Why?

[Blackfang108]

There's no app for that?

I have an iPod classic.

It doesn't have an app for anything.

[Blackfang108]

I read the first post, then I clicked on the final page. I then searched for the names of the Tome of Battle classes to confirm that every thread like this devolves into "why can't we talk about classes without being told to play 9swords" versus "everyone should play 9swords".

I was, of course, correct.

To be fair, Bo9S didn't come up once in the thread I used as a reference.

EDIT: The character was a high level Binder/Knight of the Sacred Seal/Incarnum Blade

I was told to change Incarnum blade as the advice for "which feat would work best, A/B (Or feat suggestions)

The sad part is, that was going to be my Cohort. (to an Epic Soulknife/Something that makes it not suck(not soulbow)/something else that isn't great but worked) And the campaign imploded before we ever met my cohort.

Also, Fax, you always have the best Avatars. LOVE the new one. (or has it been around a while and I just didn't notice.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The second part: Why is it close minded to not allow certain books? Even if it is just because the DM thinks it's over-powered, that's a perfectly valid reason to not allow something. Not to mention other reasons, such as it goes against the plot thread that they have developed for the campaign.

Already beat ya to it, mostly. Books aren't overpowered: what is inside them, maybe, but from front to back, no one book is overpowered, well, unless you taped the PHB, MM, and DMG all together, at least.

Is it more work for a DM to look at Iron Heart Surge and go "This needs work" rather than outright banning Tome of Battle? Yeah, but that's 1 maneuver in roughly 160 pages of book. Or take Complete Arcane: in its nearly 200 pages, the only game breaker is the Thought Bottle item, and that's because of the core rules on item crafting no-less!

The last part: Why does he need a "Damned good reason" to not allow the full re-training of a persons character? That's a lot of crap to deal with mid-campaign, and can quite possibly slow it down to a crawl, and while that might not hurt anything in a RL game, on a PBP on these forums, it could quite literally kill the entire game as other players start to lose interest because they aren't actively pursuing the plot line.

The problem is you're assuming too much. With some key exceptions or "exploits," I'm of the view that everything printed in the full gallery of 3.5 -all the way from the core three to the farthest reaches of Dragon and Dungeon Magazines to the super obscure Dragonlance rulebooks- could see play.

PHB2 isn't obscure nor is it game shattering in any crunch regard. If a player asks for a retraining side-quest or option to swap out his Fighter 7 for instead Fighter 2/Warblade 5, then its okay if the DM goes "Well, maybe, but you first have to deal with finishing this bit of the quest, okay? So it may be a while." If the DM just says "no" and nothing more, that's a problem - more so with the DM for not communicating.

On a broader spectrum, I view classes as a metagame construct. Not all fighters are Fighters. Not all assassins have Assassin levels or are even working towards getting Assassin levels. So if I had someone bring to me their Fighter 5 and say "I don't feel like I'm matching up with the rest of the group - you mentioned something about a Warblade earlier?" I'd let him switch out to some mash of Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Warblade/Crusader/whatever-else-how-you that fit his concept of the character and probably without the retraining quest, too!

'm considering(specifically, I probably am, I'm developing a full campaign, despite my fervid admonitions that I would never DM) running my first ever campaign soon, and I am quite likely not going to allow certain things because I, A: Don't want a super high powered campaign for my first, B: Am not familiar with the material, C: Just don't want it in my campaign. Am I wrong and close-minded for wanting my first game to go a bit easier by not allowing certain things? Is another DM, even one with lots of experience, wrong for not allowing certain things just so they can have an easier time? I'd say no personally.

As pertaining to A: In that case, talk to your players. If someone really wants to break a game of 3.5, you'd better believe they could do it with just core.

As pertaining to B: If you aren't familiar with it and you don't have time to at least skim the book within, say, a week since the player asked about playing an Incarnate, then, honestly, I say you don't have time for DMing! More seriously, though, if one is not familiar with something and a player is interested in playing that something, a person shoul try to learn it so he feels comfortable not only for the player using it, but also for he himself to use it against the players!

As pertaining to C: Why, though? I don't understand this question. The way I see DND crunch is that it should be used to meet a desired goal. Sometimes my incarnates don't tap into the usual route of soulmelds, but instead worship their ancestors. Other times my druids are Druid X, but rather totemists who seek to become true animals. Other times my druids are Cleric X/Nature-themed-prestige-class Y. Sometimes my wizards are archivists and vice versa. And most martial classes (that is to say, excluding the Paladin, any class with good BAB) are a grab bag of abilities for what fits the character concept.


