lack, and it bothers people.
In 3.X games, ToB classes are best paired with Warlocks, ToM classes, and Magic of the Incarnum classes.
The whole being OP because the powers are unlimited is, really, a fallacy, since a group stops to rest whenever the Vancian mages' spells get low.
But oh well.
Like I said, youre comparing apples to oranges. You cant expect a fighter to do things that a wizard does. They are two different roles.
What can a fighter do? Nothing!
It's not an argument of "fighters aren't wizards", it's "why would I bother playing a fighter?"
And really, why would you? Any decent mageknight like a duskblade or psychic warrior could do what a fighter does but better. If you want that flavor of "not using spells, Rock Lee of D&D" feel, you don't need to do that with limited ass feats. You can just refluff the spells per day, or better yet.. use Tome of Battle!
There's a reason fourth edition pretty much looks like Tome of Battle+Tome of Magic made core. Cause it works.
What can a fighter do? Nothing!
It's not an argument of "fighters aren't wizards", it's "why would I bother playing a fighter?"
And really, why would you? Any decent mageknight like a duskblade or psychic warrior could do what a fighter does but better. If you want that flavor of "not using spells, Rock Lee of D&D" feel, you don't need to do that with limited ass feats. You can just refluff the spells per day, or better yet.. use Tome of Battle!
There's a reason fourth edition pretty much looks like Tome of Battle+Tome of Magic made core. Cause it works.
Please read through all of my posts before you quote something out of context. If the case is you just want to argue that fighters suck, I wont partake in it because I disagree with you and there is a 0% chance of your arguments changing my mind.
The above-mentioned maneuvers from the Stone Dragon school, which is the worst offender.
Which one exactly?
Some of the throws of the Setting Sun school cross the border into supernatural, too. But since it's a Swordmage only school, something like that is to be expected, I guess.
Throwing something is not supernatural in any way. I pick up something. I throw it. No supernatural forces have to intervene for me to throw somebody. All I need is the strength to pick my enemy up or the leverage to make him fall how I want. Nothing there even borders on supernatural.
Then there are Lightning Throw (the returning part),
Nothing about a boomerang is supernatural. That's just physics and aerodynamics. It's pretty cool and extraordinary that the Warblade figured out now to do that with his sword, but that's just it. It's cool and extraordinary. Supernatural powers need not be present for it to work.
and Hunter's Sense.
A good sense of smell is not a supernatural ability in any way. It's not even very extraordinary as far as extraordinary abilities go. I mean, you can find animals and even people with remarkable senses in real life. I don't see what your problem with the stance is.
There may be more, but that's all I could find for now.
I certainly hope there's more, because nothing you've mentioned so far is supernatural at all.
Stone Bones and family would make sense as counters, for example. The others should get the supernatural descriptor.
Is this what you were talking about up top? Because DR isn't supernatural at all, nor does gaining it need to be. It's a psychological effect. Remember, HP doesn't just represent physical well-being but also the mental will to go on. Mental focus can certainly help you to practically ignore blows and keep you fighting longer. This is not supernatural.
EDIT:
Abilities like these feel supernatural to me.
I don't mean for this to sound harsh or insulting, but that sounds like your problem. The problem isn't with ToB or its mechanics or its flavor. The problem is with you. You're going into this with preconceived notions of what warriors should and shouldn't be able to do, and you seem to be falling into that old "fighters shouldn't get nice things" mentality. Why shouldn't warriors get to do cool stuff?
1: The ability to dodge a bomb detonation at ground 0 with no effect (Evasion)
2: The ability to regenerate to full health in less then a hour despite having had ones brain reduced to paste by a falling rock. (Trolls)
3: The ability to speak with any living creature reguardless of language, vocal cords or sentience. (Tongue of the Sun and Moon)
4: The ability to drink Mercury, Cyanide and Arsenic straight. (Venom Immunity)
5: Ceasing to age. (Timeless Body)
Extraordinary doesn't mean realistic or even possible. It means it doesn't go away in an Anti Magic Field.
They ban the ToB... From their shelves...
Because it's overpowered.
I go to the game store a couple miles down the street because this place is run by stupid people ;)
Just as an interesting aside, there's a game store near my house.
They ban the ToB... From their shelves...
Because it's overpowered.
I go to the game store a couple miles down the street because this place is run by stupid people ;)
Every time I have someone say ToB is overpowered it is because they were not using the mechanics correctly, or they just assumed it was without seeing it in gameplay. There is a thread with a Barbarian doing more damage than a Warblade to discount the damage issue. If you are going to count the infinite damage trick, which wont see play in a real game, then no class should be played because they can all be optimized to do some nonsense that no DM would let fly. If you are going to say something is overpowered and stupid at least come with a leg to stand on because right now you have nothing.
More or less, yes. You may have to nerf the Swordmage's "spell slots" a bit, but otherwise, it should work fine.
The reason, yes. The tone, not so much.
Actually, I don't care if a character can track a moskito, or can hear fleas coughing. That's not supernatural, but extraordinary.
But if a character can make the earth shake by hitting it with a weapon, or gains immunity from harm by hitting an opponent, then it's an other quality. Abilities like these feel supernatural to me.
The above-mentioned maneuvers from the Stone Dragon school, which is the worst offender.
Some of the throws of the Setting Sun school cross the border into supernatural, too. But since it's a Swordmage only school, something like that is to be expected, I guess.
Then there are Lightning Throw (the returning part), and Hunter's Sense.
There may be more, but that's all I could find for now.
I'm not saying that these maneuver should be banned. Stone Bones and family would make sense as counters, for example. The others should get the supernatural descriptor.
In other words, you don't think dedicated warriors should get nice things.
With thier recovery mechanic I doubt they'd race ahead of the warblade and crusadors.
If all classes have the same recovery mechanic (5 minutes rest after an encounter, for example), then they do.
As for the spamming part, Runestar: That depends entirely on the player. I'd rather have all my options available when I need them.
Define the flavour difference between supernatural and extraordinary? Also, there are plenty of other examples. What about John, the core 9th level bard playing on a street corner and suddenly a genie appears and invites John to perform at his palace on the plane of air?
That's an odd example. Where is it written in the rules that the Bard gets invited by anyone?
The difference is that extraordinary abilities usually can somehoe be explained by developing naturally, even if they are rare. Supernatural abilities cannot.
Going with some of DaidojiTaidoru's examples (the others are do not apply):
Improved Evasion: Your experience and training make you just that quick.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon: I dunno about that.
Venom Immunity: if you're exposed to these substances often, then you develop an immunity against them.
Timeless Body: You cease to take age penalties. You keep your body so well honed that you don't suffer from old age. But you die when your time is up.
He transfers his naturally occuring ki into the ground. Its an 8th level manouver. By that time most characters can survive terminal velocity.
Thank you for mentioning ki. All other ki-related abilities in D&D are supernatural.
That happens on a small scale in real life. It can be debated to what exstent (I'm a bit skeptical about people bending metal bars with their throats) but its hard to deny the fact that some people can harden their flesh to snap a sharp piece of wood.
That is right. But that it is a part of an attack makes it very dubious. These maneuvers should be counters.
Thats realism versus effect. Without the returning part it would be fine, but annoying since you'd have to use a secondary weapon.
Tough luck. Maybe you should come prepared?
Hardly anything that strange here. There are people who can move the position of their heart. Besides, melee's need the occassinal trick that doesn't involve hitting someone hard with a weapon.
I don't argue the last sentence. But it's a bit weird to make anyone believe that if you stand or move just right, you can smell as well a dog.
Throwing something is not supernatural in any way. I pick up something. I throw it. No supernatural forces have to intervene for me to throw somebody. All I need is the strength to pick my enemy up or the leverage to make him fall how I want. Nothing there even borders on supernatural.
Well, if you can demonstrate me how someone can throw another person 60ft with enough force that the projectile hurts anyone in the line of fire hard, then I'll agree with you.
Nothing about a boomerang is supernatural. That's just physics and aerodynamics. It's pretty cool and extraordinary that the Warblade figured out now to do that with his sword, but that's just it. It's cool and extraordinary. Supernatural powers need not be present for it to work.
If the sword is formed like a boomerang, I agree with you. And if you show me how the thrower does manage not catch the sword by the blade.
A good sense of smell is not a supernatural ability in any way. It's not even very extraordinary as far as extraordinary abilities go. I mean, you can find animals and even people with remarkable senses in real life. I don't see what your problem with the stance is.
First, you can smell as well as a dog. Second, you can just switch it on and off.
Is this what you were talking about up top? Because DR isn't supernatural at all, nor does gaining it need to be. It's a psychological effect. Remember, HP doesn't just represent physical well-being but also the mental will to go on. Mental focus can certainly help you to practically ignore blows and keep you fighting longer. This is not supernatural.
HP, maybe. Damage reduction on the other hand is entirely described as an resistance to physical harm. Also, you gain damage reduction by hitting someone. Cause and effect. Only that the effect here has nothing to do with the cause. Hence supernatural.
If you change these maneuvers into counters, then they make sense as non-supernatural. They can explained as letting the blow glance of your armor or somesuch.
In other words, you don't think dedicated warriors should get nice things.
You can repeat this sentence as often as you like. It does not become more true.
I'd like you to show me why you think that I say meleeists shouldn't have nice things? Because I suggest changes in the ToB material? That's a bit of a ridiculous accusation, don't you think?
Well, if you can demonstrate me how someone can throw another person 60ft with enough force that the projectile hurts anyone in the line of fire hard, then I'll agree with you.
I don't need to. So long as you see that it's completely physically possible without any kind of supernatural requirement, that should be enough. D&D characters, even the martial ones, are and have always been capable of feats of mythical proportions here in our world. And that's the way D&D was meant to be.
If the sword is formed like a boomerang, I agree with you. And if you show me how the thrower does manage not catch the sword by the blade.
The sword doesn't need to be formed like a boomerang. I was just showing you that a proper understanding of aerodynamics is all that's required for that to work. Put the right spin on anything and you can get it to come back. Can anybody in the real world do it? No, but that doesn't make it supernatural. It just makes it really extraordinary, which is good because that's what makes D&D.
Furthermore, it's perfectly physically plausible to catch a blade without hurting one's self. Neither you nor I could do it, but I should hope that an 18th level Elven Warblade would be a little bit better at that kind of thing than either of us. You need to stop restricting martial to what you've seen in real life. That's not all that martial is.
First, you can smell as well as a dog. Second, you can just switch it on and off.
Sounds fine to me. The human senses are much more powerful than we give them credit for. Did you know there are people in real life who can listen to you typing on your keyboard over the telephone and know exactly what you typed? It's not easy to learn how to do, no, given the flavor of tiger claw being similar to that of the barbarian, I should think that wild hunters would be a little better at figuring out that kind of thing than either of us.
As for turning it on and off, you can't just do that kind of thing without being in the right state of mind. It takes focus and concentration. If that concentration's broken, you won't do it right.
HP, maybe. Damage reduction on the other hand is entirely described as an resistance to physical harm.
But that resistance doesn't have to be physical. It can be psychological. And in that maneuver, that's exactly what it is.
Also, you gain damage reduction by hitting someone. Cause and effect. Only that the effect here has nothing to do with the cause. Hence supernatural.
That's horrible reasoning. Let me explain to you how it really works. It's very difficult for somebody to just think "oh, I'm going to shrug off this blow" and actually do it. No, you need to get pumped for that kind of thing first. Getting a hit in might just be the sort of psychologically-triggered adrenaline burst that this kind of maneuver requires.
They can explained as letting the blow glance of your armor or somesuch.
That's exactly how it's explained now. That and being better able to mentally take the hit without letting it affect your morale. Nothing supernatural about it.
Improved Evasion: Your experience and training make you just that quick.
Except the rogue can dodge the explosion reguardless of size and cover. He can be sitting on an atomic device as it goes off, in a 10 by 10 room with no exits or cover and still dodge the blast wave.
Tongue of the Sun and Moon: I dunno about that.
Yes. It's pretty hard to justify talking to Yaks without magic.
Venom Immunity: if you're exposed to these substances often, then you develop an immunity against them.
Being exposed to things like Mercury and Lead over time doesn't make you resistant. It just increases the amount of toxins stored in your body, making it more likely for you to die.
Timeless Body: You cease to take age penalties. You keep your body so well honed that you don't suffer from old age. But you die when your time is up.
This one I must admit makes some sense, and fits the stories it's working from.
Also you skipped over Troll regen. Which is also Ex.
But don't take my word for it. Here's the PHB.
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field. Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.
Ex abilities only exist for game ballance purposes. If you don't want it to be dispelled or turn off in an AMF you make it Ex.
Sounds fine to me. The human senses are much more powerful than we give them credit for. Did you know there are people in real life who can listen to you typing on your keyboard over the telephone and know exactly what you typed?
This one just makes no sense. Hearing someone type yes, knowing what they typed, not so much.
In a fantasy game it goes over well. In real life
This one just makes no sense. Hearing someone type yes, knowing what they typed, not so much.
In a fantasy game it goes over well. In real life
Your not believing it doesn't make it not true. :P
Similarly extraordinary, there's a blind boy I saw on the news once that had actually developed a pretty good sense of echolocation. Difficult to believe if you don't see it yourself, I know, but there's nothing supernatural about either ability, as super-humanly extraordinary as they may sound (lol, sound).
As for the spamming part, Runestar: That depends entirely on the player. I'd rather have all my options available when I need them.
Adaptive style kinda makes that point moot. In the 1st round of combat, you can quickly surmise what maneuvers you will need, and which are useless, then activate it to swap in a custom set of maneuvers best suited to the current encounter at hand. So if I simply face a dumb brute with no need for saves, I may just swap out mind over body and bring in all diamond blade nightmares or something...:P
Your not believing it doesn't make it not true. :P
Similarly extraordinary, there's a blind boy I saw on the news once that had actually developed a pretty good sense of echolocation. Difficult to believe if you don't see it yourself, I know, but there's nothing supernatural about either ability, as super-humanly extraordinary as they may sound (lol, sound).
True, but if you are going to use it in a debate you might need a reference.
On another note this seem extraordinary if it is true-->link
True, but if you are going to use it in a debate you might need a reference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLziFMF4DHA
For the echolocation.
I actually haven't watched this before, but from the first 5 minutes, that looks pretty much like what I remember.
EDIT: And here's a wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Underwood#Ben_Underwood
I'm loaning the ToB to a friend of mine, so I can't really debate on ToB mechanics as well as I'd like to, but I do have the phb2, which contains "Combat Form" feats. Mind you, I've never actually used them. None of these feats are listed as extraoridanary, supernatural, etc. (not that I'm seeing right now anyway).
There is one that gives you fast healing (true that one's sometime after 9th level if you go with a 1:1 BaB progression). There is another feat that gives you Blindsight (to 5 feat) if you have enough of these things. Again, neither feat is listed as being any sort of ability. Unfortunately these are the two most extreme examples in this feat line, and there's only 6 of the things, so I can't really expland on them. These feats also last a fixed amount of time (10-16 rounds).
Please note, I didn't say that they were "good freats", just that they existed. Also note that I only have about 6 books (phb, BoVD, CompPsi, XPH, HoB, phb2) at the time (7 w/ ToB) so it's not like I went thumbing through an extensive library of 3.5 splat matterial to find these 2 feats.
Actually, I don't care if a character can track a moskito, or can hear fleas coughing. That's not supernatural, but extraordinary.
Actually, if we're just referring to a skill use, it's *not* an Extraordinary ability, as it doesn't have that flag; it's just an ordinary ability that anyone can learn to do, un like an Extraordinary ability. The specific things these terms means matters a LOT, when discussing things like shape-changing: you DEFINITELY gain racial skill bonuses (which are not attacks), even when it pushes characters past the point of what's "realistic", because skill uses are NOT Extraordinary in nature.
But if a character can make the earth shake by hitting it with a weapon, or gains immunity from harm by hitting an opponent, then it's an other quality. Abilities like these feel supernatural to me.
Of course, that's not really the way 3.5 chooses to define such things, and that seems to be somewhat of the issue here:
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.
Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.
The only mechanical distinction between Extraordinary and Supernatural is that second bolded part, as noted in this table here; the entry specifically states that Extraordinary abilities can break the laws of physics and still be extraordinary. And indeed, that seems to be a significant chunk of what separates Ex abilities from ordinary abilities a creature has.
The above-mentioned maneuvers from the Stone Dragon school, which is the worst offender.
Some of the throws of the Setting Sun school cross the border into supernatural, too. But since it's a Swordmage only school, something like that is to be expected, I guess.
Then there are Lightning Throw (the returning part), and Hunter's Sense.
There may be more, but that's all I could find for now.
I'm not saying that these maneuver should be banned. Stone Bones and family would make sense as counters, for example. The others should get the supernatural descriptor.
So, let's apply that lens to some of the stone dragon abilities: using SHEER MARTIAL BADASSERY, a character is able to slam a hammer into the ground and cause a tremor. Does it make much sense for this capacity to disappear in an Antimagic Field? Does Hunter's Sense? Again, the lens we're applying isn't "is it outside the realm of physics/what's an extension of what people are capable of", but rather, "does it make sense for this ability, given the explanation and fluff attached to it, to not work in an anti-magic field or other null magic zone". And, at least from my perspective, it seems like one would draw a very different set of conclusions regarding the question of whether more of ToM's maneuvers should be Supernatural, rather than Extraordinary.
I do have the phb2, which contains "Combat Form" feats. Mind you, I've never actually used them. None of these feats are listed as extraoridanary, supernatural, etc. (not that I'm seeing right now anyway).
Feats are Extraordinary abilities unless otherwise stated.
So we're debating about "realism" in a game where wizards can stop time, kill gods, create balls of fire from nothing, etc, and bards can do things just by singing about it?
I agree. It's a fantasy game. There's no reason martial characters shouldn't get to do stuff that seems unrealistic or implausible in the real world.
Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords has three classes that are overpowered. This is because they can use their maneuvers -- similar to spells -- to do damage and other unusual effects that are usually the realm of casters. And the Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade are all "tanks" (or Defenders, as we calls 'em in 4th Edition).
The quarrel is not just that they can do spell-esque attacks, but that they can do them "at will" (meaning once a battle, variably).
The argument, if I had to guess, is based on comparing the damage output of these Defender classes to the damage output of Fighters and Rogues and the like, as well as the benefits of their maneuvers to the spells of wizards and the abilities of more exotic classes.
My counter argument is that you'll find disputes on "overpowered characters" whenever you have multiple of the same genre of class in your group. If you have a Fighter and a Barbarian, inevitably one is going to do more damage than the other and the other just might be the type to complain.
If you have a Fighter and Paladin in a group, obviously you're going to hear some words about who's stronger. Same if you had an Abjurer and a Necromancer. People compare and contrast. Gloating if they're on top, moping if they're on bottom.
This isn't really about overpowered classes, because a DM's encounters should be designed to compensate for whatever advancements the party makes. And if that's not working because it's just one shining player above the rest, then it's time to consider helping your under-powered players get up on top of things, and more importantly get them into a niche of battle.
Example: My only 3.5 group lasted 4 years. The party consisted of two characters at all times (the party's consistency changed otherwise): Gamis Lanceheart and Andrew Huestone, a Human Fighter and a Human Marshal (the latter is actually irrelevant to the story). Eventually, in stomps Thok the Orc Barbarian with enough strength to bowl over most anything. Gamis' player didn't decide to complain about Thok's magnificent strength; rather, he decided to look for alternatives. He became what I'd qualify as the Attack Bonus, whereas Thok was the Damage. And then he took to Skill Tricks to the point of suddenly being the Uber-Versatile Fighter Who Always Has Something to Do, whereas Thok was the Damage.
