PDA

View Full Version : Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic Power Levels



lordmarcoos
2007-04-07, 09:49 PM
Hi, I was just curious how people thought the two books compared, power-wise. As in, if a DM were to try and gut the class list down to just those two books, how would they compare? And what other Classes of about equal power could be added to the list to fill in gaps, i.e. trapmonkey and healbot. Thanks.

Arbitrarity
2007-04-07, 09:51 PM
ToM has junky classes, relatively, ToB has win melee classes. You'd have **** casters, but super fighters.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-07, 09:53 PM
i like them both, the ToM certianly isnt the end all magic book but the ToB is amazing

lordmarcoos
2007-04-07, 09:55 PM
So that's one for Tome of Magic is crap. I just kinda peered at it at the hobby store, I haven't looked too in depth but was considering the purchase, and I already own ToB, so i thought maybe they were built to be paired nicely. guess not.

Raum
2007-04-07, 10:00 PM
The ToM classes are fairly weak, though I do like the flavor of Binders. The Shadowcaster is handicapped by both a limited number of abilities and an extremely limited number of uses per day. The Truenamer is either very weak or too powerful depending on how good you are at optimizing skill points.

The ToB classes are a reasonable moderate power level...neither as strong as full casters nor as weak as most non-casters.

Dhavaer
2007-04-07, 10:01 PM
Tome of Magic is three seperate systems, each with one class, instead of one system with three classes. Shadow magic is pretty cool, but much weaker than standard Vancian.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-04-07, 10:15 PM
ToB is better than standard melee; ToM is weaker than standard casters. Since they're starting from opposite ends of the power spectrum anyway (casters being overpowered, meleers being underpowered), they're pretty close to meeting in the middle. ToB is badly needed for melee-types to stay competitive.

Both books tend to have better endurance than the standard caster; the Binder's abilities are typically "every 5 rounds," whereas the Truenamer's DCs rise by 2 each time (they can keep using their abilities; it's just too hard to try in combat), and the ToB classes can get all of their maneuvers back easily. The Shadowcaster, which is most like a traditional mage out of all four systems, is the one exception to this. This does mean, though, that they can't burn as brightly as, for instance, a Psion manifesting a maximally-augmented power every round (or even a caster casting their spells in descending order by level).

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-07, 10:22 PM
I agree with what every else is saying, ToB is amazing, while ToM is...a bunch of "flavor"-casters. I love Binder and Shadowcaster flavor and their abilities are cool, but aren't up to snuff. Truenamers are a complete waste of time. I know where they were trying to go with it, but it just is too crap and hopeless, their utterances are crappy and impossible to use after a few levels (you need like a 40 int in mid levels to do anything). Binders are a lot better than you think and don't really need more than a couple more powerful vestiges and they are set. Shadowcasters need something, I was thinking fighter base attack bonus (really, they are archers that impede movement and have small buffs, got a whole description of that) and some more damage-dealing mysteries. I personally have a soft spot for Shadowcasters as I'm playing one in an upcoming campaign that has tons of flavor.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-04-07, 10:30 PM
I care just as much about how cool my characters are as how powerful they are, so if one is lacking the other can make up for it. That being said, I love ToM and ToB, ToB more because it delivers on both levels but I find the classes and magic systems of the ToM very cool.

Fizban
2007-04-07, 10:52 PM
If you change the shadowcaster to uses/encounter instead of day, then it would be able to match endurance with the ToB classes and binders. In fact, if you add crusader, you could adventure all day as long as there were mook encounters to heal up with (as the Crusader needs to attack people to heal things).

I've heard suggestions to change the truenamer's utterance DC's to use 15+CR instead of 15+CRx2 (I'd also change the recital DC to HD instead of HDx2, and items get 15+CL instead of +CLx2). The designer's set up the DC's to scale exponentially, and it works for a while. The DC's still need to be effective at high levels when magic items can give a +10 or +20 bonus easily, and the exponential growth works for getting them that high. Apparently it never crossed their minds to just say "bonuses from magic do not apply to a truespeaking check made to use an utterance", or even further, "magic cannot grant a bonus on a truespeaking check, ever", or maybe, "only powerful magic such as limited wish and wish can grant a bonus to a truespeaking check, lesser magic fails to affect it". They could even flavorize it:

The Law of Power
The universe is stronger than any mortal or even immortal, and as a result, it takes incredibly powerful magic to alter a truespeaking check. Truespeaking checks to use utterances and recitals are not affected by bonuses from spells, magic items, or supernatural abilities, though a penalty may still apply. Limited wish may grant a +5 bonus to one check for one utterance, wish may grant a +10 bonus, and miracle may grant a +10 bonus if the caster pays the standard 5,000xp cost.