In your particular case, it makes sense to stick to just core - and probably low levels, too - just so that you can get an idea of how to DM. For other DMs with their own little excuses and lack of time, maybe. But for a hypothetical person with system mastery? You'd better believe I expect that guy to let me play anything I can imagine!

[Boci]

Usually people are only asking for one or two things. If they're asking for an entire build then they say they're asking for an entire build.

YEs, but the information they learn by being offered an entire new build could be used in a future game or by someone else reading the thread. As I said, maybe a compromise could be reached and its agreed that offering advice that relates to the character concept by it outside the perameters of the OP's guidlines could be put into a spoiler.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I respect your gaming choices and I'm not looking to convince you to play a Warblade, but I'm gonna have to call Inigo Montoya on that word choice.

Admittedly yes, you will. BUT, that's because I called it fighting magic. But it's literally blade magic. Chapter 3 is called blade magic. I know a ton of it is more mundane but it's literally blade magic in the same way a paladin is literally a paladin.

You are incorrect. The Warblade has no magic. It is very mundane — just not painfully so.

What you are mistaking for "magic" is simply "nice things".

It's literally called Blade magic. I know it's not too supernatural but the fact that D&D chose to label it as such does seem to hint it of a different nature.

But I wouldn't know, really. I must inevitably acknowledge this much.

[olentu]

Admittedly yes, you will. BUT, that's because I called it fighting magic. But it's literally blade magic. Chapter 3 is called blade magic. I know a ton of it is more mundane but it's literally blade magic in the same way a paladin is literally a paladin.



It's literally called Blade magic. I know it's not too supernatural but the fact that D&D chose to label it as such does seem to hint it of a different nature.

But I wouldn't know, really. I must inevitably acknowledge this much.

And of course since it has the word blade in addition to magic we must give that equal weight so no maneuver can be done without involving a bladed weapon of some sort.

[Lord.Sorasen]

And of course since it has the word blade in addition to magic we must give that equal weight so no maneuver can be done without involving a bladed weapon of some sort.

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.

But then, I think the beguiler and warmage are ideal sorts of casters, so I feel very differently than many. I actually think firing arrows more quickly than others, running faster, hitting harder via power attack, are nice things. Admittedly this creates a balance issue but at the level a group like my own plays at this has never been anything more than a theoretical difference. I've yet to personally witness it. Not to say it doesn't exist for it so clearly does.

[olentu]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.

But then, I think the beguiler and warmage are ideal sorts of casters, so I feel very differently than many. I actually think firing arrows more quickly than others, running faster, hitting harder via power attack, are nice things. Admittedly this creates a balance issue but at the level a group like my own plays at this has never been anything more than a theoretical difference. I've yet to personally witness it. Not to say it doesn't exist for it so clearly does.

Oh it is fine that you feel that maneuvers feel magical but I was commenting on how silly I think it is to bother pointing out the name since presumably you would feel the same way even if it was called "mundane motions".

[Fax Celestis]

The second part: Why is it close minded to not allow certain books? Even if it is just because the DM thinks it's over-powered, that's a perfectly valid reason to not allow something. Not to mention other reasons, such as it goes against the plot thread that they have developed for the campaign.

Because no book (no, not even that one) is wholesale broken or overpowered. Every book has broken things in it, and it is the DM's responsibility to either deny players from using them or modifying them to the point where they are not destructive.

Also, Fax, you always have the best Avatars. LOVE the new one. (or has it been around a while and I just didn't notice.)

This incarnation of Ililani's been here for a bit. Thinking about getting another pic of her done soon.

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane.

You base the entirety of your feeling of material on the title of a chapter? Never mind that the majority of maneuvers are Extraordinary, making them no more magical than a rogue's ability to dodge a fireball with nowhere to dodge to.

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.

-SRD: Special Abilities

[Veyr]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic.

Have you ever played one? They play extremely differently from basically all magical classes.

[sonofzeal]

What perhaps you don't realize I'm saying is that I strongly feel that the use of these classes to me feels magic. And saying that the name blade magic certainly seems to imply a magical feel, even if it is mundane. Naturally the idea that the title implies only blades can be used is a stylistic decision and doesn't reflect the actual result... Or it's named badly in the case of sword sage, which is why I called it fighting magic by mistake. But I still stand on the belief that for me personally there's a distinct magical feel to it and I cannot shake that feeling. I don't care how much it balances the classes. Balance isn't really what I was particularly searching for anyway.

I have to ask - have you played a Martial Adept, or a Fighter with Martial Study feats?