Now, is it sad that Gamis wasn't able to be the Damage? Maybe. But if you come to the game hoping to be the biggest damage dealer, you're playing D&D for all the wrong reasons.
This is a silly argument, given that it's the same one as has probably been said for thirty years. Someone found something that ended up making their character significantly better than everyone else's. Other player's complain and try to bring down the law on them, for fear of inadequacy. Tome of Battle fills the niche of "One hit, good damage, and sometimes a nice benefit". If your party Rogue is trying to do the same thing, they're forgetting that they are awesome sneaks and liars and should use those things.
I actually haven't watched this before, but from the first 5 minutes, that looks pretty much like what I remember.
LOL. Nice
If all classes have the same recovery mechanic (5 minutes rest after an encounter, for example), then they do.
True, but indeviduality is good.
That's an odd example. Where is it written in the rules that the Bard gets invited by anyone?
Its the perform skill, so an expert could do it aswell.
The difference is that extraordinary abilities usually can somehoe be explained by developing naturally, even if they are rare. Supernatural abilities cannot.
So, the manouvers are achievably by constant training.
Thank you for mentioning ki. All other ki-related abilities in D&D are supernatural.
I'll get to this as soon as I've had a chance to run over some books.
That is right. But that it is a part of an attack makes it very dubious. These maneuvers should be counters.
I get what you mean, but there are numerous explanations. Attack disrupts opponenet that manifests as DR. The attack is needed to get into the right mindset.
Tough luck. Maybe you should come prepared?
But your secondary weapon is going to be weaker, and if you throw it away, your more damaged by disarming.
I don't argue the last sentence. But it's a bit weird to make anyone believe that if you stand or move just right, you can smell as well a dog.
I think stances are as mental as they are phyical.
Hmmm... I'm gonna see if I understand all the things people are saying in this thread...
Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords has three classes that are overpowered. This is because they can use their maneuvers -- similar to spells -- to do damage and other unusual effects that are usually the realm of casters. And the Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade are all "tanks" (or Defenders, as we calls 'em in 4th Edition).
Warblades and Crusadors sure, but swordsage? Only light armour, and not so good HP. They need wisdom so their con won't be so good. Loads of manouvers that aid movement/escape. There a 3.5 skirmisher surely?
I don't need to. So long as you see that it's completely physically possible without any kind of supernatural requirement, that should be enough. D&D characters, even the martial ones, are and have always been capable of feats of mythical proportions here in our world. And that's the way D&D was meant to be.
Maybe. It comes down to personal preference in this case. As I said, Setting Sun is Swordsage only. Since they can already perform quasi-magical feats, it's not so bad.
The sword doesn't need to be formed like a boomerang. I was just showing you that a proper understanding of aerodynamics is all that's required for that to work. Put the right spin on anything and you can get it to come back. Can anybody in the real world do it? No, but that doesn't make it supernatural. It just makes it really extraordinary, which is good because that's what makes D&D.
Your reasoning contradicts itself. First you say it's perfectly possible, then you say it isn't in our world. That doesn't make sense.
Just out of curoisity: How would you go about computing to throw a sword that it comes back to you?
Sounds fine to me. The human senses are much more powerful than we give them credit for. Did you know there are people in real life who can listen to you typing on your keyboard over the telephone and know exactly what you typed? It's not easy to learn how to do, no, given the flavor of tiger claw being similar to that of the barbarian, I should think that wild hunters would be a little better at figuring out that kind of thing than either of us.
As for turning it on and off, you can't just do that kind of thing without being in the right state of mind. It takes focus and concentration. If that concentration's broken, you won't do it right.
Yes, I know that there are people with extraordinary senses. But they were born with it. You cannot train yourself to smell as good as a dog (or any other kind of predator), simply because your body isn't build that way. Macrosmatic animals have more olfactory cells than humans, so just setting your mind on it doesn't make you suddenly develop more.
But that resistance doesn't have to be physical. It can be psychological. And in that maneuver, that's exactly what it is.
RAW doesn't see it that way.
That's horrible reasoning. Let me explain to you how it really works. It's very difficult for somebody to just think "oh, I'm going to shrug off this blow" and actually do it. No, you need to get pumped for that kind of thing first. Getting a hit in might just be the sort of psychologically-triggered adrenaline burst that this kind of maneuver requires.
You don't think it. You just do. Knights were trained to unconsciously move just so that blows would glance of their shields and armor.
True, but indeviduality is good.
The individuality comes from maneuver and stance selection, and the number of maneuver slots.
Its the perform skill, so an expert could do it aswell.
There's nothing in the rules that some extraplanar being must pop up to invite the performer. That lies entirely in the DM's judgement.
So, the manouvers are achievably by constant training.
Basically yes. But some of them aren't physically explainable.
I get what you mean, but there are numerous explanations. Attack disrupts opponenet that manifests as DR. The attack is needed to get into the right mindset.
See above: the body reacts subconsciously, if training was throrough enough.
But your secondary weapon is going to be weaker, and if you throw it away, your more damaged by disarming.
With the maneuvers available, I doubt that a weaker weapon (if it is weaker) would make such a big difference.
I think stances are as mental as they are phyical.
That doesn't change the fact that aquiring Scent through a stance is physically impossible.
What is ToB? I find no translation for this abbreviation anywhere.
Tome of Battle. Also named in the first post, as well as occasionally throughout the thead.
Maybe. It comes down to personal preference in this case. As I said, Setting Sun is Swordsage only. Since they can already perform quasi-magical feats, it's not so bad.
Your reasoning contradicts itself. First you say it's perfectly possible, then you say it isn't in our world. That doesn't make sense.
Just out of curoisity: How would you go about computing to throw a sword that it comes back to you?
Yes, I know that there are people with extraordinary senses. But they were born with it. You cannot train yourself to smell as good as a dog (or any other kind of predator), simply because your body isn't build that way. Macrosmatic animals have more olfactory cells than humans, so just setting your mind on it doesn't make you suddenly develop more.
RAW doesn't see it that way.
You don't think it. You just do. Knights were trained to unconsciously move just so that blows would glance of their shields and armor.
The individuality comes from maneuver and stance selection, and the number of maneuver slots.
There's nothing in the rules that some extraplanar being must pop up to invite the performer. That lies entirely in the DM's judgement.
Basically yes. But some of them aren't physically explainable.
See above: the body reacts subconsciously, if training was throrough enough.
With the maneuvers available, I doubt that a weaker weapon (if it is weaker) would make such a big difference.
That doesn't change the fact that aquiring Scent through a stance is physically impossible.
Who cares?
It's a fantasy game, dude. How hard is it to believe that somebody can train themselves to smell better in a world where other people train themselves to instantaneously travel miles, create fire, or stop time with the power of their will?
There's nothing in the rules that some extraplanar being must pop up to invite the performer. That lies entirely in the DM's judgement.
look at the highest skill check (35 I think). It says you may attract the attention of a planar entity.
Basically yes. But some of them aren't physically explainable.
Neither is being immune to all poisons. Protein based poisons such as snake bites, yes. But heavy metals? You can't in real life. Full stop. Plus your ingoring the example of the troll regenerating being EX.
With the maneuvers available, I doubt that a weaker weapon (if it is weaker) would make such a big difference.
Its still annoying though. And yes. Primary weapons are stronger than secondary weapons.
That doesn't change the fact that aquiring Scent through a stance is physically impossible.
So is regeneration and immunity to heavy metal poisoning.
Basically yes. But some of them aren't physically explainable.
Of course, that's not what determines whether an ability is Ex or Su.
See above: the body reacts subconsciously, if training was throrough enough.
It very much depends; you're trying a bit hard to be contrary here. There are many, many instances where someone can, either conciously or unconciously, shrug off significant damage, either from bracing against a hit, or having muscles relax significantly, and this hardly needs to be true for all of the ways one could shrug off damage.
Plus, the Barbarian class already establishes precedent for Extraordinary damage reduction, so your problem is... that Damage Reduction makes no sense as an Extraordinary ability if it's temporary?
With the maneuvers available, I doubt that a weaker weapon (if it is weaker) would make such a big difference.
Given that most maneuvers only trigger on a successful attack, and WBL guarantees that either a character is deficient somewhere else, or switching to a secondary weapon is a lot like taking a -2 to -4 penalty to attacks and damage...
That doesn't change the fact that aquiring Scent through a stance is physically impossible.
Well, it's a good thing that's not the standard for determining whether an ability is Extraordinary or Supernatural, eh bub?
What's wrong with troll regeneration being EX?
Nothing. I was just pointing out that Fabius Maximus was explaining how certain EX were "psyically possibly" but negleted to mention the trolls regeneration in that explanation.
The division between extraordinary and supernatural is arbitrary and stupid. That's why it was excised for the 4e rules in favor of power sources, which can mean whatever you want them to for your character.
I wouldn't quite go that far; the distinction is actually very specific, and the places where it actually matters are limited to one spell and environmental effect that rarely comes up, in most peoples' games. Well, and shapechanging abilities, but they followed their own rules and special abilities derived from class levels never apply to those, anyway.
The problem is, people ignore that, and project their own meaning into the terms "Extraordinary" and "Supernatural" that either ignores or contradicts the meanings of those terms in game terms, and typically in a manner that defines "Extraordinary" as ordinary and "Supernatural" as everything else. Note how easily Fabius_maximus slipped and referred to a simple core skill use as Extraordinary (despite the fact that core skill uses that are not contingent on feats or anything else are None of the Above, as you don't lose them via shapechanging) here:
Actually, I don't care if a character can track a moskito, or can hear fleas coughing. That's not supernatural, but extraordinary.
(emphasis added)
Again, the terms have very simple, very specific meanings in game terms, but the problem, AFAICT, is that people ignore those meanings entirely to argue about whether something "feels" small-s supernatural, in and of itself, rather than in terms of how that thing interacts with that handful of spells and single environmental effect where this is relevant, and whether it actually matters all that much, given how minute the gameplay effect actually is, unless a significant portion of the campaign takes place in an null magic zone..
Feats are Extraordinary abilities unless otherwise stated.
Ah yes, thank you
As for extraordinary, what about the feat "Penertating Shot"(phb2)? As one of the weapons it can be used with, they list the sling. So, the question I pose, should the ability to have a character with a stregth of 10 (strength is not a prereq) to fire a sling stone 60 feat through multiple foes be considered a supernatural ability because a person who is carrying a medium load with a chain shirt (25lbs), buckler (5lbs), and 10 sling stones (5lbs, fortunately the sling weighs "nothing") probably isn't able to generate the nessicary power to go through even one humanoid (let's say, a gnome)?
Your reasoning contradicts itself. First you say it's perfectly possible, then you say it isn't in our world. That doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. It's possible, it just hasn't been done and likely won't ever be done. It's also possible for George Bush to make out with Snoop Dogg while being filmed by CNN. It's not going to happen, but there's nothing in there that breaks the laws or physics or anything.
Just out of curoisity: How would you go about computing to throw a sword that it comes back to you?
I don't know. I'm not a level 15 Warblade.
Yes, I know that there are people with extraordinary senses. But they were born with it.
False. That kid I mentioned before with the echolocation developed it after he had his functioning eyes removed.
You cannot train yourself to smell as good as a dog (or any other kind of predator), simply because your body isn't build that way. Macrosmatic animals have more olfactory cells than humans, so just setting your mind on it doesn't make you suddenly develop more.
Also false. See, we humans rely so much on our sight that we do sometimes just ignore our other sense. Concentrate on a sense and you'll notice more than you would have not concentrating. I'm not saying you'll ever be able to smell as well as a dog, but I am saying that it's not too big a stretch for a Swordsage. This is a fantasy game. Let martial characters do extraordinary things too.
RAW doesn't see it that way.
It's not a matter of RAW. It's a matter of flavor, and the flavor doesn't look like it disagrees with me at all.
You don't think it. You just do. Knights were trained to unconsciously move just so that blows would glance of their shields and armor.
Completely irrelevant. I never claimed that the Warblade was moving slightly to make blows just glance off their metal. I said that. I'm saying they take the hit. They just ignore the pain.
I really don't see what your problem with a human gaining DR is anyways. The Barbarian has been doing it from day one...
You can repeat this sentence as often as you like. It does not become more true.
I'd like you to show me why you think that I say meleeists shouldn't have nice things? Because I suggest changes in the ToB material? That's a bit of a ridiculous accusation, don't you think?
Not when you are arguing against flavor text. Big deal a sword is not shaped like a boomerang. Why should it be such a big bother to you a warrior can train himself well enough to use a sword like a boomerang anyway?
So, Fabius Maximus, you are arguing that a human cannot physically gain the scent ability...When there are things that can change shape into animals? Or feats that allow You to get scent(Wild Feat)? Or that i could with my character, stop time? Or Fly? Or a million other things i could do? Like having a ORC with a Giant Greatsword of returning, throw it and have it retrun? Why? Just Why? Like others have said, this is a FANTASY game, just in case you have forgotten. There are plenty of other ways to get anything you have said we shouldnt, regeneration, scent, and other more ridiculous things like flight. So what exactly is it you have a problem with? DnD in general since you cant possibly do most of the things in real life that you can do in the game?
-Cole Caecus
Not when you are arguing against flavor text. Big deal a sword is not shaped like a boomerang. Why should it be such a big bother to you a warrior can train himself well enough to use a sword like a boomerang anyway?
Because it's stupid. It has not foundation whatsoever, except that it's supposedly "cool".
Btw, did you notice that the weapon also returns if you hit? Which means that all kinetic energy has left it. How do you explain that it still returns?
Re Damage Reduction: I don't have problems with DR being extraordinary per se. I have only a problem with the connection to a successful hit. That has (again) no foundation whatsoever. I'm fine with the relevant maneuvers being counters (or stances if you nerf them), but as strikes they are supernatural to me.
Re Troll Regeneration: I don't know why that has been brought up at all. Trolls are monsters. They don't exist. They can have every ability you can think of.
Re Bards: They keyword here is 'may'. There is no rule that an extraplanar being must take notice of the bard in question.
Re Scent: Macrosmatic animals have different noses. Humans cannot possibly smell as well as dogs, cats or wolves, because our noses have not as many olfactory receptors.
Re Poison Immunity: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' immunisation. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
Because it's stupid. It has not foundation whatsoever, except that it's supposedly "cool".
Btw, did you notice that the weapon also returns if you hit? Which means that all kinetic energy has left it. How do you explain that it still returns?
Becoming immune to heavy metals has a much scientific bases as the boomerang sword does. Actually I think the latter is less obsurd. And there are also mechanical reasons why it returns.
Also, what about the example from the other poster of the halfling with 8 strength propeling a sling shot through several armoured advisories?
Re Damage Reduction: I don't have problems with DR being extraordinary per se. I have only a problem with the connection to a successful hit. That has (again) no foundation whatsoever. I'm fine with the relevant maneuvers being counters (or stances if you nerf them), but as strikes they are supernatural to me.
We've given you explanations for the need of a succesful hit.
Re Troll Regeneration: I don't know why that has been brought up at all. Trolls are monsters. They don't exist. They can have every ability you can think of.
Please tell me you can see how weak this argument is? Extraordany abilities need to have a shred of scientific truth in them, expect the ones of monsters.
Re Bards: They keyword here is 'may'. There is no rule that an extraplanar being must take notice of the bard in question.
Yes there is. If something may happen and you try for long enough (the bard can succeed automatically by taking a 10) then eventually it must happen.
Re Poison Immunity: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' immunisation. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
It doesn't. Only as much as continually cutting yourself with a dagger will give you immunity to dagger stabs.
@Cole: You are incorrect. Read the thread.
Because it's stupid. It has not foundation whatsoever, except that it's supposedly "cool".
Btw, did you notice that the weapon also returns if you hit? Which means that all kinetic energy has left it. How do you explain that it still returns?
Re Damage Reduction: I don't have problems with DR being extraordinary per se. I have only a problem with the connection to a successful hit. That has (again) no foundation whatsoever. I'm fine with the relevant maneuvers being counters (or stances if you nerf them), but as strikes they are supernatural to me.
Re Troll Regeneration: I don't know why that has been brought up at all. Trolls are monsters. They don't exist. They can have every ability you can think of.
Re Bards: They keyword here is 'may'. There is no rule that an extraplanar being must take notice of the bard in question.
Re Scent: Macrosmatic animals have different noses. Humans cannot possibly smell as well as dogs, cats or wolves, because our noses have not as many olfactory receptors.
Re Poison Immunity: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' immunisation. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
But you have no problem whatsoever with a guy using bat feces to produce a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away?
I believe his problem with the ToB, specifically illustrated with Lightning Throw, is that these aren't supernatural in nature.
If I'm understanding Fabius Maximus point of view correctly, it's that the warblade and company can do all of these amazing things (which may I add I personally like because it let's marial characters have more options), and that the abilities often make no sense, from his understanding, to come from a mundane source such as training.
If I got your point of view wrong, Fabius Maximus, feel free to correct me.
Almost everything in D&D would be called "supernatural" if we're using that word in an ordinary, everyday fashion. The ability of a dragon to fly would be called "supernatural" because the natural laws of our real world would never allow a creature of a dragon's size and built to actually fly.
I believe the problem is that "extraordinary" and "supernatural" has meaning outside of the game that people keep trying to bring into the game. In terms of game mechanics, the only difference between Ex and Su is that one of them works inside an AMF and the other doesn't.
Almost everything in D&D would be called "supernatural" if we're using that word in an ordinary, everyday fashion. The ability of a dragon to fly would be called "supernatural" because the natural laws of our real world would never allow a creature of a dragon's size and built to actually fly.
Right, that's what I said about a page ago. I had hoped (perhaps naively) that F_M would actually address that specific point: The only distinction between EX and SU, in gameplay terms, is whether or not it works in an AMF. And whether it makes sense for these abilities to work in an AMF is a *very* different standard from "is it within the realistic capacities of a human being?". The description of Extraordinary powers *explicitly* calls out that they're not limited by the laws of physics or anything else; we've had a handful of core examples already presented, and it's also bee noted that non-special abilities like rolling skill checks already surpass ordinary human physical limitations, and those are SUB-Extraordinary in nature, rather than being Ex special qualities.
Again, personally, if a character has an innate ability to slam a hammer into the ground and make a tremor, I don't see it as a terrible mis-fit for that ability to persist in an AMF. THAT should be the only standard at work here, as it's already been estabilished that Extraordinary abilities can be well beyond the capacity of our world's natural laws.
Because it's stupid. It has not foundation whatsoever, except that it's supposedly "cool".
We already told you what the foundation was. You just refuse to accept it because you think it's lame. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion to think it's lame. However, that's not enough justification to ban a book or strike down a character concept. If I were to disallow every character that I thought wasn't cool, I might as well just play with myself... Yes, I realize what I just typed, but I'm not going to change it.
Btw, did you notice that the weapon also returns if you hit? Which means that all kinetic energy has left it. How do you explain that it still returns?
Hitting doesn't mean it has no kinetic energy left. I don't know where you're getting this, but it isn't physics.
Take a knife and slice a block of cheese on a table. The knife goes through the cheese, cutting it, and stops at the table. Replace knife with a sword or whatever, replace cheese with enemies, and then realize the enemies have no table behind them to stop the sword after it goes through.
Re Damage Reduction: I don't have problems with DR being extraordinary per se. I have only a problem with the connection to a successful hit. That has (again) no foundation whatsoever.
We already explained the psychological foundation. You just don't want to accept it because you think it's lame. Again, if you think it's lame, then don't take that maneuver.
Re Scent: Macrosmatic animals have different noses. Humans cannot possibly smell as well as dogs, cats or wolves, because our noses have not as many olfactory receptors.