That even lets you refer to them as the three laws, which always sounds cooler than two laws.

illathid
2007-04-07, 10:59 PM
Well, the binder is really good... but the shadowcaster is kinda meh, and the whole truespeak mechanic is just crap.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-07, 11:01 PM
Hmm...

If I replace all core classes with the ToB and ToM... then...

D&D would start resembling balance!

Draz74
2007-04-07, 11:05 PM
Tome of Magic was an attempt to fix the caster/noncaster imbalance by making new, weak casters that match the power level of the Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin/Rogue sort of level.

Tome of Battle was an attempt to fix the caster/noncaster imbalance by making new, strong melee fighters that match the power level of the Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer/Psion/Favored Soul sort of level.

So if they had ended up being the same power level, it would mean the designers' intent failed miserably. But they didn't fail miserably.

Tome of Magic classes are ... about the power level they were meant to be. Binder might be a little stronger than the "normal PHB noncaster" power level that was aimed for, kind of like a caster-Bard in power. Truenamer is weaker, more like the power level of the Warlock/Fighter/Monk. Shadowcaster is somewhere between Binder and Truenamer, but which one it is closer to in power varies a lot depending on whose opinion you ask.

Tome of Battle classes are ... almost the power level they were meant to be. They are pretty comparable with the Psion/Favored Soul/Sorcerer classes. I haven't heard anyone who played with them who claims they are as powerful (broken) as the Cleric/Wizard/Druid.

So the popularity of Tome of Battle is partly because you can add it to a game, and have it be reasonably balanced with existing classes, without banning anything. Just throw it in with all the other standard and splatbook classes, and you've expanded the players' options in a meaningful way.

Tome of Magic, on the other hand, is great too, but requires more work. If you just add it into a campaign that uses lots of splatbooks and bans nothing, you'll find yourself with new casters that really don't contribute much except flavor. On the other hand, if you ban all the original full casters and classes that are that powerful (including Tome of Battle classes), you could have an interesting new twist on the game where casters and noncasters are actually balanced.

Like, if the following were your options, you'd have a reasonable balance level:
Barbarian, Bard, Binder, Fighter, Hexblade, Monk, Ninja, Paladin, Psychic Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Shadowcaster, Soulknife, Truenamer, Warlock.

In a group like that, you'd have the Bard (if well-built), Binder, Psychic Warrior, Rogue, and Scout probably being the "stronger" classes, and the Fighter, Monk, Ninja, Soulknife, Truenamer, and Warlock being the "weaker" classes, but the difference between strong and weak classes would be MUCH smaller than it is in most games.

On the other hand, another well-balanced campaign could have the following selection:
Beguiler, Crusader, Duskblade, Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman, Swordsage, Warblade, Wu Jen

EDIT:
If I replace all core classes with the ToB and ToM... then...

D&D would start resembling balance!

Actually, that would be an interesting way to try a campaign ... where the melee people are actually stronger than the casters.

Fizban
2007-04-07, 11:31 PM
Actually, that would be an interesting way to try a campaign ... where the melee people are actually stronger than the casters.
Tangent: that's how MMO's always feel to me, I can never do squat as an elementalist in guild wars.

On topic: that would actually be a very reasonable way to set things up, since casters call still do things with other spells that melee classes can't touch, and the shadowcaster still has some of the great battlefield control spells.

Further more, it would be suggested to expand the shadowcaster into the Planar Adept, by making a whole bunch more mystery trees and adding choice of flavor. Trees for different elements and other spells the shadowcaster doesn't get. Fax Celestis started doing this on the boards, but it was too big of a project and never got finished.

Lord Tataraus
2007-04-07, 11:54 PM
Further more, it would be suggested to expand the shadowcaster into the Planar Adept, by making a whole bunch more mystery trees and adding choice of flavor. Trees for different elements and other spells the shadowcaster doesn't get. Fax Celestis started doing this on the boards, but it was too big of a project and never got finished.

That's an interesting idea, do you have a link?