Merely reading the book can give you the wrong impression some times. The way it's set up certainly resembles magic in some ways, with a variety of named powers that you unlock at increasingly high level. Most other melee classes are doing basically the same thing at lvl 5 as they are at lvl 20, and this might be what's giving you that impression. The rules certainly look magical in some ways. But the gameplay feels melee to me, and like you I'm a big fan of melee characters.

A Swordsage is a martial artist, slightly mystical in the way a Monk or a Ninja is, and as such they defy physical law from time to time by disappearing or air-walking or drawing fire to their blade. A Crusader is a holy warrior, and their connection to the Divine also lets them push the rules a bit, just as the Paladin does. A Warblade is just straight up badass though, and I love him for it.



Really, I think the reason they don't feel "magical" to me is because the resource management element is removed. A mage can reshape the world x/day, but they have to parcel out that x/day and force they use in one fight means they might be lacking that later. Wizards and Sorcerers, and to a lesser extent Clerics and Druids, can't afford to go all-out in any random fight without risking taking a backseat in the next. As a result, they have to take a bit more reserved role. They have to be careful, both with their resources and with damage taken. They have to play a cautious, defensive, conservative game - and then go all-out rockettag offence when needed.

Fighters and Barbarians and Paladins and Knights and Samurai and Swashbuckers and whatnot are pretty much all-out, all the time. Sometimes they can use their distinctive trips, sometimes they can't, and there's still tactical elements with target choice and movement and other factors, but there's very little in the way of resource management and conservation. When the fight starts, they'll almost always try to engage the enemy as quickly as possible (which may mean ranged weapons while kiting, or just WAAAAAAGH), and use any applicable abilities whenever they're relevant. There's exceptions I know, and the Barbarian does have his Rage tokens, but that's the general pattern. Mages play a defensive, conservative game, and melee plays an offensive, all-out game.

And into this, we have Martial Adepts. Guess what sort of game they play? Their maneuvers might technically be single-use, but they regenerate easily enough that you can rest on them heavily every fight. There's tactical choices, but if you have Emerald Razor and Power Attack, you're probably going to use that combo early on in the fight, rather than carefully holding it in reserve. You can always get it back later if you need it. All three martial adepts are in-your-face, offensive, and rarely have to worry about conserving any resources. They're generally richer tactically than other melee classes, but I see that as a good thing. And all three support the same gameplay style you've come to expect from other melee classes.

[Veyr]

I like Martial Adepts because there is resource management, but it is very different from that of Spellcasters. Spellcasters have to ration spell slots — even if you play a 15-minute workday, that very fact itself is a recognition of the limitation of spell slots and a way of 'rationing' them — whereas Initiators, especially Crusaders (which are, IMO, the best of the group in terms of game-design), have every reason to use their maneuvers ASAP. At the same time, they can't spam the same moves constantly, and I like that.

[Dsurion]

Having said that, I have an question of my own, Why do people who don't care or don't like to optimize, read threads concerning optimization?

Ah, I happen to be one such person reading such a thread right now! Well, honestly, it's pretty hard to avoid optimization threads 'round here in the 3.5 section. I learned even before the Roleplaying Games section was split that you had to sort through a lot of optimization threads to find other cool stuff (plots, campaign ideas, campaign journals, etc.). I tend not to post in these threads, but for whatever reason this one interested me enough to read all the way through.

Part of it is boredom, part of it is curiosity. Sometimes I see a class combination or something that seems somewhat original or different, just to edify myself, but I usually refrain form expressing my opinions either way. Besides, sometimes it's hard to let threads like this go, like watching the proverbial train about to crash.

Also, I like that this thread has already been filled with the seed of a Tome of Battle debate/flame thread, invocation of the "Stormwind Fallacy", the "Fluff is mutable"/"Classes are metagame constructs" argument, and most of the usual stuff people complain about on these boards for being divisive. It's like having a distilled version of the RPG section of GitP in one thread!

[The Glyphstone]

Nah, we're still lacking 'Monks are balanced', and 'Fighters can beat wizards'. Give it some time to mature though.

on-topic: Why Not?

[Seerow]

Nah, we're still lacking 'Monks are balanced', and 'Fighters can beat wizards'. Give it some time to mature though.

on-topic: Why Not?

Yeah, sorry, all that went into this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201876

[Cerlis]

@Thrice Dead Cat: I empathize, understand and agree with much if not all you say. But i grow worried that it seemed your 3 major posts all basically started with "I view it this way", expessially when the OP obviously views it a different way. Which makes it basically boil down to "You should think like me".


@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

[Greenish]

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn

The what now? No maneuver gives a bonus to any stat.

[Veyr]

Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

This is a completely factually incorrect statement. That was neither the intent nor the result of what was put into Tome of Battle.