Are you, like, purposefully not reading what I'm writing? Let me explain it this way: I guy with vision so blurry that he can't even make out the word on a stop sign has a better chance of visually noticing somebody walk by than a guy with 20/20 vision who isn't paying attention and staring off into space daydreaming. It's not just about how good your senses are. It's about how you use them. The Hunter's Sense stance involves the character specifically focusing mental effort on his sense of smell to do what canines do without even trying. His sense of smell still isn't as good as a canine's.
Re Poison Immunity: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' immunisation. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
Hold on a moment...
Re Lightening Throw: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' aerodynamic awareness. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
Re Damage Reduction: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' focus, willpower, and adrenaline. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
Re Scent: What makes this extraordinary is that it goes beyond 'normal' smell. The designers used the latter and simply extrapolated. It has a foundation.
>> possibly smell as well as dogs, cats or wolves, because our noses have
>> not as many olfactory receptors.
>
> Are you, like, purposefully not reading what I'm writing?
Whether he is or not, he's also using a false analogy. By current research and understanding, humans are considered macrosmats because we have proportionally greater brain power behind the sense.
News article about one of the studies involved: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/senses/
>> Re Scent: Macrosmatic animals have different noses. Humans cannot
>> possibly smell as well as dogs, cats or wolves, because our noses have
>> not as many olfactory receptors.
>
> Are you, like, purposefully not reading what I'm writing?
Whether he is or not, he's also using a false analogy. By current research and understanding, humans are considered macrosmats because we have proportionally greater brain power behind the sense.
News article about one of the studies involved: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/senses/
you didn't seriously post a scientific article in a FANTASY GAME FORUM.....
did you???
you didn't seriously post a scientific article in a FANTASY GAME FORUM.....
did you???
OH NOES!!!1!
For me, the solution is a simple one. Martial adepts have clearly found some way to emulate what would otherwise be magical feats as extraordinary ones. How, I don't know, nor would I care. All that matters is that they can do it.
It is like my computer CPU. I don't know how the parts inside interact with one another, but I do know that pressing that "on" switch will allow my PC to boot up. And often, that is really all that I need to know with regards to handling my comp.:P
Same here. Do I really to care how a warblade can throw a weapon 60-ft away and have it return to his hand mystically?
OH NOES!!!1!!!11!1one!!1!eleven
edited for accuracy
navar100.
I believe his problem with the ToB, specifically illustrated with Lightning Throw, is that these aren't supernatural in nature.
If I'm understanding Fabius Maximus point of view correctly, it's that the warblade and company can do all of these amazing things (which may I add I personally like because it let's marial characters have more options), and that the abilities often make no sense, from his understanding, to come from a mundane source such as training.
If I got your point of view wrong, Fabius Maximus, feel free to correct me.
Exactly. And that's the last I post on this issue (except the point below).
Oh, and Neutronium Dragon: If you read that article correctly, you'd have noticed two things:
1. Dogs and other animals (mice) are still consired far superior smeller than humans. I didn't say that humans are bad at it. I just said that we aren't as good as dogs. So, the anaolgy wasn't false.
2. The last sentence yo referred to says that humans may be considered macrosmatic smellers. It is an assumption one scientist makes.
Exactly. And that's the last I post on this issue (except the point below).
Oh, and Neutronium Dragon: If you read that article correctly, you'd have noticed two things:
1. Dogs and other animals (mice) are still consired far superior smeller than humans. I didn't say that humans are bad at it. I just said that we aren't as good as dogs. So, the anaolgy wasn't false.
2. The last sentence yo referred to says that humans may be considered macrosmatic smellers. It is an assumption one scientist makes.
In other words, you're ok with a guy turning bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away but get a hissy fit with a guy throwing a sword 60ft and having it come back. Warriors are not allowed to get nice things.
In other words, you're ok with a guy turning bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away but get a hissy fit with a guy throwing a sword 60ft and having it come back. Warriors are not allowed to get nice things.
I think he wants the things that are magical to be magical. It really is a stretch to throw lightening as an extraordinary ability. I think if it was advertised as some type of magical fighter he would be ok. Basically ToB goes beyond what his suspension of belief is willing to accept.
I agree that a some of the things are too magical to be considered extraordinary, even though I don't agree with banning the book, but I do understood how it upsets some people regardless of the D&D definitions of extraordinary and supernatural.
The Manuever "Lightning throw" is a 7th level (I think, AFB right now) maneuver in which you do not "throw lightning". You throw your weapon in a 30 ft line and it returns to you.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this. The wizard and crew, by the time this particular maneuver can come into play, have already long ago waved bye-bye to the laws of physics and are writing their own books on the rules of the universe (title varying). So for me, it's a not a big deal to have someone who's spent their life studying combat in such an intense way to be able to throw an axe 30 feet, deal an extra amount of damage, and have the axe comeback to them, and call it extraordinary
On another note, looking at the dragon shaman, depending on your dragon type, you gain the ability to breath water as an extraordinary ability. At 9th level, you become immune to the energy type which is associated with your dragon, again, an exraordinary ability. Both are fairly... imposible to achieve. If I choose to idealize a salom, I cannot breath under water. Like wise, by aspiring to be an electric eel I cannot lick a live light socket safely.
...you know, looking back at this post, I can't help but think I'm coming off as a bit of a jerk and appologise in advance if I offend anybody. That isn't my objective.
In other words, you're ok with a guy turning bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away but get a hissy fit with a guy throwing a sword 60ft and having it come back. Warriors are not allowed to get nice things.
You don't get it, do you?
Why can't warriors get nice things without entering supernatural or magical territory? There are many other maneuvers in this book that manage to achieve that.
And if they absolutely have to step over these lines, why can't said maneuvers and stances have the appropriate descriptor? Because they must be able to use it in an anti-magical field?
And if they absolutely have to step over these lines, why can't said maneuvers and stances have the appropriate descriptor? Because they must be able to use it in an anti-magical field?
The maneuvers that are obviously magical (such as most of the Desert Wind fire-creating maneuvers and the Shadow Hand "ha, now you can't see me" maneuvers) do, for the most part, have the (Su) descriptor. The ones that are a logical extension of mundane abilities (chuck a sword at someone -> throw your sword 60ft and have it come back to you, shrug off a bit of pain -> heal yourself by ignoring all pain, etc.) don't have the (Su) descriptor. No one is claiming that warriors should be able to use all their abilities in an antimagic field, just those that can have a logical (if not technically "mundane") explanation should be usable there.
If Beowulf entered an antimagic field, would his superhuman abilities suddenly disappear? If Hercules entered an antimagic field, would his amazing strength suddenly go away? How about Odysseus, or Achilles? Of course not. No one claims that their abilities are inherently magical (though at least in the case of Hercules, their cause may very well be). Yet these and other heroes routinely level mountains, fire single arrows through a dozen people in a row, and do things that anyone watching them would swear were magical. Considering that a modern human works out to about 5th level in D&D terms, is it all that unreasonable that Beowulf-ish heroes around 10th level can do things that we can't explain well?
Considering that a modern human works out to about 5th level in D&D terms, is it all that unreasonable that Beowulf-ish heroes around 10th level can do things that we can't explain well?
This, right here.
Going back to the example of the Troll that can regenerate as an Ex ability, it's relevant even though there are no Trolls in the real world. There are also no Warblades in the real world (18th level or otherwise); heck, there probably never has been an 18th level anything in this world. So if a Troll is allowed a completely impossible ability to be Ex, then so is the Warblade.
And to answer Fabius's most recent post (unless I get ninja'd), yes. There are abilities that Warblades must be able to use in an AMF even if they're over the top. Why? Because that's how the designers ended up playtesting the abilities to work out; they're only fair if they're still allowed in an AMF. Remember, that is the one, single, only difference between Ex and Su. Everything else is fluff and mutable.
Wraithstrike
The Manuever "Lightning throw" is a 7th level (I think, AFB right now) maneuver in which you do not "throw lightning". You throw your weapon in a 30 ft line and it returns to you.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this. The wizard and crew, by the time this particular maneuver can come into play, have already long ago waved bye-bye to the laws of physics and are writing their own books on the rules of the universe (title varying). So for me, it's a not a big deal to have someone who's spent their life studying combat in such an intense way to be able to throw an axe 30 feet, deal an extra amount of damage, and have the axe comeback to them, and call it extraordinaryisn't too bad.
On another note, looking at the dragon shaman, depending on your dragon type, you gain the ability to breath water as an extraordinary ability. At 9th level, you become immune to the energy type which is associated with your dragon, again, an exraordinary ability. Both are fairly... imposible to achieve. If I choose to idealize a salom, I cannot breath under water. Like wise, by aspiring to be an electric eel I cannot lick a live light socket safely.
...you know, looking back at this post, I can't help but think I'm coming off as a bit of a jerk and appologise in advance if I offend anybody. That isn't my objective.
An earlier post said you could throw lightening,and I did not bother to check, sorry about that
. Instead of using the lightening I will use the swordsage's shadow jaunt and similar abilities that allow him to disappear into a black ball and reappear somewhere else. It has the teleport descriptor, but it is not stated as SU. If that is SU then I have no examples to go on. PS: If the axe goes and comes back I have no problem with that. It makes as much sense as the feat that lets you shoot through a lot of enemies if they are all lined up.
I never really paid attention to the dragon shaman. Those abilities strike me as odd also.
Be fair on liquid150. I think he got board having to explain the sames things to anti-ToBers for the fiftieth time. Your very reasonably and his words were unneccissarily harsh, but i can understand them.
Lets say theres 5 encounters per day. That means that at first the wizard will rule, then latter on the martial adept will. Wheres the problem? And yes, skeletons and zombies can be annoying to casters, just like flying creatures are annoying to warblades.
Yes, an expendable slot that it war war more powerful than an almost at will ability. It balances out.
So its fine that wizards can cheat by doing practically everything, but god forbid a tank be able to do anything meaningful in damage aside neglegably hitpoint damage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed you'd allow ToB a second chance, I just think your "its a cheater book" attitude is unfounded.
This reply is also aimed at the post a few before it.
I'm not happy with the idea that people seem to have taken as some kind of holy writ that there will only ever be 4 or 5 encounters per day, and oh, if we've had 4 we can just retreat and rest up. It seems utterly unreasonable to presume that the world and the enemy will just cooperate with you. No defense is gonna set up to have a number of encounters that optimises your abiities. No sensible defense is going to let you retreat either. "Oh, they're leaving? Follow them, my minions, run them down, harry them to exhaustion then we shall exterminate them! Go! Adjutant, ready the heavy troops for action once the minions have cornered them!" (thats what lots of little minions are FOR, and they dont even have to, nor should they, seriously engage) Set fire to the inn they stay at. Fire random arrows into their camp all through the night. Make loud maybe-prelude-to-attack noises periodically to force them to combat readiness. Anything to interrupt their rest, drain their magics, and force them to exhausted conditions. (and actually attack, possibly with just missile fire, anyone who refuses to come to combat readiness. Is there a ranged coup-de-grace?) Rope trick? You think the PCs are the only ones in the world to know that trick? "My master, the intruders tracks lead to this spot and dont leave." "Do they not? Mage, examine this spot for magic. Ah, a continuing magic effect? Prepare the attackers and traps then dispel that spot. (Or prepare traps and attackers and wait for it to fade, as abilities permit)" Back in the 1.0 and 2.0 days it was a BAD idea to put an extra-dimensional space into an extra-dimensional space. Is it still in 3.5? Does the party have any bags of holding or the like? Does the bbeg?... Hilarity ensues. Heck, GIVE the party one in their next treasure pile, and watch the squirming when they feel the barbs in the gift...
Or- "My master, the enemy vastly outclass us (either by raw power, or the imbalance of specific party makeup vs what the villains have left after their first attack). They burned through our defenses with ease. Even our heavy troops are no match for them. For reasons unknown they have withdrawn, but they will likely be back." "Very well, our sanctuary is discovered, and we cannot hold it. We will reorganise our plans elsewhere. Prepare for immediate evacuation. Take everything of value that you can, burn the rest, including any prisoners we cant take with us. Make sure the bodies of anyone remotely important are utterly destroyed. Anyone not ready in 30 minutes will be executed. GO." Look, the players just failed the objective and lost most of the loot.
If pursuit isnt possible, there's no rope trick, and flight doesnt seem necessary (or maybe its not possible for some reason) then "All personell to maximum alert. Prepare for action in 8-10 hours. Fortify the entrances against their return. Lieutenants to the planning room. We will analyse the powers of the intruders and devise specific countermeasures. Scouts, go take some hostages from whatever habitations are nearby that you can get to and back within 7 hours." When the party comes back, hey, barricades with hostages tied to them, hazardous terrain, traps, alarms, scouts, ambushes etc all over the place, assault troops carrying an 8 year old girl in their midsts etc. The CR just went up, probably by quite a bit.
Any DM that lets the players just run things on their own timetable against sentient, somewhat organised opponents without any reaction to their attacks is a FOOL. Sure, the occaisonal bbeg that is too stupid or prideful to respond appropriately will exist, but they should be the exception, not the rule. Most of the time, contrary to the suggestion of some, one of the three above responses will be used against a player intrusion. Anything else seems wildly unrealistic and thus unreasonable.
The best defense is a good offense" is an axiom for a reason. The villains know it just as much as the players do, and they know as much about the world and whats in it in terms of classes, abilities etc as the players do. Actually they should usually know more since the bosses are generally older and higher level.
In a similar but unrelated vein, since another early post brought it up, people often suggest that the players shouldnt know the weak saves of critters, and other specific info. For any remotely common creature this is a ridiculous idea. The characters live in the world, and lore gets around. "Fight trolls with fire", "attack warriors through their minds" etc should be known by anyone who isnt brain-dead. Everyone on this board, and most everyone else in the english-speaking world knows to put a stake through a vampires heart, and VAMPIRES DONT EVEN EXIST!. But people, let alone highly trained combatants, in a world where such creatures actually DO exist are supposed to be entirely ignorant about them? Please. The idea is laughable. For rare creatures this is reasonable, but for anything at all common it most certainly is not. Its a pity that the 3.5 monster manuals dropped rarity ratings from their monster listings; they were a handy guide to such judgements when specific campaign design features didnt dictate the rarity of a particular critter. Before anyone tries to bring it up, the Knowledge: x skills in 3.5 are laughably useless at addressing general knowledge issues.
Why can't warriors get nice things without entering supernatural or magical territory? There are many other maneuvers in this book that manage to achieve that.
Let me get this straight. You're really throwing out an entire book of great material when you only have a problem with a small handful of maneuvers? Why? I don't throw out Complete Warrior just because the Hulking Hurler is broken (combined with War Hulk). You're making no sense.
Seriously though, I don't understand why you're having such a problem with warriors being able to do cool stuff. What hasn't worked about our showing you that the maneuvers you're having a problem with aren't supernatural in any way? And why is it you're so quick to throw out an entire book over a couple of maneuvers? It just seems to me that you're being so close-minded.
Let me get this straight. You're really throwing out an entire book of great material when you only have a problem with a small handful of maneuvers? Why? I don't throw out Complete Warrior just because the Hulking Hurler is broken (combined with War Hulk). You're making no sense.
Seriously though, I don't understand why you're having such a problem with warriors being able to do cool stuff. What hasn't worked about our showing you that the maneuvers you're having a problem with aren't supernatural in any way? And why is it you're so quick to throw out an entire book over a couple of maneuvers? It just seems to me that you're being so close-minded.
Some of the maneuvers just feel magical. I allow the book, but I understand why many don't. I consider it to be to cheesy, but if my players enjoy it I guess I can overlook it.
As for FM, they don't fit D&D's version of magical(SU), but they fit his version of what should be considered magical.
It would be like if someone threw a fireball at you as an ability(EX), and claimed it was not magic. You might be able to accept that, but FM can't. Throwing fireballs that you created out of thin air is well-beyond anyone's skill without using magic.
PS: I have dont think any ToB character can do this. It was only an example
This reply is also aimed at the post a few before it.
I'm not happy with the idea that people seem to have taken as some kind of holy writ that there will only ever be 4 or 5 encounters per day, and oh, if we've had 4 we can just retreat and rest up.
The rules were created with this in mind. Now no DM should slavishly stick to the rules but if there are frequently 5+ encounters per day, he forcing the characters to face challanges that are beyond their level. Are there multiply challanges at low CR? Wizards spells will last longer.
It seems utterly unreasonable to presume that the world and the enemy will just cooperate with you.
Its entierly unreasonably to assume I didn't take that into acconut. As I said, sometimes hit and run doesn't work, sometimes it does, as i noted in a latter post.
No defense is gonna set up to have a number of encounters that optimises your abiities. No sensible defense is going to let you retreat either. "Oh, they're leaving? Follow them, my minions, run them down, harry them to exhaustion then we shall exterminate them! Go! Adjutant, ready the heavy troops for action once the minions have cornered
(thats what lots of little minions are FOR, and they dont even have to, nor should they, seriously engage) Set fire to the inn they stay at.
This assumes 2 things.
1. The BBEG is inteligent, and 2. He is willing to send out his forces. How does he know the PCs aren't a decoy? Maybe the rogue didn't retreat and is going to go on a killing spree as soon as the bulk of the troops have gone chasing the other PCs?
Fire random arrows into their camp all through the night.
And they know wjere your camp is how exactly?
Make loud maybe-prelude-to-attack noises periodically to force them to combat readiness. Anything to interrupt their rest, drain their magics, and force them to exhausted conditions. (and actually attack, possibly with just missile fire, anyone who refuses to come to combat readiness. Is there a ranged coup-de-grace?)
Again this is situational. They need to know where your camp is, it needs to be accessably. And again, a single PC could break off from the main group and short out the trouble.
Rope trick? You think the PCs are the only ones in the world to know that trick? "My master, the intruders tracks lead to this spot and dont leave." "Do they not? Mage, examine this spot for magic. Ah, a continuing magic effect? Prepare the attackers and traps then dispel that spot. (Or prepare traps and attackers and wait for it to fade, as abilities permit)"
I'm not even sure you can detect rope trick, and how does he know the PCs didn't teleport? Also, you cannot dispell rope trick.
Back in the 1.0 and 2.0 days it was a BAD idea to put an extra-dimensional space into an extra-dimensional space. Is it still in 3.5? Does the party have any bags of holding or the like?
bag of holding is nodimesnional space, not extradimensional space.
Does the bbeg?... Hilarity ensues. Heck, GIVE the party one in their next treasure pile, and watch the squirming when they feel the barbs in the gift...
The DM metagaming. If the PCs can't, why can the DM?
Or- "My master, the enemy vastly outclass us (either by raw power, or the imbalance of specific party makeup vs what the villains have left after their first attack). They burned through our defenses with ease. Even our heavy troops are no match for them. For reasons unknown they have withdrawn, but they will likely be back." "Very well, our sanctuary is discovered, and we cannot hold it. We will reorganise our plans elsewhere. Prepare for immediate evacuation. Take everything of value that you can, burn the rest, including any prisoners we cant take with us. Make sure the bodies of anyone remotely important are utterly destroyed. Anyone not ready in 30 minutes will be executed. GO." Look, the players just failed the objective and lost most of the loot.
Yes, but they sevearly inconviniated the BBEG. He has to find a nnew base of operations and if he doesn't have enough teleportations spells his minions are vulnerable to ambush as they carry the loot away. Again, if the BBEG appears to have prepared for an immediate evacuation, I wouldn't use this tactic, but sometimes its good, like when the BBEG can't leave the place due to its location.
If pursuit isnt possible, there's no rope trick, and flight doesnt seem necessary (or maybe its not possible for some reason) then "All personell to maximum alert. Prepare for action in 8-10 hours. Fortify the entrances against their return. Lieutenants to the planning room. We will analyse the powers of the intruders and devise specific countermeasures. Scouts, go take some hostages from whatever habitations are nearby that you can get to and back within 7 hours." When the party comes back, hey, barricades with hostages tied to them, hazardous terrain, traps, alarms, scouts, ambushes etc all over the place, assault troops carrying an 8 year old girl in their midsts etc. The CR just went up, probably by quite a bit.