Fizban
2007-04-08, 02:19 AM
Search is your friend. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10394&highlight=planar+adept)

Njerus_Xhazekarath
2007-04-08, 02:38 AM
I personally am a great fan of ToM. I bought it as soon as I could, and read through it and actually enjoyed it. However, even if the contents are flavourful and interesting (while not as mind boggling as MoI), it will never be playable in a "normal" campaign.

Binder, while highly versatile and flavourful at once, has more limits than it has abilities to do things. Of course, it's more or less a exaggaration of what it actually is. Nevertheless, it is seriously underpowered, and even a warlock can overpower a binder easily. Flavourful (IMO) as a class may be, while underpowered also, as a class can be.

Shadowcaster is a class that had lots of potential- and just potential. It is very unique in system, as well as fascinating in concept; but its Mysteries are too weak and too narrow in terms of versatility and utility. A shadowcaster's abilities can be countered by numerous foes, a lich for example. Useful spells (mysteries) are extremely limited, while its daily uses are a bit of a problem too. I must admit that while it is my favourite class of all 3.5 classes I have read, it is still far too underpowered to be played along with other "standard" classes- that is, non-ToM classes.

Truenamer, arguably, is the best (most powerful?) of the lot. Personally don't really like the mechanics, but it is. Very unique in its own right and indeed, it is very fun to role play if you are into rp-ing. However, since multiple activation of the lexicon will get harder and harder, and since your number of the usable lexica compare unfavourably to that of a sorcerer's, it is somewhat underpowered too.

In summary, Tome of Magic is more of a flavour-focused, great-for-role-playing type of supplement. When you learn more about them, you'll learn to like them too.


In comparison, ToB, is somewhat overpowered supplement in my opinion. Of course, not "broken", but the classes and their abilities ensure them higher chance of survival. Good for rp-ing, and also powergaming.



I know many of what I have said are highly personal and has a few arguable points, but that's what I think of them. ToM, a flavourful yet underpowered; ToB, an all-round supplement that has both flavour and power. Me? I'd rather pick ToM at any time over ToB if (ever) my DM allows it (umm... my DM says that it just brings down the overall power rating of the party lol).

lordmarcoos
2007-04-08, 03:56 AM
Draz74, on the note of your comments about the different powered sets of classes, has anyone done a writeup anywhere of the power levels of ALL the base classes? just a kind of long spread of 'em, so that a DM could say, "Alright, I'm only allowing classes of power rankings 7 through 16,"or something to that effect?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-08, 04:06 AM
Marcoos: sort of, but people's opinions differ. There's a lot of general consensus (i.e. CoDzilla and the wizard at the top, the CWar Samurai at the bottom, etc) but for the intermediate classes it's hard to say precisely; a lot depends on build, situation, etc.

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-04-08, 11:28 AM
Well, this is the general thought from the CharOp board:

Binder is good in a lot of builds, but it's really hard to make it the centerpiece. Best used as a dip for other things, and there it performs brilliantly.

Shadowcaster, as written, is very underpowered.

There is exactly one playable Truenamer build. One. Don't use it.

Crusader is a very, very good class. Just make sure to work out the recovery method for yourself; it doesn't always make sense.

If you're playing a Swordsage, you're taking Adaptive Style. After that, it's a solid class, up there with the rest of the ToB stuff.

The opinion on the Warblade varies; I like it for its insane saves due to boosts and its swift action recovery.

Alveanerle
2007-05-28, 09:11 AM
One related question - are ToB maneuvers only usable when wielding weapons appropriate for the discipline that grants them?

Khantalas
2007-05-28, 09:14 AM
Answer: no. You can use them with any weapon.

Starsinger
2007-05-28, 09:20 AM
One related question - are ToB maneuvers only usable when wielding weapons appropriate for the discipline that grants them?

I'm pretty sure you can use them with anything, else there would be no point in taking maneuvers from more than one discipline, as I don't think the disciplines share (m)any weapons.

Jack Mann
2007-05-28, 01:57 PM
The discipline weapons are only useful for things like discipline-related feats and the swordsage's discipline focus abilities.

MeklorIlavator
2007-05-28, 07:31 PM
The discipline weapons are only useful for things like discipline-related feats and the swordsage's discipline focus abilities.

Even the legacy weapons that suposedly represent each school aren't necessarily a weapon of that school.

Nifft
2007-05-28, 08:19 PM
ToM and ToB have a few things in common.