But the BBEG minions might not like being on alert 24/7 and the moral might be damage. and wait, they weren't doing any of this before?
Any DM that lets the players just run things on their own timetable against sentient, somewhat organised opponents without any reaction to their attacks is a FOOL. Sure, the occaisonal bbeg that is too stupid or prideful to respond appropriately will exist, but they should be the exception, not the rule. Most of the time, contrary to the suggestion of some, one of the three above responses will be used against a player intrusion. Anything else seems wildly unrealistic and thus unreasonable.
And all three responses aren't nearly as water tight as you siggested. Also, if direct confrontation becomes hard, the PCs can switch tactics. Siege. Random arrow fire. Infiltration. Also, your responses depend on the BBEG's knowing alot more than they should.
The best defense is a good offense" is an axiom for a reason. The villains know it just as much as the players do, and they know as much about the world and whats in it in terms of classes, abilities etc as the players do. Actually they should usually know more since the bosses are generally older and higher level.
Yes but they still can't metagame. Plus, PCs often emmerge out of nowhere whilst the BBEG has some history. Sometimes its the reverse, but in my expirience it most often isn't.
In a similar but unrelated vein, since another early post brought it up, people often suggest that the players shouldnt know the weak saves of critters, and other specific info. For any remotely common creature this is a ridiculous idea. The characters live in the world, and lore gets around. "Fight trolls with fire", "attack warriors through their minds" etc should be known by anyone who isnt brain-dead. Everyone on this board, and most everyone else in the english-speaking world knows to put a stake through a vampires heart, and VAMPIRES DONT EVEN EXIST!. But people, let alone highly trained combatants, in a world where such creatures actually DO exist are supposed to be entirely ignorant about them? Please. The idea is laughable. For rare creatures this is reasonable, but for anything at all common it most certainly is not. Its a pity that the 3.5 monster manuals dropped rarity ratings from their monster listings; they were a handy guide to such judgements when specific campaign design features didnt dictate the rarity of a particular critter. Before anyone tries to bring it up, the Knowledge: x skills in 3.5 are laughably useless at addressing general knowledge issues.
I agree with this point entierly. Big and hulking = good fort, bad ref, probably mid to bad will. Logic should not be confused with metagaming.
An earlier post said you could throw lightening,and I did not bother to check, sorry about that
I'm pretty sure any ability with the teleportation tag is automatically considered magical.
I never really paid attention to the dragon shaman. Those abilities strike me as odd also.
Theres load more, like the trolls regerneration, a halfling with less strength than me loabing a slingshot through multiply people...
Play a druid or cleric ;)
What he said. Then make them see what they think should be banned is probably still not on a casters level.
I'm pretty sure any ability with the teleportation tag is automatically considered magical.
Theres load more, like the trolls regerneration, a halfling with less strength than me loabing a slingshot through multiply people...
A troll whose cells multiply at a fast rate I can accept as nonmagical. There are animals that regrow body parts IRL, not to the extent of a troll, but for a fantasy game the troll does okay. Shooting through people that are lined up is pretty much nonsense, but once again it is a game. The rogue's evasion without any cover is another strange one.
IMHO: If it bothers people that much then just call the warriors magical, and be done with it. If they had been labeled as mostly magical from the start there would probably be less arguing on the issue.
They could be relabeled as gishes that cant really cast spells, but the magic is a part of them in such a way that it strengthens them, and except for certain maneuvers(SU) can always be performed even in antimagic or dead magic areas.
He was playing a swashbuckler/fighter, possibly the most gimped combination of melee classes possible.
I think I finally realized why sylph thinks the Warblade is overpowered....
He was playing a swashbuckler/fighter, possibly the most gimped combination of melee classes possible.
He's left the building or so it seems. Maybe the ToB was just to challenging for him as a DM.
They could be relabeled as gishes that cant really cast spells, but the magic is a part of them in such a way that it strengthens them, and except for certain maneuvers(SU) can always be performed even in antimagic or dead magic areas.
But SU abilities that function in an antimagic field are EX. You've just removed the only difference. Thats like renaming the regular burger a cheese burger and adding that it doesn't contain any cheese.
Side note: Actually, whith the feat Supernatural instincs from Fiendish Codex, there would be an additional difference, and thats another reason not to make the change. Melee's shouldn't provoke AoO when they use their special abilities.
1- The rules were created with this in mind. Now no DM should slavishly stick to the rules but if there are frequently 5+ encounters per day, he forcing the characters to face challanges that are beyond their level. Are there multiply challanges at low CR? Wizards spells will last longer.
2- Its entierly unreasonably to assume I didn't take that into acconut. As I said, sometimes hit and run doesn't work, sometimes it does, as i noted in a latter post.
3- This assumes 2 things.
A. The BBEG is inteligent, and B. He is willing to send out his forces. How does he know the PCs aren't a decoy? Maybe the rogue didn't retreat and is going to go on a killing spree as soon as the bulk of the troops have gone chasing the other PCs?
4- And they know wjere your camp is how exactly?
5- Again this is situational. They need to know where your camp is, it needs to be accessably. And again, a single PC could break off from the main group and short out the trouble.
6- I'm not even sure you can detect rope trick, and how does he know the PCs didn't teleport? Also, you cannot dispell rope trick.
7- bag of holding is nodimesnional space, not extradimensional space.
8- The DM metagaming. If the PCs can't, why can the DM?
9- Yes, but they sevearly inconviniated the BBEG. He has to find a nnew base of operations and if he doesn't have enough teleportations spells his minions are vulnerable to ambush as they carry the loot away. Again, if the BBEG appears to have prepared for an immediate evacuation, I wouldn't use this tactic, but sometimes its good, like when the BBEG can't leave the place due to its location.
10- But the BBEG minions might not like being on alert 24/7 and the moral might be damage. and wait, they weren't doing any of this before?
11- And all three responses aren't nearly as water tight as you siggested. Also, if direct confrontation becomes hard, the PCs can switch tactics. Siege. Random arrow fire. Infiltration. Also, your responses depend on the BBEG's knowing alot more than they should.
12- Yes but they still can't metagame. Plus, PCs often emmerge out of nowhere whilst the BBEG has some history. Sometimes its the reverse, but in my expirience it most often isn't.
13- I agree with this point entierly. Big and hulking = good fort, bad ref, probably mid to bad will. Logic should not be confused with metagaming.
1- The rules were sorta created with that in mind, as a guideline, but far too many people have taken it as gospel, and its... annoying. Extra encounters just means a higher CR adventure, and the occasional higher CR thingie is both allowed and indeed encouraged by the RAW itself. Its the players job to use wit and guile to figure out what theyre looking at today, and not just assume and fire off resources willy-nilly. But too often they dont use wits.
2- Its a general iditement, rather than a personal accusation. Far too many DMs just have the critters sit there inert till the players come to slaughter them.
3- A- of course it assumes the bbeg is intelligent. If its just a brainless abomination its not a bbeg per se, its just pest control writ large. We have the brains. Nothing else on this planet does, including all those animals which are much bigger, faster and stronger than us. But we know how that contest turned out.
B- If the players did enough damage then it doesnt matter if they were supposed to be a decoy, theyre doing critical damage by themselves and must be dealt with, and fast. If theyre doing little damage then you can take your time dealing with them. Lone rogues? Various detection spells and abilities. A formal set of beaters to take long sticks, brooms, spears, whatever, and in groups, coordinated to never leave a gap, walk every inch of the dungeon sraping their poles along the walls, floor and ceiling looking for unusual lumps etc. No hiding in shadows rogue can survive that. Sure, the crew might miss him due to sloppiness etc, but they might well not. I bet the rogue gets a lot more thoughtful about trying it again the first time it happens. This also works against invisible rogues and rope tricks, although, to my limited knowledge of 3.5 mechanics invisibility has far more available countermeasures than hide in shadows does. And in any case, the survivors travel in groups and carry noisemakers of some kind to raise the alarm if a ninja attacks. Its doubtful that a lone rogue can deal with a significant portion of the dungeon alone if the whole party retreated.
4- They know where your camp is because, in approximate order of ease of availability- tracking (skill or scent), local area knowledge (if I were a bbeg in my home territory I'd sure want to know all the decent hiding places around it), informants, scouting, divination, gather information checks. These *can* all be circumvented, of course, but doing so takes time and effort on the part of the party, and arent always succesful, let alone universally even attempted. If they cant find your camp then the forting up evacuation options start becoming a lot more likely.
5- As in 4, it obviously assumes they know where your camp is, but if they do, noise is easy to make, and usually a bad idea for the party to ignore, and its quite safe for the noisemaker since he doesnt have to be within spell or arrow range to do it, and he doesnt have to do it often. Once every hour or so is plenty. An arrow has nice long range and doesnt have to be terribly accurate to make people pay attention, especially given a wizards or unarmored sleepers usually crappy sleeping AC, and is thus also pretty safe. It becomes less safe if the players have no light in their camp, but a dark camp also requires them to be able to see in the dark, and not everyone can. Could a single PC go sort out the harrasser? Maybe, although remembering that the noise doesnt have to be long, he may well not be able to do it stealthily and get there in time to catch him, and if he's not stealthy he may well be heard coming. Even if he does catch the noisemaker, the noisemaker may not be alone, in the larger sense, especially after the first couple are picked off. If the party makes a habit of picking off the harrassers with just 1 or 2 people its a good bet that by the 3rd or 4rth time they try it the character will walk himself into an ambush he may not enjoy... And, for good measure, his dying screams will probably wake up his friends anyway... :P
6- You can detect a rope trick. It creates and leaves an invisible window, and this can be detected, as specifically noted in the spell description. It (the window) is a magically created temporary object, and must therefore in some way be dispellable. Imagine the abuse if its an immovable undispellable object. I think not, especially since its already way beyond reasonable for a lvl 2 spell.
He doesnt know they didnt teleport exactly, but the bbegs level will give him a decent idea of whether or not thats a serious possibility or not, along with an analysis of the parties capabilities as demonstrated in their attack. If the bbeg is lvl 9 or lower then its extremely unlikely that the party teleported, on the basis that if they were powerful enough to teleport then he (the bbeg) would probably be dead already. But primarily you go with the basics- can his tracker see the parties tracks leaving? Did anyone see them leaving? Does a see invisible sweep of the dungeon, whether by magic or pole find anything? Does basic divination magic reveal anything useful? See what comes up and decide on your course of action (attack/fort up/flee) from there.
7- I dont even know what the heck "non-dimensional space" means, quite, but it doesnt matter. I checked my 3.5 DMG and PHB and the warnings about mixing bags of holding and portable holes (non-dimensional and extradimensional respectively) still exists, as does the specific warning about extra-dimensionals and rope trick. It seems absolutely reasonable and proper to assume and rule that the same catastrophic reaction that occurs between a bag and a hole will also occur between the bag and any other extra-dimensional space.
8- Metagaming. The players can and do, by mere access to the PHB. Its an inherent part of the game. And almost all players have access to the DMG also, like it or not. Unless the players only have access to those pages of the PHB and DMG that concern their own classes and nothing else then they know this stuff. And thus so should the bbeg, pending specific circumstance reasons why he shouldnt. I'm not saying the bbeg should suddenly aquire a bag of holding if the players use rope trick, but certainly some of the bbegs have such things. After all, where did the players get most of theirs but from their previous victioms? And if the players have caused enough damage the bbeg may be willing to use it in such a fashion.
9- Oh sure they have seriously inconvenienced the bbeg, but often they failed the longterm objective, lost the reward for achieving the objective, and the loot escaped into the bargain. Given the natures of most player characters, which do you think is usually most important to them? :P The bbeg doesnt have to be obviously prepared to evacuate. Its perfectly possible to just throw what you can carry into a suitcase and run out the door on the spur of the moment if you need to. I keep a mental list of what I grab if there's a fire or natural disaster forinstance. Sure, he'll lose some stuff, but not, and this is the important part, his head. Judging whether or not the bbeg can or will flee is a case by case thing, but usually they can, if pride or greed dont get the better of them. They could be vulnerable to ambush, but they've got a 6 hour headstart and know where theyre going and probably know the local terrain better than the players too. Their chances of escape arent bad, and in any case are better than just sitting there waiting to be picked off in the next attack.
10- They cant be at maximum alert 24/7 no, but they can for a few days. They may not like it, but they probably like being cut to pieces by rampaging player characters even less, and they have bits of their buddies sprayed all over the place to remind them of that possibility. No, they probably werent doing it already. As you say, you generally cant remain at max alert for long periods unless youre an elite force, and guard mooks usually arent. After a while you start to get lax. Thats just how things are, usually. But even if you are alert 24/7, maximun guarding can also mean more guards than usual, pulled from other duties etc.
11- The three options are pretty watertight. Remember that the attack option, the one most prone to leakage, defaults to either fort up or flee if they cant find the target to attack, so the party finding a safe place to camp is NOT a leak. The choice between forting up and fleeing emphatically does NOT require the bbeg knowing more than he should- it merely requires him knowing how much damage the party did in their attack compared to what resources he has left, and unless the party has somehow done damage that he doesnt know about or deliberately pulled its punches to deceive the enemy then that information is a given. ("Hey Fred- Wanda is low on juice so we're gonna hafta retreat soon, but you remember that second room we passed through? I betcha they try to set up a defense there for when we come back. Why dont you give me a hand cutting nearly all the way through those pillars holding the roof up and concealing the cuts? Next time we come back we can fireball them and the weakened pillars in the same blast and drop the roof on 'em as well! Teeheehee!") ("Alright guys, we probably cant break through in our first attack, but we dont wanna frighten the guy off by coming close, so everyone keep visible uses of power down to journeyman level for our first attack. Keep the master-level stuff as a surprise for next time")
12- Whats metagaming about knowing "the best defense is a good offense", and "he who fights and runs away..."? And whats metagaming about knowing all the same books the players have access to? Only things which are specifically designated in the books as being secret should be possibly considered off-limits for bbeg knowledge if the players know it. Thats just fairness and game balance.
Of course he doesnt know what the PLAYERS are, or what gear they have, except by what they show and demonstrate to survivors, or can be deduced from the aftermath. If the players acid arrow goblin_05 and his buddy goblin_07 gets away then the bbeg should know that the part has acid arrow. If the party killed everything in a room with a fireball, then the bbeg should be able to look at the room, go "hmm, fiery blast marks on the walls in a roughly spherical pattern and charred corpses on the floor. Sounds like a fireball. I'll add 1 fireball to my list here." And so on. The DM should keep a list of what abilities and gear they show off, specifically for this purpose. When in doubt about a particular deduction make an int check or call a friend who isnt involved in the game and ask them. Or ask a message board. Thats all if, as you suggest, the players have suddenly come out of nowhere.
That works if youre playing a single campaign-length adventure set like Shackled City or somesuch, or its near the beginning of a campaign, although remember that the bbeg should have a pretty good idea what items the characters have captured from his minions at least. But frequently, indeed usually, the party does NOT appear out of nowhere. If you play a 9th level adventure then the party had all those adventures that got them to 9th level in the first place. Some of the stories about those adventures may be known and so, the current bbeg *might* know some of them. "An elf in yellow leather, a dwarf with twin daimyo blades and glowing studs set in a circle into his skull, an amazonian woman with a pink tonsure mohawk and a gnome wearing the robes of Saint Cuthburt with a koala bear painted on his shield just arrived in town? But thats the description of the Derring-Do Gooders! Stories say they smote the dragon of Eee with holy fire from their matched Wands of Massive Extravagance and laughed its progeny to death with the Jokebook of Saint Garfield! We must prepare for their arrival! Hide the children, nobody think of anything funny, and does anybody know where I can buy an unholy fire-extinguisher at this late hour? Maybe we should move our main defenses to the swimming pool... I wonder what other fiendish abilities they may possess?"
How likely a bbeg is to know anything about the party depends on all the obvious things- what has the party done, how impressive was it, were there witnesses, did they tell anybody (they often do, especially if they think they can get some cash for it, and its often almost inevitable if it was a posted job), how far from their previous exploits are the party, do they look the same as they did then (assuming they dont specifically identify themselves), have they taken any steps to hide their identity, etc. And on how good or bad the bbegs information sources are, which depend on his level, resources, operating style, how long he's been in the area, and personal nature. Some may have spies everywhere, some may be hiding in their secret cave oblivious of everything in the outside world except the directions to the nearest graveyard. So the bbeg may know nothing but what the players show him, or he may have their entire life stories, or anywhere in between. Thats a DM judgement, although he should always be able to show his work if asked afterwards.
1- The rules were sorta created with that in mind, as a guideline, but far too many people have taken it as gospel, and its... annoying. Extra encounters just means a higher CR adventure, and the occasional higher CR thingie is both allowed and indeed encouraged by the RAW itself. Its the players job to use wit and guile to figure out what theyre looking at today, and not just assume and fire off resources willy-nilly. But too often they dont use wits.
2- Its a general iditement, rather than a personal accusation. Far too many DMs just have the critters sit there inert till the players come to slaughter them.
3- A- of course it assumes the bbeg is intelligent. If its just a brainless abomination its not a bbeg per se, its just pest control writ large. We have the brains. Nothing else on this planet does, including all those animals which are much bigger, faster and stronger than us. But we know how that contest turned out.
B- If the players did enough damage then it doesnt matter if they were supposed to be a decoy, theyre doing critical damage by themselves and must be dealt with, and fast. If theyre doing little damage then you can take your time dealing with them. Lone rogues? Various detection spells and abilities. A formal set of beaters to take long sticks, brooms, spears, whatever, and in groups, coordinated to never leave a gap, walk every inch of the dungeon sraping their poles along the walls, floor and ceiling looking for unusual lumps etc. No hiding in shadows rogue can survive that. Sure, the crew might miss him due to sloppiness etc, but they might well not. I bet the rogue gets a lot more thoughtful about trying it again the first time it happens. This also works against invisible rogues and rope tricks, although, to my limited knowledge of 3.5 mechanics invisibility has far more available countermeasures than hide in shadows does. And in any case, the survivors travel in groups and carry noisemakers of some kind to raise the alarm if a ninja attacks. Its doubtful that a lone rogue can deal with a significant portion of the dungeon alone if the whole party retreated.
4- They know where your camp is because, in approximate order of ease of availability- tracking (skill or scent), local area knowledge (if I were a bbeg in my home territory I'd sure want to know all the decent hiding places around it), informants, scouting, divination, gather information checks. These *can* all be circumvented, of course, but doing so takes time and effort on the part of the party, and arent always succesful, let alone universally even attempted. If they cant find your camp then the forting up evacuation options start becoming a lot more likely.
5- As in 4, it obviously assumes they know where your camp is, but if they do, noise is easy to make, and usually a bad idea for the party to ignore, and its quite safe for the noisemaker since he doesnt have to be within spell or arrow range to do it, and he doesnt have to do it often. Once every hour or so is plenty. An arrow has nice long range and doesnt have to be terribly accurate to make people pay attention, especially given a wizards or unarmored sleepers usually crappy sleeping AC, and is thus also pretty safe. It becomes less safe if the players have no light in their camp, but a dark camp also requires them to be able to see in the dark, and not everyone can. Could a single PC go sort out the harrasser? Maybe, although remembering that the noise doesnt have to be long, he may well not be able to do it stealthily and get there in time to catch him, and if he's not stealthy he may well be heard coming. Even if he does catch the noisemaker, the noisemaker may not be alone, in the larger sense, especially after the first couple are picked off. If the party makes a habit of picking off the harrassers with just 1 or 2 people its a good bet that by the 3rd or 4rth time they try it the character will walk himself into an ambush he may not enjoy... And, for good measure, his dying screams will probably wake up his friends anyway... :P
6- You can detect a rope trick. It creates and leaves an invisible window, and this can be detected, as specifically noted in the spell description. It (the window) is a magically created temporary object, and must therefore in some way be dispellable. Imagine the abuse if its an immovable undispellable object. I think not, especially since its already way beyond reasonable for a lvl 2 spell.