Per-Encounter Balance: The Binder was one of the first attempt at this concept; it's a bit weaker than those that came after, but it's easily within the ballpark of playable. The Martial Adepts (ToB) are a refinement of the same principle, which is also embodied in the Warlock (Complete Arcane), the Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic) and the Dragon Shaman (PHB-II). The Binder's "recovery" mechanic is automatic (just wait 5 rounds), but otherwise strongly resembles the Martial Adept's readied / expended mechanic. His biggest glaring weakness is his inability to switch out his Vestige -- a Martial Adept can switch out his Maneuver set with 5 minutes of free time. There are a number of solutions; I'll discuss them on request (if there's interest).

Skills As Magic: The Truenamer has a lot in common with the Martial Adepts, too. Specifically, the use of a skill (ranks or check) to give a bonus not normally granted by that skill -- such as a Stance which grants you Fire Resistance (or Immunity) based on your Tumble ranks, or a Counter which replaces your Fortitude save with a Concentration check.

Shadowcasters Suck: Actually, this isn't a commonality... but you could give Shadowcasters a bunch of Stances & Maneuvers from the Shadow Hand school and they'd suddenly stop sucking. Heck, give them access to Diamond Mind, Shadow Hand and Setting Sun.

Truenamers Are Brittle -- but not actually weak. Sure, you have to focus like a munchkin on optimizing one skill check, but you are expected to do so. It's built right in to the mechanics. However, your power level is highly dependent on facing critters of "an appropriate CR". If you regularly face foes above your CR, you will suck. If you regularly face piles of low-CR foes, you will rock. It's that simple, and your DM needs to be aware of it.

Cheers, -- N

Alveanerle
2007-05-29, 02:30 AM
The Binder was one of the first attempt at this concept; (...) His biggest glaring weakness is his inability to switch out his Vestige -- a Martial Adept can switch out his Maneuver set with 5 minutes of free time. There are a number of solutions; I'll discuss them on request (if there's interest).


Oh my, seriously interested in a way of making binder more enjoyable to play without causing leak in the dam of balance.

Rincewind
2007-05-29, 02:37 AM
Hi, I was just curious how people thought the two books compared, power-wise. As in, if a DM were to try and gut the class list down to just those two books, how would they compare? And what other Classes of about equal power could be added to the list to fill in gaps, i.e. trapmonkey and healbot. Thanks.

Tome of Battle. Take it. Heroes of Battle is even better. It explains phalanx formation and cavalry charging :smallsmile: For all you D&d - Total War needs.

"The enemy dragon flees, oh, Rome will be amazed at such a glorious victory!" :cool:

Fax Celestis
2007-05-29, 10:16 AM
Oh my, seriously interested in a way of making binder more enjoyable to play without causing leak in the dam of balance.

Wait, you think the Binder is unbalanced?

Jack Mann
2007-05-29, 10:22 AM
I think the concern is that a "fixed" binder could be unbalanced, if the fix was not well-made.

Nifft
2007-05-29, 01:21 PM
Oh my, seriously interested in a way of making binder more enjoyable to play without causing leak in the dam of balance.

My favorite option: you "know" two 1st level Vestiges at 1st level, and you learn one new Vestige every level of Binder you gain. You can switch between Vestiges you know by taking 5 minutes to unbind & rebind.

So at 4th level, you'd know 5 Vestiges: three must be 1st level, two may be 1st or 2nd level.

This makes the Binder more like a Martial Adept -- he can "ready" his mojo and then use it all day long.


New feats:

Extra Vestige
Benefit: You immediately learn a new Vestige (up to the maximum level you can bind).
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, each time learning a new Vestige.

Rapid Pact Binder
Benefit: 1/day you may make a pact as a full-round action (instead of taking one minute). If this would put you over your limit of concurrently bound vestiges, one vestige of your choice is automatically unbound.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, each time gaining another daily use of its ability.


Vestige Phylacteries -- these magic items no longer exist.


Basically, what this variant does is move the resource allocation from magic items & gold (specifically, vestige phylacteries) into a fixed number of slots inherent to the character himself. Also, it feels much less cheesy to spend 5 minutes choosing from a limited set of Vestiges than it does to spend 30 minutes every morning binding every. damn. vestige. into a phylactery, just in case you need one later in the day. The magic item cost becomes trivial, and the main "strategic" decision of the day becomes moot. I prefer that the strategic decision be made at the character design level (vestiges known), and that the tactical decisions be flexible. :)

Cheers, -- N