He doesnt know they didnt teleport exactly, but the bbegs level will give him a decent idea of whether or not thats a serious possibility or not, along with an analysis of the parties capabilities as demonstrated in their attack. If the bbeg is lvl 9 or lower then its extremely unlikely that the party teleported, on the basis that if they were powerful enough to teleport then he (the bbeg) would probably be dead already. But primarily you go with the basics- can his tracker see the parties tracks leaving? Did anyone see them leaving? Does a see invisible sweep of the dungeon, whether by magic or pole find anything? Does basic divination magic reveal anything useful? See what comes up and decide on your course of action (attack/fort up/flee) from there.
7- I dont even know what the heck "non-dimensional space" means, quite, but it doesnt matter. I checked my 3.5 DMG and PHB and the warnings about mixing bags of holding and portable holes (non-dimensional and extradimensional respectively) still exists, as does the specific warning about extra-dimensionals and rope trick. It seems absolutely reasonable and proper to assume and rule that the same catastrophic reaction that occurs between a bag and a hole will also occur between the bag and any other extra-dimensional space.
8- Metagaming. The players can and do, by mere access to the PHB. Its an inherent part of the game. And almost all players have access to the DMG also, like it or not. Unless the players only have access to those pages of the PHB and DMG that concern their own classes and nothing else then they know this stuff. And thus so should the bbeg, pending specific circumstance reasons why he shouldnt. I'm not saying the bbeg should suddenly aquire a bag of holding if the players use rope trick, but certainly some of the bbegs have such things. After all, where did the players get most of theirs but from their previous victioms? And if the players have caused enough damage the bbeg may be willing to use it in such a fashion.
9- Oh sure they have seriously inconvenienced the bbeg, but often they failed the longterm objective, lost the reward for achieving the objective, and the loot escaped into the bargain. Given the natures of most player characters, which do you think is usually most important to them? :P The bbeg doesnt have to be obviously prepared to evacuate. Its perfectly possible to just throw what you can carry into a suitcase and run out the door on the spur of the moment if you need to. I keep a mental list of what I grab if there's a fire or natural disaster forinstance. Sure, he'll lose some stuff, but not, and this is the important part, his head. Judging whether or not the bbeg can or will flee is a case by case thing, but usually they can, if pride or greed dont get the better of them. They could be vulnerable to ambush, but they've got a 6 hour headstart and know where theyre going and probably know the local terrain better than the players too. Their chances of escape arent bad, and in any case are better than just sitting there waiting to be picked off in the next attack.
10- They cant be at maximum alert 24/7 no, but they can for a few days. They may not like it, but they probably like being cut to pieces by rampaging player characters even less, and they have bits of their buddies sprayed all over the place to remind them of that possibility. No, they probably werent doing it already. As you say, you generally cant remain at max alert for long periods unless youre an elite force, and guard mooks usually arent. After a while you start to get lax. Thats just how things are, usually. But even if you are alert 24/7, maximun guarding can also mean more guards than usual, pulled from other duties etc.
11- The three options are pretty watertight. Remember that the attack option, the one most prone to leakage, defaults to either fort up or flee if they cant find the target to attack, so the party finding a safe place to camp is NOT a leak. The choice between forting up and fleeing emphatically does NOT require the bbeg knowing more than he should- it merely requires him knowing how much damage the party did in their attack compared to what resources he has left, and unless the party has somehow done damage that he doesnt know about or deliberately pulled its punches to deceive the enemy then that information is a given. ("Hey Fred- Wanda is low on juice so we're gonna hafta retreat soon, but you remember that second room we passed through? I betcha they try to set up a defense there for when we come back. Why dont you give me a hand cutting nearly all the way through those pillars holding the roof up and concealing the cuts? Next time we come back we can fireball them and the weakened pillars in the same blast and drop the roof on 'em as well! Teeheehee!") ("Alright guys, we probably cant break through in our first attack, but we dont wanna frighten the guy off by coming close, so everyone keep visible uses of power down to journeyman level for our first attack. Keep the master-level stuff as a surprise for next time")
12- Whats metagaming about knowing "the best defense is a good offense", and "he who fights and runs away..."? And whats metagaming about knowing all the same books the players have access to? Only things which are specifically designated in the books as being secret should be possibly considered off-limits for bbeg knowledge if the players know it. Thats just fairness and game balance.
Of course he doesnt know what the PLAYERS are, or what gear they have, except by what they show and demonstrate to survivors, or can be deduced from the aftermath. If the players acid arrow goblin_05 and his buddy goblin_07 gets away then the bbeg should know that the part has acid arrow. If the party killed everything in a room with a fireball, then the bbeg should be able to look at the room, go "hmm, fiery blast marks on the walls in a roughly spherical pattern and charred corpses on the floor. Sounds like a fireball. I'll add 1 fireball to my list here." And so on. The DM should keep a list of what abilities and gear they show off, specifically for this purpose. When in doubt about a particular deduction make an int check or call a friend who isnt involved in the game and ask them. Or ask a message board. Thats all if, as you suggest, the players have suddenly come out of nowhere.
That works if youre playing a single campaign-length adventure set like Shackled City or somesuch, or its near the beginning of a campaign, although remember that the bbeg should have a pretty good idea what items the characters have captured from his minions at least. But frequently, indeed usually, the party does NOT appear out of nowhere. If you play a 9th level adventure then the party had all those adventures that got them to 9th level in the first place. Some of the stories about those adventures may be known and so, the current bbeg *might* know some of them. "An elf in yellow leather, a dwarf with twin daimyo blades and glowing studs set in a circle into his skull, an amazonian woman with a pink tonsure mohawk and a gnome wearing the robes of Saint Cuthburt with a koala bear painted on his shield just arrived in town? But thats the description of the Derring-Do Gooders! Stories say they smote the dragon of Eee with holy fire from their matched Wands of Massive Extravagance and laughed its progeny to death with the Jokebook of Saint Garfield! We must prepare for their arrival! Hide the children, nobody think of anything funny, and does anybody know where I can buy an unholy fire-extinguisher at this late hour? Maybe we should move our main defenses to the swimming pool... I wonder what other fiendish abilities they may possess?"
How likely a bbeg is to know anything about the party depends on all the obvious things- what has the party done, how impressive was it, were there witnesses, did they tell anybody (they often do, especially if they think they can get some cash for it, and its often almost inevitable if it was a posted job), how far from their previous exploits are the party, do they look the same as they did then (assuming they dont specifically identify themselves), have they taken any steps to hide their identity, etc. And on how good or bad the bbegs information sources are, which depend on his level, resources, operating style, how long he's been in the area, and personal nature. Some may have spies everywhere, some may be hiding in their secret cave oblivious of everything in the outside world except the directions to the nearest graveyard. So the bbeg may know nothing but what the players show him, or he may have their entire life stories, or anywhere in between. Thats a DM judgement, although he should always be able to show his work if asked afterwards.
I'll try and make a specific post latter but for now:
1. Your assuming that the BBEG can instantly relay orders to his minions. The PCs attack, retreat and instantly have the minions know their masters wishes and follow? In most cases by the BBEG will need a damage report and hear the list of casualties beofre he makes a desisn by which time the trail may be cold. If he doesn't then it clearly imsn't a very organized group and that has several problems in itself. If the BBEG is close enough to issue the orders immedialty, he's probably close enough to be killed by the PCs so they can finish it quickly.
And I stand by the point that a BBEG would be waery of a decoy and unwilling to send minions away on what may turn out to be a wild goose chase while another force attacks the base.
2. How does an 8th level BBEG know the PCs can't teleport? Sure, he probably knows that that teleport is a 5th level spell and he can't cast it, but how does he know the PCs don't have a way of accessing it at earlier levels? Violated horn only costs about 2,000gp for example.
Let me get this straight. You're really throwing out an entire book of great material when you only have a problem with a small handful of maneuvers.
:headexplo
No, damnit! I don't do that. I advocated changing the rules, for gods' sake.
Seriously though, I don't understand why you're having such a problem with warriors being able to do cool stuff. What hasn't worked about our showing you that the maneuvers you're having a problem with aren't supernatural in any way?
Beside that I'm not using the word 'cool' in any other context than temperature, I have no problem with it.
And you arguments simply sucked.
It just seems to me that you're being so close-minded.
It seems to me that your reading skills are somewhat sub-optimal.
I'll try and make a specific post latter but for now:
1. Your assuming that the BBEG can instantly relay orders to his minions. The PCs attack, retreat and instantly have the minions know their masters wishes and follow? In most cases by the BBEG will need a damage report and hear the list of casualties beofre he makes a desisn by which time the trail may be cold. If he doesn't then it clearly imsn't a very organized group and that has several problems in itself. If the BBEG is close enough to issue the orders immedialty, he's probably close enough to be killed by the PCs so they can finish it quickly.
And I stand by the point that a BBEG would be waery of a decoy and unwilling to send minions away on what may turn out to be a wild goose chase while another force attacks the base.
2. How does an 8th level BBEG know the PCs can't teleport? Sure, he probably knows that that teleport is a 5th level spell and he can't cast it, but how does he know the PCs don't have a way of accessing it at earlier levels? Violated horn only costs about 2,000gp for example.
1- I'm assuming a traditional dungeon-like adventure, or section of adventure, so the bbeg is close-by and will know of the attack by mundane means within the hour, and probably less. Possibly he was close enough that the party might have been able to kill him, IF the party had randomly met him or known where to go look for him. But since we're having this discussion obviously they did not. The alarm wasnt raised fast enough for the bbeg to make it to battle, or the party took the left turn when they should have taken the right turn to get to his lair, etc. If it is a cross-country adventure rather than a traditional dungeon-like adventure, forinstance most of Red Hand of Doom except the end, then obviously this stuff doesnt apply unless the bbeg has lots and lots of nearly instantaneous magical communications ability. I assume no more than an hour for initial damage assessment, which is strictly a count the approximate number of dead affair. I assume an interview with any survivors will occur during this hour since again it doesnt need to be exact yet. The survivors are, after all, likely to be the ones who raised the alarm, and thus have inherently almost certainly come into contact with an officer as a result. Thats maybe 2 hours, tops. It takes DAYS for a trail to go cold (-1 on tracking per day). Even rain is only a -2 after a couple of hours. Smarter minions will follow immediately IF they are still alive AND see the players leaving by mundane means and its not against their masters known disposition. But being alive to witness the players departure is probably rather more the exception than the norm.
I reiterate - Any force capable of doing significant enough damage that the bbeg must seriously react to can NOT be a decoy for another force of even vaguely comparable strength, or the two groups could combine and just slaughter the place and wouldnt need to retreat in the first place. If the attack only killed 2 rooms or some similar pinprick then they could be a diversion and either ignored or responded to cautiously. But if they kill a third of the dungeon the bbeg MUST react. Thats NOT a diversion, even if it was originally intended as one (and if it was intended as one then the attackers have really bad intel).
And I clarify- we're not talking about sending significant forces after the players. We're talking about sending half a dozen to a dozen putzes and 2-3 couriers. The professional scout, maybe an infiltrator, a general grunt or 3 as couriers, and half a dozen goblins from the kitchen crew, sorta thing. So he's not noticeably weakening his defenses pursuing the party, until and unless his tracker reports back that theyve found them.
2- What exactly is your point about teleporting? Are you somehow suggesting that because he doesnt instantly KNOW for sure if the party teleported or not that he should therefore just do nothing? Dont be ridiculous. He obviously does his best to find out as previously described, until he either finds out how they left, or comes up empty on them all. He has an officer check for witnesses of their departure. He has his scouts check for tracks while thats happening, and he organises the aforementioned search parties with the poles and see invisible if available to check the dungeon itself for hidden or rope-tricked parties. If he finds evidence that they left in a way that can be followed, or holed up inside then dungeon, either by barricading a room or rope trick, then he can choose pursuit if he wishes (or fortify or flee, if he feels one of those is a better option). If he loses track of them (loses, or due to failed rolls never finds, the tracks, they teleported, they plane-shifted, etc), or they are known to have left by means too fast to pursue effectively (wind walk etc) then pursuit is not an option and he must chose between fortifying and fleeing since he can either no longer follow them or catch up to them before they can rest. How does the precise nature of their escape from his awareness and/or reach matter, except perhaps for calculating their possible power levels? All that matters is that they have escaped and that the pursuit option is no longer available.
And you arguments simply sucked.
...
It seems to me that your reading skills are somewhat sub-optimal.
I would suggest that it's the other way around. Our arguments are perfectly sound. You just don't understand them or, more likely, aren't willing to understand them. All of the maneuvers you mentioned have completely non-magical, non-supernatural explanations. They're just more mental and psychological than you're used to from martial characters is all. All it takes to understand them is to be more open-minded to what martial characters can really accomplish without magic. Nobody's saying any of these would be possible to accomplish in the real world. We're just saying that for fantasy characters competing with arcanists and other supernatural characters, these abilities are "merely" extraordinary in nature. Impossible =/= Supernatural.
But SU abilities that function in an antimagic field are EX. You've just removed the only difference. Thats like renaming the regular burger a cheese burger and adding that it doesn't contain any cheese.
Side note: Actually, whith the feat Supernatural instincs from Fiendish Codex, there would be an additional difference, and thats another reason not to make the change. Melee's shouldn't provoke AoO when they use their special abilities.
That was my intention.
A lot of the complaining is that it is really magic disguised as nonmagic so go ahead and tell them it is magic. A lot of time "because it is RAW" seems to go over even when it shouldn't.
:headexplo
No, damnit! I don't do that. I advocated changing the rules, for gods' sake.
Beside that I'm not using the word 'cool' in any other context than temperature, I have no problem with it.
And you arguments simply sucked.
It seems to me that your reading skills are somewhat sub-optimal.
In other words, warriors can only do mundane things that you see or are possible in the real world. Anything else is "magic" and should be called such. "Supernatural" would fall under the term "magic". Warriors are not allowed to get nice things.
Before continuing I would like to say that Celia is serving in the army atm so I decided to step in. I would like to thank everyone for their posts, constructive or not.
Before I continue I would like to say that I am moderately against ToB. The classes in that book have in my opinion a lot of class features that should not be there, and some maneuvers are too cheesy. Other than that I do not mind much, everyone does what they want in a dnd game, half the fun is there.
Being a melee combatant fan myself I must admit I always liked greatswords, but in order to do a lil more than swinging till lvl 6 I like to take some divine powers on my side. As a result I will agree with some posters that said that an optimized melee could be better than ToB classes. Fighter is good for 2 lvls or so, Paladin is very good imho for the same amount of lvls and cleric is amazing. (Last melee char was pala 4/cleric 2/ordained champion 3 and further progression was cleric). Picking the correct spells and some cheesy i must admit feats allowed me 17 or so smites per day with full power attack bonus being +12/+7 and +8d6 dmg or so, can't remember the exact amount tbh, at lvl 8. BUT it had a counter on it. Infinity was outta the question. I think ToB doesn't deal as much but lasts longer.
Now regarding wizards. Most of the time Celia is our DM and frankly he is absolutely great at it. I still have nightmares about the sorceress with sudden maximized cone of cold. She killed 3/5 of our party members twice i think. How does a wizard survive that dmg in a dungeon? When the villain has invisibility? 8 lvl wizard < sudden maximized cone of cold.
Imo ToB should be handled carefully RP wise. I mean you learn to do things that grossly violate the laws of physics with sheer combat training and concentration, perhaps narrow it down to Lawfull and discipline oriented(monk, pala replacements if u wanna see it this way).
Since I do not want to further extend my post I would like to state the following and the comments on that would be appreciated : Wanna play something that it is optimized and relatively overpowered? Fine. Back it up with your RP.
Bob Lawma? Or something like that had a good thread pointing that out.
ToB Is not over powerd.
But players all feel differnt about differnt things.
Hi there. I am a member of the OP's and Celia's dnd squad, mostly as player and rarely as DM. We all know each other for many years(10+) and we have been playing dnd together for a lil less than that.
Before continuing I would like to say that Celia is serving in the army atm so I decided to step in. I would like to thank everyone for their posts, constructive or not.
Before I continue I would like to say that I am moderately against ToB. The classes in that book have in my opinion a lot of class features that should not be there, and some maneuvers are too cheesy. Other than that I do not mind much, everyone does what they want in a dnd game, half the fun is there.
Being a melee combatant fan myself I must admit I always liked greatswords, but in order to do a lil more than swinging till lvl 6 I like to take some divine powers on my side. As a result I will agree with some posters that said that an optimized melee could be better than ToB classes. Fighter is good for 2 lvls or so, Paladin is very good imho for the same amount of lvls and cleric is amazing. (Last melee char was pala 4/cleric 2/ordained champion 3 and further progression was cleric). Picking the correct spells and some cheesy i must admit feats allowed me 17 or so smites per day with full power attack bonus being +12/+7 and +8d6 dmg or so, can't remember the exact amount tbh, at lvl 8. BUT it had a counter on it. Infinity was outta the question. I think ToB doesn't deal as much but lasts longer.
Now regarding wizards. Most of the time Celia is our DM and frankly he is absolutely great at it. I still have nightmares about the sorceress with sudden maximized cone of cold. She killed 3/5 of our party members twice i think. How does a wizard survive that dmg in a dungeon? When the villain has invisibility? 8 lvl wizard < sudden maximized cone of cold.
Imo ToB should be handled carefully RP wise. I mean you learn to do things that grossly violate the laws of physics with sheer combat training and concentration, perhaps narrow it down to Lawfull and discipline oriented(monk, pala replacements if u wanna see it this way).
Since I do not want to further extend my post I would like to state the following and the comments on that would be appreciated : Wanna play something that it is optimized and relatively overpowered? Fine. Back it up with your RP.
The book is not overpowered. If you check other threads you will see fighter and barbarian builds that do more damage. If both the fighter and the warblade are doing equal damage all day why does it matter if the warblade can rest(so to speak) and get his maneuvers. The only thing ToB does is make it easy to build a competent meleer (is this a word?) without going through 20(arbitrary number) splat books, which should not be necessary anyway. As I said before a Barbarian, or Fighter can do equal damage, but they have to be made by someone that is good at optimizing characters. Your ability to make a character should not hold you back, and ToB helps take care of that problem.
AIMHO: If it bothers people that much then just call the warriors magical, and be done with it.
The swordsage, the most magic of the classes, is called a "blade wizard" and said to blur "the line between martial prowess and magical skill." See introduction on page 15. A few of their powers doesn't have the supernatural tag that I think should have, but I can choose to suspend my disbelief on this.
The second most magical; is the crusader that who's power is an "unpredictable gifts of divine power." The introduction on page 8 covers this one. This one also has powers that should have the supernatural label, but don't.
Both of these classes have an excuse to be called magical if someone wants to do so preloaded into the class descriptions no less.
So with the warlord left, I'll introduce the concept of the Charles Atlas Superpower. It's a well used trope that certainly can apply here.
The second most magical; is the crusader that who's power is an "unpredictable gifts of divine power." The introduction on page 8 covers this one. This one also has powers that should have the supernatural label, but don't.
I beg to differ. None of the Crusader's maneuvers seem supernatural at all to me. The only thing possibly supernatural about it is that the maneuvers come from flashes of divine inspiration. The maneuvers themselves, however, are completely mundane.
I remember people used to complain that Devoted Spirit healing should have been supernatural, but once you realize that HP is just as much mental as it is physical, that stops being a problem. Heck, just look at our 4E Warlord.
The only thing ToB does is make it easy to build a competent meleer (is this a word?) without going through 20(arbitrary number) splat books, which should not be necessary anyway.
Hmm... Player's Handbook, Player's Handbook II, and Complete Warrior. I don't think that's too excessive, when you consider most spellcasters will probably want to tap into at least four books for spells & feats (PH, PH2, SC, and CA, CD, or CM).
Hmm... Player's Handbook, Player's Handbook II, and Complete Warrior. I don't think that's too excessive, when you consider most spellcasters will probably want to tap into at least four books for spells & feats (PH, PH2, SC, and CA, CD, or CM).
If you want an awesome meleer 4 books is good, but for competent(not useless without multiclassing) one book should be enough.
Casters can stick to the PHB and be fine. Meleers should be able to do the same.
Let's say I'm claiming that pie is too fattening, so I say "I don't want to have pie with dinner." You then say "But eating a stick of butter is worse!" or even "But cheesecake is worse!"
Just because something else is more fattening, doesn't mean that the first item isn't fattening.
So ToB is overpowered, so is spellcasting. Get over it. Just because it isn't as OP as other combos doesn't mean it isn't OP at all.
The argument that spell casters are more broken is one of the worst arguments anyone can make.
Let's say I'm claiming that pie is too fattening, so I say "I don't want to have pie with dinner." You then say "But eating a stick of butter is worse!" or even "But cheesecake is worse!"
Just because something else is more fattening, doesn't mean that the first item isn't fattening.
So ToB is overpowered, so is spellcasting. Get over it. Just because it isn't as OP as other combos doesn't mean it isn't OP at all.
Nobody is saying Tob is not overpowered because casters are. We are saying comparing them to a fighter is the wrong measuring stick. The caster comparison was basically used when comparing maneuvers to spells.
Let's say casters represent 100% efficiency in production, and fighters represent 50%. 1 out of every 2 items making it out of the warehouse is not acceptable, but to except every item to make it out without defects is also not realistic. ToB is about where things should be. They can't single handedly take over the the game, but they are you don't have to go out of your way not to kill them either.
I beg to differ. None of the Crusader's maneuvers seem supernatural at all to me. [snip]
Damage Reduction: Alignment is supposed to be supernatural.
That being said it is only a few maneuvers in one discipline
I do have a little list*.
Devoted Spirit
Aura of Triumph, Not (Su)
Aura of Tyranny, Not (Su)
Castigating Strike, Not (Su)
Divine Surge, Greater, Not (Su)
Doom Charge, Not (Su)
Law Breaker, Not (Su)
Radiant Charge, Not (Su)
Rallying Strike, Not (Su)
Revitalizing Strike, Not (Su)
Strike of Righteous Vitality, Not (Su), Replicates spell
Tide of Chaos, Not (Su)
Aura of Tyranny, Not (Su)
Castigating Strike, Not (Su)
Divine Surge, Greater, Not (Su)
Doom Charge, Not (Su)
Law Breaker, Not (Su)
Radiant Charge, Not (Su)
Rallying Strike, Not (Su)
Revitalizing Strike, Not (Su)
Strike of Righteous Vitality, Not (Su), Replicates spell
Tide of Chaos, Not (Su)
The argument that spell casters are more broken is one of the worst arguments anyone can make.
Let's say I'm claiming that pie is too fattening, so I say "I don't want to have pie with dinner." You then say "But eating a stick of butter is worse!" or even "But cheesecake is worse!"
Just because something else is more fattening, doesn't mean that the first item isn't fattening.
So ToB is overpowered, so is spellcasting. Get over it. Just because it isn't as OP as other combos doesn't mean it isn't OP at all.
It's not a question of spellcasters being overpowered. It's a question of why someone would have a hissy fit over a warrior throwing a sword 30ft, hit some people to do lots of damage, then come back, but has no problem what so ever with a spellcaster turning bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away.
Damage Reduction: Alignment is supposed to be supernatural.
That being said it is only a few maneuvers in one discipline
The Stone Dragon maneuvers that provide DR is Adamantine.
Devoted Spirit's Doom Charge and Radiant Charge provide DR /-.
Damage Reduction: Alignment is supposed to be supernatural.
Are there any maneuvers that grand DR/alignment? Because I haven't seen any.
As for your list...
Aura of Triumph, Not (Su)
Castigating Strike, Not (Su)
Doom Charge, Not (Su)
Law Breaker, Not (Su)
Radiant Charge, Not (Su)
Rallying Strike, Not (Su)
Revitalizing Strike, Not (Su)
Strike of Righteous Vitality, Not (Su), Replicates spell
Tide of Chaos, Not (Su)
I can kind of see where you're coming from with these, what with calling out alignment and all. I run my games differently when it comes to alignment because I have a looser interpretation of alignment, but I'll concede here that D&D's default assumptions might make part of these effects supernatural. I will say, though, that looking at it as what the character perceives the foe's alignment to be really dispels all of your worries here.
Aura of Tyranny, Not (Su)
Rallying Strike, Not (Su)
Revitalizing Strike, Not (Su)
Strike of Righteous Vitality, Not (Su), Replicates spell
Affecting HP is not supernatural. Realizing that HP is mental as well as physical helps you realize that.
Divine Surge, Greater, Not (Su)
I have no idea at all why you think this is supernatural.
EDIT: I feel like I need to make the point that I haven't read any of the italicized flavor text for the vast majority of maneuvers, so if that has anything to do with it, I don't care.
Without having read the ToB, but assuming that Divine Surge is at all aptly named, you cant see why its supernatural? A direct boost from a god, the very definition of supernatural, and you youre having trouble seeing why its supernatural?? God is not a supernatural being.... Truly?? Allllllllrighty then!
This one is not supernatural. The name does not really apply to what it does.
PS: All it really does is allow you to hit harder for one round.
Without having read the ToB, but assuming that Divine Surge is at all aptly named, you cant see why its supernatural? A direct boost from a god, the very definition of supernatural, and you youre having trouble seeing why its supernatural?? God is not a supernatural being.... Truly?? Allllllllrighty then!
What wraithstrike said. It's just the name. While the inspiration may be supernatural, nothing the maneuver actually does is anything but mundane.
If you want an awesome meleer 4 books is good, but for competent(not useless without multiclassing) one book should be enough.
I find this argument strange, as by default a ToB character will be using at least two books (PH & ToB), while half the melee PH classes can get by with just one (Fighter needs PH2 for higher level options; Monk & Paladin have their own unique problems).
It's not a question of spellcasters being overpowered. It's a question of why someone would have a hissy fit over a warrior throwing a sword 30ft, hit some people to do lots of damage, then come back, but has no problem what so ever with a spellcaster turning bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away.
Once again your argument for ToB not being Overpowered is that casters are more overpowered. It's a bad argument. I don't think that ToB breaks the game, but your argument is hand waving. The only way to show that ToB is balanced is to show that it's powers are in line with the average of all of the powers available at that level. Including the fighter, who is downtrodden to comical effect. Saying that wizards are more ridiculous doesn't mean that ToB isn't ridiculous.
Once again your argument for ToB not being Overpowered is that casters are more overpowered. It's a bad argument. I don't think that ToB breaks the game, but your argument is hand waving. The only way to show that ToB is balanced is to show that it's powers are in line with the average of all of the powers available at that level. Including the fighter, who is downtrodden to comical effect. Saying that wizards are more ridiculous doesn't mean that ToB isn't ridiculous.
Just because a Tome of Battle class may be more powerful than the Fighter doesn't make it overpowered.
Also, the ability to throw a sword 30ft, do lots of damage, and come back happens at minimum 15th level while the ability to turn bat feces into a 20ft radius globe of fire over 400ft away comes in at minimum 5th level.
Wizards are not ridiculously overpowerful. Individual spells can be, and no where near all spells. Such overpowerfulness is also often subjective. All one needs to do is fix those individual spells for one's personal taste.
In response to your feelings on gainng DR for a round, how do you feel about Paladins gaining immunity to all diseases, even the magical ones, at 3rd level? It's an EX ability.
On a side note, I'm still laoning out my ToB, so I'm not sure whether the Crusader has a similar ability, but I believe they do not.
Edit: calronmoonflower: Sorry, missed the asterisk on my first read through of your post.
Affecting HP is not supernatural. Realizing that HP is mental as well as physical helps you realize that.
I have to second Crimson here; not only does affecting hit points not automatically make something Su (see fast healing and regeneration), but "it replicates a spell" isn't a reasonable standard for Supernatural, either. Otherwise, Monks' Tongue of the Sun and Moonability would need to be supernatural, as it replicates the spell Tounges. To say nothing of Diamond Soul. (This, of course, assumes that the PHB "got it right"; an argument that, IMO, is intrinsic in any argument for banning a non-core book for not "getting it right" while still retaining the core rules.)
I find this argument strange, as by default a ToB character will be using at least two books (PH & ToB), while half the melee PH classes can get by with just one (Fighter needs PH2 for higher level options; Monk & Paladin have their own unique problems).
Tob characters have to use the Tob. That is where their rules are. I will put it like this then. If the Tob were in the PHB like the casters are that is all they would need. This also goes for any other base class I reference in the future.
I can't beleive I had to explain that. With that said Tob can use core only feats and still work. <---
The bolded part is important.
Tob characters have to use the Tob. That is where their rules are. I will put it like this then. If the Tob were in the PHB like the casters are that is all they would need. This also goes for any other base class I reference in the future.
I can't beleive I had to explain that. With that said Tob can use core only feats and still work. <---
The bolded part is important.
another martial example.
a rogue needs weapon finesse, penetrating strike, and either 2 weapon fighting or able learner to even survive. not to mention, they either have to have levels of nightsong enforcer or unseen seer (depending on role) for the same reason.
my dm by restricting the next campaign to only the PHB and DMG makes rogues virtually unplayable.
Now a TOB class Doesn't need half as many sourcebooks as a rogue does. a martial adept can go 10 levels in 2 initiating classes (and get 7th or 8 level manuevers in both w/ retraining rules) a martial adept can also surive just fine with 1 or 2 books. a rogue requires the entire "Complete Series" "Dungeonscape" "Players handbook" "Magic item compendium" "Dungeon masters guide" and in some cases "Races of destiny or races of the wild"
a rogue needs weapon finesse, penetrating strike, and either 2 weapon fighting or able learner to even survive. not to mention, they either have to have levels of nightsong enforcer or unseen seer (depending on role) for the same reason.
What?
Oh, come on, now. Penetrating Strike was first published in 2007, and Able Learner is human/doppelganger only; as someone who's been running/playing 3e nonstop since 2003, I haven't seen Rogues have much trouble 'surviving,' let alone needing certain mechanics.a rogue needs weapon finesse, penetrating strike, and either 2 weapon fighting or able learner to even survive. not to mention, they either have to have levels of nightsong enforcer or unseen seer (depending on role) for the same reason.
You forgot Deadly Precision. ;)
No, but seriously, other than Weapon Finesse and TWF (which I mostly agree with), I haven't even heard of half the things you mentioned, and the other half weren't actually good enough for me to remember what they were at first.
And it is the PHB which is unbalanced. The reason ToB classes are simply better than PHB ones, is that it is a fix. And it is a fix to a fairly obvious problem. They are not ment to be played next to the PHB martial classes, they should to replace them.
If you want a balanced game, you fix 80 % + of your problem by banning the PHB classes. They are the problem.
Cleric can be replaced with Favored Souls and Archivists (who are far less of a problem with domain spells gone.) Druids are replaced by Spirit Shamans. Wizards by Beguilers, Warmages and Duskblades. Melee classes by the ToB. You'll find it far better balanced.
Cleric can be replaced with Favored Souls and Archivists (who are far less of a problem with domain spells gone.) Druids are replaced by Spirit Shamans. Wizards by Beguilers, Warmages and Duskblades. Melee classes by the ToB. You'll find it far better balanced.
I would note that the Shapeshift variant for druids brings them down to an acceptable power level, and I'd add Dread Necromancers and Binders to the list of classes replacing Wizards and Sorcerers.
Most of the time, when people head to CharOp and ask "How do I balance out my game and stop X from being overshadowed by Y?" I've seen the response to be, basically, "Ban the PHB classes, allow noncore base classes, and encourage use of ToB, ToM, and XPH, and you'll be set."
I have long run with "Druid" is a name some cultures give to their Spirit Shamans. (For those who want Wildshape, they can use the Wildshaping Ranger from UA. Or go for one of the PrCs that grant WS.)
Without the Cleric and Druid, none of the classes that just know the whole spell list are left. That can make quite a bit of difference.
Partially true. The Shapeshift variant does fix the wildshape problem, but Druids still suffer the problem of knowing every spell on their lists. Which has allowed it auto-powercreep since the PHB.
I have long run with "Druid" is a name some cultures give to their Spirit Shamans. (For those who want Wildshape, they can use the Wildshaping Ranger from UA. Or go for one of the PrCs that grant WS.)
That's a perfectly valid stance; I was simply pointing out the variant as an additional option. The best one for a given group depends on what they see as the worst aspect of the druid--if wildshape is the problem, go with Shapeshift, and if all spells known is the problem, go with Spirit Shaman. I tend to like the druid's class abilities over the spirit shaman's, and don't really see as many of the druid's spells as incredibly powerful as the cleric's or wizard's, so I personally use the Shapeshift variant.
You guys do know there is a spontaneous with limited spells known variant of the cleric & druid in Unearthed Arcana, right? Personally I'd rather have a shapeshifting druid with spontaneous casting than a spirit shaman; the latter's too concerned with ghosts & elementals.
There is...but the all-spells-known part of those classes isn't the only broken aspect. The cleric has turn undead (and thus divine feats) and domains (and thus handy things like free feats and rerolls and such) while the druid has wild shape (and thus the ability to dump physical stats and make use of half of every monster book with the right build).
--------------------------
Back on topic, are there any particular complaints regarding Tome of Battle from anyone, or have most people been satisfied thus far?
Partially true. The Shapeshift variant does fix the wildshape problem, but Druids still suffer the problem of knowing every spell on their lists. Which has allowed it auto-powercreep since the PHB..
Using the Spontaneous Divine Casters variant should take care of that as well.
In other words, warriors can only do mundane things that you see or are possible in the real world. Anything else is "magic" and should be called such. "Supernatural" would fall under the term "magic". Warriors are not allowed to get nice things.
Sure, if you only equate "nice" with "magical". I wouldn't do that.
another martial example.
a rogue needs weapon finesse, penetrating strike, and either 2 weapon fighting or able learner to even survive. not to mention, they either have to have levels of nightsong enforcer or unseen seer (depending on role) for the same reason.
In order to be effective yes toyr usually right.
my dm by restricting the next campaign to only the PHB and DMG makes rogues virtually unplayable.
It is anoying when DMs think they can lessen the power creep by using only core.
Now a TOB class Doesn't need half as many sourcebooks as a rogue does. a martial adept can go 10 levels in 2 initiating classes (and get 7th or 8 level manuevers in both w/ retraining rules) a martial adept can also surive just fine with 1 or 2 books. a rogue requires the entire "Complete Series" "Dungeonscape" "Players handbook" "Magic item compendium" "Dungeon masters guide" and in some cases "Races of destiny or races of the wild"
So, are you against TOB because it allows you make competant melee charatcers without using several books?
What?
The sad fact is however that the rogue does usually have trouble surviving. Their only real damage output is sneak attack, and in order to do that they need to catch a target flat footed or flank, both of which have serious disadvantages. It wasn't impossibly for a rogue to survive, but hard until penetrating strike came out, unless the campeigh had very few sneak attack immune creatures, which was rare.
The only way to show that ToB is balanced is to show that it's powers are in line with the average of all of the powers available at that level.
That's the whole point of comparing them to spellcasters. This is a rib, right?
The overwhelming majority of PC, NPC and even monster "powers" are
-Spells
-Psi powers, many of which are just psionic variants of spells
-SLA/PLA
-Other effects (Su or Ex); many of these ie Abundant Step, are dupes of spells. Even in the case of things like Sneak Attack you can find a spell that grants it.
Even if you could establish that a 6th level maneuver is equal or better than the median 6th level spell, you still have to consider distribution. Maneuvers are getting a refill from the fountain, spells are a wine cellar.
Sure, if you only equate "nice" with "magical". I wouldn't do that.
When you have an issue with a high level warrior throwing a weapon to do damage and have it return but not a mid-level wizard using bat feces to make a 20ft radius fireball over 400ft away, that's exactly what you're doing.
The sad fact is however that the rogue does usually have trouble surviving. Their only real damage output is sneak attack, and in order to do that they need to catch a target flat footed or flank, both of which have serious disadvantages. It wasn't impossibly for a rogue to survive, but hard until penetrating strike came out, unless the campeigh had very few sneak attack immune creatures, which was rare.
Catching their enemies [Flat-Footed] can be a tough thing for Rogues to accomplish, especially in a game that is packed with creatures who possess Darkvision. Flank, however, is not difficult; very few creatures are immune to it. And if you're playing a decent melee Rogue, it shouldn't be tough to survive such situations.
The most prevalent creature type that is immune to sneak attack is undead. Who, thankfully, can be popped by clerics. Splatbooks have added some neat tools that let the rogue shine no matter what they're facing, but they aren't necessary if the rest of the team is on call to do their respective jobs. A solo core-only rogue vs a vampire is in for some serious hurt, but that's not really what the game is designed for.
This'll probably be my last post in this topic, for I keep dragging it off-topic. I just can't fathom how an expansion published in the last year of 3e's print life is considered so absolutely essential to playing it. These discussions make me feel like we're playing very different games.
In order to be effective yes toyr usually right.
It is anoying when DMs think they can lessen the power creep by using only core.
So, are you against TOB because it allows you make competant melee charatcers without using several books?
no, i would like to encourage TOB.
i just believe the other martial classes need a power up. (such as manuaever progressions of thier own)
i would prefer not to need 5,000 books to optimize.
just i never had a dm that allowed TOB.
my current dm is trying to remove bookkeeping. (his excuse)
but he doesn't realize that it doesn't remove the power creep.
i'd rather have less power creep than less bookeeping.
he removed all the stuff that helps rogues, monks, bards, and rangers.
(Figthers still can use the spiked chain)
When you have an issue with a high level warrior throwing a weapon to do damage and have it return but not a mid-level wizard using bat feces to make a 20ft radius fireball over 400ft away, that's exactly what you're doing.
Nope. I don't define the returning ability of Lightning Throw as nice. That's your definition. Stop trying to impress your definition of 'nice' on ToB as a whole for all of us. You're not the one calling the shots here.
I prefer to be able to tell apart what's magic and what's not. For me, a returning weapon (especially if it hit and stuck) is magical. For you, the distinction does not matter. Thats why I said that Lightning Throw (along with several other maneuvers) should be supernatural. (Notice the choice of words here?)
For you, warriors need to be able to compete with spellcasters in terms of abilities to have 'nice things'. Me? I'm perfectly satisfied with completely extraordinary abilities. They can be 'nice', too, as the ToB shows us.
For me, a returning weapon (especially if it hit and stuck) is magical. For you, the distinction does not matter. Thats why I said that Lightning Throw (along with several other maneuvers) should be supernatural. (Notice the choice of words here?)
The idea is that a martial adept is able to throw the weapon in such a manner that it is able to somehow defy the normal rules for physics and return to him. It is not magical, but simple, pure skill. How it is achieved, I have no idea, nor am I interested to know.
It is the same reason for me not needing to know how the parts in a computer works. I just need to know that pressing the on-switch will boot it up.
Catching their enemies [Flat-Footed] can be a tough thing for Rogues to accomplish, especially in a game that is packed with creatures who possess Darkvision. Flank, however, is not difficult; very few creatures are immune to it. And if you're playing a decent melee Rogue, it shouldn't be tough to survive such situations.
Not really. A flanking rogue needs to be on the other side oh his friends. With light armour and 1d6 hitpoints making one that can survive the ffull attention of monsters is hard. I tried. I rolled lucky and had 17 constitution at level 5, and I was still hardly ably to survive a full attack.
The most prevalent creature type that is immune to sneak attack is undead. Who, thankfully, can be popped by clerics. Splatbooks have added some neat tools that let the rogue shine no matter what they're facing, but they aren't necessary if the rest of the team is on call to do their respective jobs. A solo core-only rogue vs a vampire is in for some serious hurt, but that's not really what the game is designed for.
Also, splat books help the rogue, but they haven't given an automatic solution. You still need to spend money on wands/crystals, which weakens you and thay can be unreliable.
This'll probably be my last post in this topic, for I keep dragging it off-topic. I just can't fathom how an expansion published in the last year of 3e's print life is considered so absolutely essential to playing it. These discussions make me feel like we're playing very different games.
You're right, we shouldn't post of topic. I'm just saying penetrating strike should have been a feature of the core rogue, because it works automatically. Its not essential, but it is probably the single biggest asset to the rogue in all splat books.
I want to be clear on something without getting into the debate. This is for people in favor of ToB; if you hate it please refrain from answering. Do you believe (hence why I'm only asking them) that ToB is not overpowered compared to casters but is overpowered compared to non-casters?
No. Other melees can do more damage, ToB is more fun and can debuff monsters aswell as do hitpoint damage. Its problamatic in the sense that ToBers are going to be better debuffers than other melees which has advantages, but I wouldn't say they are otherpowered.
no, i would like to encourage TOB.
i just believe the other martial classes need a power up. (such as manuaever progressions of thier own)
i would prefer not to need 5,000 books to optimize.
just i never had a dm that allowed TOB.
my current dm is trying to remove bookkeeping. (his excuse)
but he doesn't realize that it doesn't remove the power creep.
i'd rather have less power creep than less bookeeping.
he removed all the stuff that helps rogues, monks, bards, and rangers.
(Figthers still can use the spiked chain)
Its annoying how so few online DMs are willing to use ToB isn't it? (Can't speak otherwise since its been ages since I've played a real game)
Its annoying how so few online DMs are willing to use ToB isn't it? (Can't speak otherwise since its been ages since I've played a real game)
i can agree.
I want to be clear on something without getting into the debate. This is for people in favor of ToB; if you hate it please refrain from answering. Do you believe (hence why I'm only asking them) that ToB is not overpowered compared to casters but is overpowered compared to non-casters?
Tempest Stormwind did a point by point damage comparison that showed a Warblade (with PA) did less damage then a Core Barbarian with Power Attack at every level except level 5. If that Barbarian grabs Shock Trooper or a good prestige class the numbers will skew even more in his favor. For that matter the Barbarian benifits from the ToB since martial powers and stances can be grabbed by feats or martial scripts. The advantages of the ToB classes are a reduced need for optimization and system mastery. The Barbarian has to know the perfect PA value to get the most damage per swing, and the Fighter has to choose the perfect feat set to avoid trap builds. The Warblade just grabs some cool stuff and plays.
I want to be clear on something without getting into the debate. This is for people in favor of ToB; if you hate it please refrain from answering. Do you believe (hence why I'm only asking them) that ToB is not overpowered compared to casters but is overpowered compared to non-casters?
Not really. I think ToB requires less system mastery to make a powerful non-caster character, so someone with low to, maybe, mid levels of system mastery who is playing a non-ToB non-caster can be overshadowed. This is especially true if the ToB player is well versed in 3.5 mechanics.
The idea is that a martial adept is able to throw the weapon in such a manner that it is able to somehow defy the normal rules for physics and return to him. It is not magical, but simple, pure skill. How it is achieved, I have no idea, nor am I interested to know.
It is the same reason for me not needing to know how the parts in a computer works. I just need to know that pressing the on-switch will boot it up.
But I want to know. I do not take anything at face value.
For me, stuff as ambivalent as this shows me that the designers either shared your point-of-view, or were simply too lazy to think about how certain abilities are justified. Either way, it's shoddy work in my book.
Btw, how exactly do you know that the ability represents skill, if you're not interested in how it works?
I prefer to be able to tell apart what's magic and what's not. For me, a returning weapon (especially if it hit and stuck) is magical.
Just because a weapon hits doesn't mean it's stuck. Again, I'll invite you to slice through a stick of butter with a knife and watch as the blade goes through but just exits the other side. That's what the weapon is doing. It's slicing through the targets in the line and continuing forth, losing no appreciable momentum and acting similarly to that one feat (also extraordinary) that allows archers to shoot their arrows through enemies in a line.
Me? I'm perfectly satisfied with completely extraordinary abilities.
Which Lightning Throw is one of. I don't know why you so adamantly resist the perfectly reasonable explanations we've presented. All that's going on with Lightning Throw is a highly enhanced aerodynamic and spatial awareness, very extraordinary, yes, but extraordinary none the less and not supernatural at all. What about, "a level 15 Warblade is more spatially aware than us level 1 Commoners," is difficult at all to believe?
I want to be clear on something without getting into the debate. This is for people in favor of ToB; if you hate it please refrain from answering. Do you believe (hence why I'm only asking them) that ToB is not overpowered compared to casters but is overpowered compared to non-casters?
Nope, but I think the melee classes are underpowered. For this particular case when I say melee I mean characters that are designed to stand toe to toe with an enemy. Rogues don't fit because that is not their job. They do what they are supposed to do.
Tob being strong and the other melee classes being weak are not the same thing.
But I want to know. I do not take anything at face value.
For me, stuff as ambivalent as this shows me that the designers either shared your point-of-view, or were simply too lazy to think about how certain abilities are justified. Either way, it's shoddy work in my book.
Btw, how exactly do you know that the ability represents skill, if you're not interested in how it works?
It can represent anything you want it to be (if you can think of something else other than skill). Heck, you could boil it down to extreme luck, or the guiding hand of your fairy godmother or something. The bottom line is that it should not change the fact that said maneuver is extraordinary.
The designers are probably not physics or martial art experts. So they explanations are likely more in the layman sense. The best they can probably do is "You throw the weapon in such a manner that it is not only able to pierce through the defenses of multiple foes in a row, but arc back to your hand" or some variation thereof. It is obviously not going to fly or work in real life (or maybe it can, I don't know, nor do I need to be actually capable of performing such a feat just so I can use it in a dnd game).
For me, I am perfectly comfortable with just handwaving it as "pure skill". I have found that trying to think too much and too hard at rationalizing certain things that were never meant to be justified just ends up doing more harm than good at the game table. :P
I want to be clear on something without getting into the debate. This is for people in favor of ToB; if you hate it please refrain from answering. Do you believe (hence why I'm only asking them) that ToB is not overpowered compared to casters but is overpowered compared to non-casters?
No, not "overpowered" when compared to non-casters. It's an improvement upon non-casters. Find some way to deal with trapfinding, and it wouldn't bother me at all if the game was only the PHB spellcasters and Tome of Battle.
The fighter and barbarian can keep up with the martial adepts. They will be less flexible and can't compete in regards to saving throws, but they'll do alright. Ranger is still useful if only because the martial adepts are not archers. The rogue is more than just trapfinding. He'll be alright. The paladin and monk, however, are out-classed. The crusader clearly does what the paladin does but better in every way and without any alignment issues some people have. The swordsage clearly does what the monk does but better in every way. It's a reflection on the weakness of paladin and monk, not the power of crusader or swordsage.
The crusader clearly does what the paladin does but better in every way and without any alignment issues some people have.
I could argue that there's something the Paladin most definitely does a lot better than the Crusader, better than any base class as a matter of fact: Special Mount, aka a mount that isn't prone to die due to a light breeze.
EDIT: Oh, right, what was I thinking? Druid. :P
Still, the Paladin does have this better than the Crusader...
The crusader clearly does what the paladin does but better in every way and without any alignment issues some people have.
The Paladin wipes the floor with Evil creatures. With Rhino Rush or a campaign that allows the mount to be used they also are insane chargers, far better then Barbarians in fact. The poke mount also helps deal with flying issues that meleers have. And Crusaders and Warblades do even worse then most meleers outside of range.
Of course the problems with being a Paladin are still there so....
The swordsage clearly does what the monk does but better in every way.
Well um.... Yeah Monks blow. Too many non synergystic powers and bad multiclassing rules to put the nail in the coffin.
I could argue that there's something the Paladin most definitely does a lot better than the Crusader, better than any base class as a matter of fact: Special Mount, aka a mount that isn't prone to die due to a light breeze.
EDIT: Oh, right, what was I thinking? Druid. :P
Still, the Paladin does have this better than the Crusader...
True, but I don't think the crusader is going to worry about it.
The Paladin wipes the floor with Evil creatures. With Rhino Rush or a campaign that allows the mount to be used they also are insane chargers, far better then Barbarians in fact. The poke mount also helps deal with flying issues that meleers have. And Crusaders and Warblades do even worse then most meleers outside of range.
Of course the problems with being a Paladin are still there so....
Well um.... Yeah Monks blow. Too many non synergystic powers and bad multiclassing rules to put the nail in the coffin.
How does the Paladin fair against non-Evil creatures? Crusaders don't care too much about the alignment of their opponent. The healing maneuvers work against 8 out of 9 alignments, i.e. not the crusader's, and they allow the crusader to do some damage to an opponent while healing himself or someone else. A Paladin can only do one or the other in a given round, and there is a limit to his healing per day. There are a few specific alignment maneuvers in Devoted Spirit, but the crusader doesn't have to take them. If he does, it means the campaign is geared toward their necessity. However, nothing forces a crusader to take any of these, and he can do well without them.
P.S. I do like Paladins. I just acknowledge the Crusader is "better".
Nope. I don't define the returning ability of Lightning Throw as nice. That's your definition. Stop trying to impress your definition of 'nice' on ToB as a whole for all of us. You're not the one calling the shots here.
I prefer to be able to tell apart what's magic and what's not. For me, a returning weapon (especially if it hit and stuck) is magical. For you, the distinction does not matter. Thats why I said that Lightning Throw (along with several other maneuvers) should be supernatural. (Notice the choice of words here?)
For you, warriors need to be able to compete with spellcasters in terms of abilities to have 'nice things'. Me? I'm perfectly satisfied with completely extraordinary abilities. They can be 'nice', too, as the ToB shows us.
As I wrote, you don't believe warriors should get nice things.
How does the Paladin fair against non-Evil creatures?
With the pokemount? Pretty good actually. Mounted combat is vastly underestimated (due to mounts usually being instagibbed). And Charging is one thing any full BAB class can do well.
Without? Terrible unless your grabbing some Spell compendium stuff. And most campaigns don't allow use of the mount so usually Paladins blow, and when they don't blow usually people have no idea how to take advantage of them.
As I wrote, you don't believe warriors should get nice things.
He just does not beleive warriors should do what he considers to be borderline magical without being magical.
Both of you just have different levels on your suspension of belief.
Which Lightning Throw is one of. I don't know why you so adamantly resist the perfectly reasonable explanations we've presented.
Because their are only "perfectly reasonable" for you, and not for me?
Why can't you understand that different people have differing points-of-view? I can accept yours, why can't you accept mine? You behave as if you were spoon-fed eternal wisdom, and people who disagree with you must be complete idiots for not seeing the light that you represent.
Because their are only "perfectly reasonable" for you, and not for me?
Then you quite simply have unreasonable standards for what is reasonable.
Why can't you understand that different people have differing points-of-view? I can accept yours, why can't you accept mine?
I can accept different view points, just not unreasonable ones.
You behave as if you were spoon-fed eternal wisdom, and people who disagree with you must be complete idiots for not seeing the light that you represent.
That's pretty much what happened, yes. :D
It becomes rather ironic, because instead of balancing out a little between casters and non-casters, a Cleric is very eased on the job as a healbot and can prepare his OMFGWTFBBQ-spells of I.WIN.
A little off-topic, but is the Crusader supposed to be dishing out more healing than a Cleric on a residuum-trip? With Martial Spirit, and the several "Healing-strikes" it becomes a neverending flow of HP to the party, especially when you consider the recharge mechanic of the Crusader.
It becomes rather ironic, because instead of balancing out a little between casters and non-casters, a Cleric is very eased on the job as a healbot and can prepare his OMFGWTFBBQ-spells of I.WIN.
1) The cleric can already prepare his spells of I.WIN. If healing is needed, he can do it spontaneously.
2) The crusader is good for steady healing, but not burst healing. If you take some damage early in the fight, a steady 2 HP per round will get you back to up full; if you take a crit and need 50 HP of healing now, you're out of luck.
3) Divine casters can pick up better healing feats and abilities, so if you're looking at total healing output the cleric still pulls ahead.
So you only really need a crusader or two for healing in battle, but don't discount divine casters just yet, if only for their out-of-combat healing.
A little off-topic, but is the Crusader supposed to be dishing out more healing than a Cleric on a residuum-trip? With Martial Spirit, and the several "Healing-strikes" it becomes a neverending flow of HP to the party, especially when you consider the recharge mechanic of the Crusader.
It becomes rather ironic, because instead of balancing out a little between casters and non-casters, a Cleric is very eased on the job as a healbot and can prepare his OMFGWTFBBQ-spells of I.WIN.
Clerics are better at healing. It's a good thing some classes that are not cleric can do some healing so as to allow the cleric not be a healbot. A crusader can only heal in combat. Most healing is done after combat. It is by design crusaders are durable and help make others durable. That is their game mechanics shtick/point.
Clerics are better at healing. It's a good thing some classes that are not cleric can do some healing so as to allow the cleric not be a healbot. A crusader can only heal in combat. Most healing is done after combat. It is by design crusaders are durable and help make others durable. That is their game mechanics shtick/point.
Yeah, but it's still a daily resource, whereas Crusader can span the steady healing almost infinitly.
Edit: On a second thought, I kinda see the point now, since the cleric isn't the only character that is dependent on daily resources, so an extended rest is still gonna happen reasonably fast.
Here's an example, the dragon shaman has a healing aura that can heal all day long to 1/2 total hit points and the ability to blast every 1d4 rounds all day. Another example would be the warlock that can blast every round all day long.
If any of these examples are not overpowered then being able to do something all day isn't overpowered by itself. Instead the impact of the ability must be the measuring stick.
Yeah, but it's still a daily resource, whereas Crusader can span the steady healing almost infinitly.
The crusaders healing abilities are written with the intent that they happen only in genuine combat. That puts a solid limit on the healing potential.
Also the Complete Champion introduced the Touch of Healing feat that lets you heal to 1/2 total hit points all day long. It is a reserve feat so you just have to have one spell slot of 2nd or higher to use it.
In addition is the Persistent Spell metamagic that makes a spell last 24 hours. use this on a Vigor spell and it heals all day long. If you are cheesey you can use Divine Metamagic on Vigor, Mass, Lesser and for the cost of a 3rd level spell and 8 turning attempts to provide all day healing for several characters, possibly the whole party.
Edit: On a second thought, I kinda see the point now, since the cleric isn't the only character that is dependent on daily resources, so an extended rest is still gonna happen reasonably fast.
That is a good point.
Hello all.
This is about 3.5.
Some people in our gaming group/society ban ToB cause they say it is overpowered. I always played casters of some short, never fighter-like classes, but when ToB came out i thought of trying playing one of the classes in that book.
They're dumb.
The Tome of Battle is the single best thing about 3.x. I would have quit long before I did without it.
The Tome of Battle is strong and obsoletes classes. But it obsoletes classes which suck. It is quite fair as far as 3.x goes.
Fundamentally, if they allow casters, then the Tome of Battle is fine. Unless you ban wizards, sorcerers, psions, artificers, archivists, clerics, druids, ect. you aren't even getting near the level of the best of the ToB classes, the Warblade.
As far as it goes, the best classes are all the full casters with 9th level spells with a few exceptions. Even the Dread Necromancer is stronger than the Warblade, though it is arguable that the Dread Necromancer may be within the realm of reason. The ToB classes are all fine, the Bard is fine, ect. I mean, its not like you can't still break the game in half (especially if you don't ban the broken scrolls), but its a lot better.
Casters are fundamentally overpowered because they can do things which automatically win encounters, any encounter, regardless of what else happens. Lots of casters can do this.
I got the same reaction with some old timers(1st ed and 2nd ed guys) I played with before when I started using stuff from ToB. One stopped playing his Warblade in disgust for a Knight after the Goliath Barbarian outdamaged him by far. And would have abandoned the Knight if it wasn't for the multiple opponent challenge being too good with my preference for large mook filled battles.
The next game I played in the Half-Ogre Chaos Monk destroyed me in damage dealing ability compared to my Crusader. Wow..my one attack ignored DR! But it only does the same amount of damage as the Monk whose doing 3 such attacks a round. But Wait! I can tank better than him. Too bad they can't do much to actually attack the so called paper tiger when on the ground grappled.
This reminds me of the same reaction I got when breaking out the warlock with people right after it came out.
I just don't see how people really think the ToB classes are overpowered after level 5. Till then...there can be minor issues caused by certain abilities. And silliness with certain abilities... such as the Rogue/Swordmage using teleport every other round to scout out the enemies castle.
I just don't see how people really think the ToB classes are overpowered after level 5. Till then...there can be minor issues caused by certain abilities.
It's been fairly well established that most classes working on unlimited resources (ToB, warlock, ToM classes, regular melee types) hold strong until level 5 or 6 and then the daily classes begin to take over. Tome of Battle isn't overpowered before level 5, since even a monk or a fighter can pose a credible threat in those levels; I believe all of the mathematical calculations done to compare the melee types show that regular melee types have the best attack, damage, and defenses around level 6, the ToB classes are best around levels 4-5, and the warlock's on top around level 6-7 with the right invocations.
Tome of Battle is not about damage. The damage is there. The martial adepts can dish it out. However, Tome of Battle is all about flexibility. It allows warrior players to make a series of interesting decisions. It allows warriors to move more than 5ft in a round that is not a charge and do something "cool", even if that "coolness" is just lots of damage more than one simple swing of a weapon. That's all it really is. That they're "better" than fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, monk is pretty much the point. Better doesn't mean overpowered, and there is no gaming sin at all for a player character to be "powerful".
Oh, I realize that completely; it's just that when people say they have "issues" with ToB, they usually mean "damage at low levels."
Oh, I realize that completely; it's just that when people say they have "issues" with ToB, they usually mean "damage at low levels."
Most of the complaints I notice are that they are too "magical", and they never run out of abilities or they did X, and normally X was not a rules legal move, and when you point that out they jump to another illegal move. You point that out so many times, and they make another excuse. You deflate that excuse and they say, but not in so many words, I am the the DM and since I don't like it I will ban it anyway.
If they were going to do that anyway I don't see the point in all the arguing.
Most of the complaints I notice are that they are too "magical", and they never run out of abilities or they did X, and normally X was not a rules legal move, and when you point that out they jump to another illegal move. You point that out so many times, and they make another excuse. You deflate that excuse and they say, but not in so many words, I am the the DM and since I don't like it I will ban it anyway.
If they were going to do that anyway I don't see the point in all the arguing.
Right. It comes down to they don't believe warriors should get nice things.
Right. It comes down to they don't believe warriors should get nice things.
I still dont see how you(people that dont like it) can ban ToB and allow magic. Some of the things do seem magicey(I know this is not a word), but mostly because it is fluff. Just change the fluff. Manyshot could be magical if you the fluff was: "When you pull the string back more arrows instantly leave your quiver and appear on your bow in a ready to fire position", or something similar. All they(those that don't like it) have to do is ignore the fluff for some of the maneuvers.
I still dont see how you(people that dont like it) can ban ToB and allow magic. Some of the things do seem magicey(I know this is not a word), but mostly because it is fluff. Just change the fluff. Manyshot could be magical if you the fluff was: "When you pull the string back more arrows instantly leave your quiver and appear on your bow in a ready to fire position", or something similar. All they(those that don't like it) have to do is ignore the fluff for some of the maneuvers.
How about something more blatant?
At 1st level, once per day as a free action your character can cast a spell on yourself that gives you +4 ST, +4 CO which does increase your hit points, -2 AC, and +2 bonus to your Will save. This spell cannot be dispelled or countered and works in an anti-magic field. The duration of this spell is 3 + your new CO modifier rounds. When the duration ends you are fatigued.
Now regarding wizards. Most of the time Celia is our DM and frankly he is absolutely great at it. I still have nightmares about the sorceress with sudden maximized cone of cold. She killed 3/5 of our party members twice i think. How does a wizard survive that dmg in a dungeon? When the villain has invisibility? 8 lvl wizard < sudden maximized cone of cold.
Please forgive me, I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering about this, and if it had any impact on the former actual topic ....
Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell. Maximized spells are three slots higher, which means that the CoC is at least an 8th level spell (couldn't find "Sudden" spells, and Quicken is 4 levels higher ...) ... which means that Celia was launching 16th level Magic-Users at an 8th level party?
How about something more blatant?
At 1st level, once per day as a free action your character can cast a spell on yourself that gives you +4 ST, +4 CO which does increase your hit points, -2 AC, and +2 bonus to your Will save. This spell cannot be dispelled or countered and works in an anti-magic field. The duration of this spell is 3 + your new CO modifier rounds. When the duration ends you are fatigued.
Good job. Rage written like that does sound magical.
Please forgive me, I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering about this, and if it had any impact on the former actual topic ....
Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell. Maximized spells are three slots higher, which means that the CoC is at least an 8th level spell (couldn't find "Sudden" spells, and Quicken is 4 levels higher ...) ... which means that Celia was launching 16th level Magic-Users at an 8th level party?
I can't believe I missed that. I would have to bet if they are messing up the PHB rules then they are definitely note getting the ToB rules right, which can make it seem overpowered.
Please forgive me, I know this is off-topic, but I was wondering about this, and if it had any impact on the former actual topic ....
Cone of Cold is a 5th level spell. Maximized spells are three slots higher, which means that the CoC is at least an 8th level spell (couldn't find "Sudden" spells, and Quicken is 4 levels higher ...) ... which means that Celia was launching 16th level Magic-Users at an 8th level party?
The Sudden metamagic feats allow a catser to once per day apply them to a spell without an increased casting time or spell level. (There is no sudden highten.)
The Sudden metamagic feats allow a catser to once per day apply them to a spell without an increased casting time or spell level. (There is no sudden highten.)
Good catch
Hi there. I am a member of the OP's and Celia's dnd squad, mostly as player and rarely as DM. We all know each other for many years(10+) and we have been playing dnd together for a lil less than that.
Before continuing I would like to say that Celia is serving in the army atm so I decided to step in. I would like to thank everyone for their posts, constructive or not.
Before I continue I would like to say that I am moderately against ToB. The classes in that book have in my opinion a lot of class features that should not be there, and some maneuvers are too cheesy. Other than that I do not mind much, everyone does what they want in a dnd game, half the fun is there.
Being a melee combatant fan myself I must admit I always liked greatswords, but in order to do a lil more than swinging till lvl 6 I like to take some divine powers on my side. As a result I will agree with some posters that said that an optimized melee could be better than ToB classes. Fighter is good for 2 lvls or so, Paladin is very good imho for the same amount of lvls and cleric is amazing. (Last melee char was pala 4/cleric 2/ordained champion 3 and further progression was cleric). Picking the correct spells and some cheesy i must admit feats allowed me 17 or so smites per day with full power attack bonus being +12/+7 and +8d6 dmg or so, can't remember the exact amount tbh, at lvl 8. BUT it had a counter on it. Infinity was outta the question. I think ToB doesn't deal as much but lasts longer.
Now regarding wizards. Most of the time Celia is our DM and frankly he is absolutely great at it. I still have nightmares about the sorceress with sudden maximized cone of cold. She killed 3/5 of our party members twice i think. How does a wizard survive that dmg in a dungeon? When the villain has invisibility? 8 lvl wizard < sudden maximized cone of cold.
Imo ToB should be handled carefully RP wise. I mean you learn to do things that grossly violate the laws of physics with sheer combat training and concentration, perhaps narrow it down to Lawfull and discipline oriented(monk, pala replacements if u wanna see it this way).
Since I do not want to further extend my post I would like to state the following and the comments on that would be appreciated : Wanna play something that it is optimized and relatively overpowered? Fine. Back it up with your RP.
How are they cheesy? Most of the feats and abilities of other classes are quasi-magical. Evasion and improved evasion definitely stands out.
Now, to be perfectly, fair, the effect could be (and on occasion, was) played up to the point of being a bit of a gag, but that was only when it was explicitly used as a humor device- the overwhelming portion of the time, it was played very straight and presented no major problems for the narrative of the show. Is it beyond the "realistic" limitations we could impose on these things? Sure. But that doesn't preclude it from being an extraordinary ability. And, at least in this one frightfully obvious case, it was presented as a very, very non-magical ability.
The Sudden metamagic feats allow a catser to once per day apply them to a spell without an increased casting time or spell level. (There is no sudden highten.)
I'm pretty sure it's 3x/day.
I'm pretty sure it's 3x/day.
It is actually once per day; check Complete Arcane.
I'm surprised nobody brought this up re: Lightning Throw, but was it so terribly disruptive to the fiction of the show when Xena did it?
Thank you! I was trying to think of a pop-culture example of some of the maneuvers, and Xena completely slipped my mind. And I completely agree with you; no one has ever complained that Xena is some sort of wizard, so why should your average warblade suddenly be "anime" or "too magical" or anything like that?
Thank you! I was trying to think of a pop-culture example of some of the maneuvers, and Xena completely slipped my mind. And I completely agree with you; no one has ever complained that Xena is some sort of wizard, so why should your average warblade suddenly be "anime" or "too magical" or anything like that?
Personally I think it's easier to state that if you hate Lightning Throw, you hate America.
You guys take Xena seriously? Really?
Not any more than D&D, no. :P
Seriously, we're talking about a game that that's set in a fantasy world where both people and monsters are perfectly capable of violating the physical rules of our world without it being because of "magic". Or, in fact, because of "Extraordinary" abilities, even, since skills don't count for that. What makes some fairly popular pseudo-bronze-age fantasy tv show inherently unworthy of establishing a healthy baseline for our standard of "plausibility" for such a world? It's not like D&D's creators had any problem drawing on their own favorite campy tv shows as references, back in the day.
You guys take Xena seriously? Really?
The question is, have you ever watched Xena and shouted "Hey! She can't do that! That's magic!" when she throws her chakram, furious with rage that she can do something you can't? If no, why do you have problems with Lightning Throw? If yes, why the heck are you playing a game like D&D if you can't accept even so minute a deviation from reality?
And in case someone missed the reference Capitan America and his shield to that allot.
An enhancement bonus (what all those magic items usually provide to attack, damage, AC, saves, speed, etc.) is extraordinary in this case.
Either things existing because of magic (enhancement bonuses, the Rage spell, the Heal spell) can also represent things not existing because of magic (the Monk's fast movement, the Barbarian's rage, the maneuver that Crusaders get that emulates Heal), or they're all still magic and "extraordinary" merely means "works in an AMF".
Right. It comes down to they don't believe warriors should get nice things.
No, it doesn't. I banned TOB, because I happen to prefer the mechanics of Book of Iron Might from Malhavoc which allow you to describe cool things and gives me the ability to adjudicate it on the fly since it gives me the system to build maneuvers.
Among the cool effects that your attack can include are:
a) gain bonus damage
b) temporarilly inflict conditions (e.g, daze, stun, deaf, blind)
c) force opponents to move via knockback or forced movement
e) deny dex bonus
f) inflict a movement penalty
g) inflict ability score damage
h) disrupt special ability
i) disrupt natural ability
j) area attack
k) disarm and sunder
Your maneuver can even combine several of the above effects. The only restriction is that you can't perform the maneuver if it requires a natural 20 to hit after penalties. However there are a list of drawbacks that reduce the penalties and many maneuvers are going to need one or two drawbacks to make the penalties associated with a given element reasonable for you not to require a natural 20 (some elements have a base of -10 or -20 to hit). Drawbacks are like the opponent receiving a saving throw to avoid the additional affect, opening yourself to AOA, effect only (i.e, no damage), opposed checks and so on.
The cheat sheet makes it very easy for the DM to adjudicate the maneuver on the fly. And, between the book and web enhancement, there are a whole bunch of maneuvers to serve as examples for common things players want to attempt and for keying maneuvers off various ability scores to better reflect the maneuver.
If yes, why the heck are you playing a game like D&D if you can't accept even so minute a deviation from reality?
Exactly where it is okay to begin deviating, how far, and when, is subjective not objective. People have different influences on what is DND to them (or at least what it should be). Some want Howard, Lieber, or Moorcock which heavily influenced 1e. Others are influenced by Tolkein (which also influenced early DND), the Dragonlance novels (which started as a campaign) or comedic fantasy like Piers Anthony's Xant and Asprin's Myth Adventures while others still are influenced by Naruto, Bleach, Ninja Scrolls, Full Metal Alchemist, Final Fantasy or anyone of many other sources.
Exactly where it is okay to begin deviating, how far, and when, is subjective not objective. People have different influences on what is DND to them (or at least what it should be). Some want Howard, Lieber, or Moorcock which heavily influenced 1e.
I'm familiar with the influences of 1e and up, thank you, having played them and read Gygax's prominent footnotes. My point was, if performing a maneuver which basically amounts to "throwing a chakram really hard" breaks someone's suspension of disbelief, what do they find in D&D that appeals to them, when something much more realistic like Conan d20, GURPS fantasy (restricted to low-magic), etc. would be more like what they want?
I'm not a huge fan of ToB, but I don't particularly like D&D in general, mostly just using it as something to swipe ideas from (Ie, the warlock, and how it works, gave me a basis to make a sort of spirit charmer, bound to a spirit in their childhood, who could throw around magic power, and had his spirits then screw around with it later. So he might throw what amounts to an eldritch blast, and then a fire spirit of his might light it up.), but ToB does let me make decent shield users in D&D, as well as being more fun than normal melee in combat, so I typically use it or some home brew stuff for melee guys, such as stuff similar to the Book of Iron Might that Greg_K mentioned, typically with some feat modifications(so improved trip might half the penalty to throw a trip in for example).
Rogue, fighter, ranger, barbarian, etc. All gimps without a few exceptions.
An optimized fighter or barbarian is actually way more powerful than an optimized Tome of Battle character. Even PHB only optimized fighters and barbarians can out do them. Start throwing in stuff like shock trooper, karmic strike, etc. and they are suddenly much, much more powerful. As for a rogue, there are a few types that can work. My personal favorite rogue strategy is to make a frontliner rogue, and put them up by another frontliner, with a gap inbetween. Anyone that runs past gets flanked, and smacked for an AoO for sneak attack damage. Rogues are typically high dex, and with combat expertise, this makes it very difficult to get to people behind the line safely. With 3 people, one between the rogue and other frontliner, but back one space, things get even nastier for people trying to bypass, as they are going to get hit by at least 3 people.
This is why it has been said Tome of Battle is better. It doesn't require such rules mastery to achieve this. PHB dedicated warriors can be dreadnoughts, but it requires knowing what feats to take, from what sourcebook they are in to reference, and what appropriate level to take them. With Tome of Battle, all the maneuvers are in one book, and just by concentrating on two or three disciplines you can't help but have an awesome dedicated warrior. Feats are almost secondary, but even stereotypcal Power Attack synergizes well with several maneuvers and not just Emerald Razor.
This is why it has been said Tome of Battle is better. It doesn't require such rules mastery to achieve this. PHB dedicated warriors can be dreadnoughts, but it requires knowing what feats to take, from what sourcebook they are in to reference, and what appropriate level to take them. With Tome of Battle, all the maneuvers are in one book, and just by concentrating on two or three disciplines you can't help but have an awesome dedicated warrior. Feats are almost secondary, but even stereotypcal Power Attack synergizes well with several maneuvers and not just Emerald Razor.
This is one of the reasons I like ToB so much. When I play, I prefer to have all the books that my char uses with me just in case I need to clarify or look up a rule. If I play a non-ToB warrior, I need to carry PHB, PHB2, CWar, CAdv etc. When I use ToB, I just need the ToB.
No, it doesn't. I banned TOB, because I happen to prefer the mechanics of Book of Iron Might from Malhavoc
Empthasis mine. Why does the fact that you prefer another book mean you banned ToB? I prefer swordsages to monks, and when a player of mine wants to play a monk I point out that a swordsage is probably a better choice, but if they're dead set on playing a monk they can, because I didn't ban the monk class. What if one of your player's happens to prefer ToB to Book of Iron Might?
What if one of your player's happens to prefer ToB to Book of Iron Might?
They can use it when it is their turn to DM. Not that it matters. I, personally, know one person that likes TOB and he isn't in my group (and, he doesn't get to use it under his DM either and is fine with it).
Most non-caster classes are underpowered!
Nah, it's the big 3 core spellcasters that are overpowered followed by the sorcerer (at highter levels). The only thing that makes the TOB good, imo, is that it gave some more interesting things for melee types to do.
They can use it when it is their turn to DM. Not that it matters. I, personally, know one person that likes TOB and he isn't in my group (and, he doesn't get to use it under his DM either and is fine with it).
So you're saying that if you had a new player who wanted to use ToB, you wouldn't let him?
They can use it when it is their turn to DM. Not that it matters. I, personally, know one person that likes TOB and he isn't in my group (and, he doesn't get to use it under his DM either and is fine with it).
Yeah. I just don't see why your banning a book because you prefer another. The only reason to ban something is because it's overpowered or extremely disruptive. So I just can't see why your banning it either?
When I DM I have houserules that I use; I don't expect those same houserules to be used by the other players when it's their turn to DM, and I don't expect that if I go sit at someone else's table that their houserules will be the exact same as mine. The important thing is to know what you're getting into before you join a group. If you're a new player, ask the DM some questions about his/her game. Communication between the DM and the players prevents a lot of problems.
So you're saying that if you had a new player who wanted to use ToB, you wouldn't let him?
Yes. The new player has to conform to the group- not the other way around. In general, we are not a fan of WOTC supplements. From the Complete Books only a few PrCs,spells, feats, expanded skill uses and equipment gets used. There is no use of ToB, Tom, MoI, PsiHB/XPH (a player can use the Psychic from a third party book), Races of the Dragon, or BOED.
The most influential WOTC book is the Unearthed Arcana from which we use many class variants, specialist wizard variant abilities, turning variant, spontaneous divine casting, action points, weapon groups, complex skill checks, and incantations.
Otherwise, it is third party products- especially, when I am running.
Yeah. I just don't see why your banning a book because you prefer another. The only reason to ban something is because it's overpowered or extremely disruptive. So I just can't see why your banning it either?
No, the third reason to ban is looking at the setting and how you want things to work in the setting and using the best tool for the job. For me, it is, in general, not WOTC supplements for DND (or d20M), but third party.
If you're a new player, ask the DM some questions about his/her game. Communication between the DM and the players prevents a lot of problems.
QFT. There is no single acceptable view of what DND is that fits everyone. Everyone has different influences that shape the style of DND games they want. For some people, it is Howard, Moorcock, and/or Lieber. For others, it is th High Fanasy of Tolkien or Dragonlance. Others still want comedic fantasy like Piers Anthony's Xanth or Myth Adventures or are influenced by other sources like Final Fantasy, Naruto, Bleach, Slayers, or Dragonball Z. And, you still have others that want Arabian Adventures, Ravenloft, Darksun, or Planescape.
No, the third reason to ban is looking at the setting and how you want things to work in the setting and using the best tool for the job. For me, it is, in general, not WOTC supplements for DND (or d20M), but third party.
And ToB doesn't fit you're game when Book of Iron Might does why exactly? When you were describing the iron might book I mistook it for ToB. They sound practically identicle.
And ToB doesn't fit you're game when Book of Iron Might does why exactly? When you were describing the iron might book I mistook it for ToB. They sound practically identicle.
No, they are not practically identical. They might allow cool things, but mechanically there is a lot of difference.
No, they are not practically identical. They might allow cool things, but mechanically there is a lot of difference.
Yep. Iron Might is less well-balanced, less flavorful, and... well, overall, just less well-designed. It's a Monte Cook product, with everything that entails.
I'll qualify my "less flavorful" statement: it, like many Monte Cook products, has some great flavor writing. Its mechanics just don't lend themselves very well to backing said flavor up.
No, the third reason to ban is looking at the setting and how you want things to work in the setting and using the best tool for the job. For me, it is, in general, not WOTC supplements for DND (or d20M), but third party.
I have no problem with a DM who doesn't want to use Tome of Battle because, as in your case, you prefer something else. It would be presumptuous of me to demand every DM use it. It's the "warriors should not get nice things" attitude that gets my goat. The fact that you are using another sourcebook that provides warriors with nice things shows that is not your case. It's simply a different method preference.
Yep. Iron Might is less well-balanced, less flavorful, and... well, overall, just less well-designed. It's a Monte Cook product, with everything that entails.
Better desigined. I find Iron Might much better designed than TOB (just on the basis of TOB's per encounter system, the mechanics and schools) and it provides the DM the system. Flavor, I and my players can do on our own.
And, actually, it is a Mike Mearls product done under Monte's banner and, the precursor for Mike's Iron Heroes, which I didn't like for its classes, skill system, and tokens.
No, the third reason to ban is looking at the setting and how you want things to work in the setting and using the best tool for the job. For me, it is, in general, not WOTC supplements for DND (or d20M), but third party.
We have very different philosophies when it comes to banning or permitting sourcebooks, it seems. For groups that I've played in, the general standard of practice was that if someone had a particular interest in a particular class or other bit from the source material, the default has always been fit the setting to the players, rather than vice versa. If something is particularly cheesy or bad or ruins the party dynamic (mechanically or
RP-wise), by all means, suggest alternatives that accomplish the same RP niche- a duskblade instead of fighter/evoker, poison dusk lizardfolk if a kobold doesn't really fit what the player wants to do, and so on- but again, the default in my groups has always to say "yes" and discuss with the player how to fit their character into the world, not to ban something because it doesn't fit with the DM's singular vision of the world.
For that matter, though, what with the enormous gulf in quality between WotC supplements and all but the very best of the third-party material out there, I've never heard of anyone who had a sourcebook embargo that worked in that particular direction ::Shrugs::
For that matter, though, what with the enormous gulf in quality between WotC supplements and all but the very best of the third-party material out there, I've never heard of anyone who had a sourcebook embargo that worked in that particular direction ::Shrugs::
You shoudl spend more time at EnWorld. ;P
Yes, there is a lot of bad 3rd party out there (most from the earliest days of d20). However, there is also a lot of very good third party material out there as well. In my opinion the majority of WOTC supplements can't compete at the top level or even above average level, ymmv, since we are dealing with subjective opinions of quality.
We have very different philosophies when it comes to banning or permitting sourcebooks, it seems.
Yep. However, among the groups with whom I have played, it is common for the DM to tailor based on the setting.