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn

Doesn't exist.

or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game

The Warblade doesn't get Desert Wind. It only gets disciplines with purely mundane effects.

I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

Have you ever played an initiator?

[MeeposFire]

There is nothing magical about white raven and there is absolutely nothing that mimics cat's grace (or even anything like it so I don't even understand that comment at all).

Also desert wind IS magical. That is why so many of its maneuvers are supernatural and not extraordinary.

Honestly I think blade magic was used as a way to bring in eyes and as a way to show how people watching in universe may think it is magic just like how an epic characters mundane abilities would seem magical to the standard onlooker.

[Seerow]

One has to wonder how much better received ToB would have been received by the masses if WotC had released the Warblade first as a standalone class. Some people can't seem to understand that different classes are different, even when they use the same core mechanic. Seriously people complaining about all of ToB being magic is like me complaining that Wizards are such great healers because they use the same mechanic as Clerics.

[Elric VIII]

@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

What about level 1 Barbarians that can perform superhuman acts of strength? An Orc Barbarian with 18 starting Str has 26 Str while raging. That's enough to lift 920lbs over your head or lift 1840lbs. This character can can basically juggle 3 full grown cows.

An average person (10 Str) can stab a 2nd level Barbarian with a dagger in his sleep (coup de grace) and, assuming a 16 Con (pretty standard) and assuming the person rolls max damage, the barbarian has a 100% chance of surviving the hp damage and only a 60% chance of dying (DC 18 save vs +6 Fort).

Niether of those seems to be mundane in the least. Just because the maneuvers use the same text formatting as spells does not make them any more magical than the previous examples.

[Fax Celestis]

@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

Are you using the definition of "extraordinary" that the game uses? Because you don't seem like you are.

"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."

That sounds pretty much exactly like an impossible combat style, such as many presented in various media. Most of the cast from Soul Calibur, for example, or No More Heroes. Bleach fits under that definition, even, though an argument could be made for its magic-osity, despite it being in your blood. Point is, "extraordinary" fits a whole host of concepts that most people don't give it credit for, ranging from wuxia to super saiyan, from Conan's indomitability to Legolas' peerless archery.

[Divide by Zero]

Also note that the blatantly magical effects (fire, teleportation, etc.) are explicitly supernatural, and are only obtainable without feats by the monk (who is also explicitly supernatural) replacement, so you can't legitimately use them to argue against the other stuff. The DS healing stuff is a little questionable, but there's nothing even remotely magical about the warblade at the very least.

[Veyr]

Actually, the teleportation stuff (at least, Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink) is Ex, not Su. See Fax Celestis's post regarding what Ex actually means as opposed to what people think it means, though. Those maneuvers are Ex, albeit mystical and fairly non-mundane, but they are also Swordsage-only, which is explicitly mystical to begin with. The Warblade does not receive any non-mundane maneuvers, Ex or not, with the possible exceptions of Lightning Throw (which certainly shows up in media as a mundane effect even though it's absolutely physically impossible) and Earthstrike Quake (which, again, is a fairly common "mundane" ability: see the Diablo III Barbarian, for example, or the WarCraft III Tauren Chieftain).

[Greenish]

Actually, the teleportation stuff (at least, Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink) is Ex, not Su.

Although given that they require line of sight and line of effect, it's basically just moving really fast.

[Veyr]

Although given that they require line of sight and line of effect, it's basically just moving really fast.

Also true, they're supposed to be very-rapid, very-sneaky movement, I believe. As noted in my own post, though, even as a huge fan of the book I don't quite swallow that; instead I accept this as a somewhat-unusual but perfectly-acceptable Ex-but-not-strictly-mundane ability. Like dragons' breath or whatever.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

@Thrice Dead Cat: I empathize, understand and agree with much if not all you say. But i grow worried that it seemed your 3 major posts all basically started with "I view it this way", expessially when the OP obviously views it a different way. Which makes it basically boil down to "You should think like me".

I present some things that are opinion, yes, but I try to explain myself clearly and look for relevant information in the books. I may not be right, that possibility does exist, yes. But I like how I play DND and I do think that others could find it fun. If nothing else, never have I found more knowledge on a subject to be a terrible thing.

That being said, I do try to be objective when such is the case, but when you get into scenarios on how a person feels the game should be played or how they have experienced it being played, well, that's going to be nearly all anecdotal evidence. The best one can do is minimize sentence like "The way I see it," but I know I do a poor job of doing that job.

@Blade Magic.

yall are nitpicking at the fact that he literally said "its called blade magic" when his intent was obviously about what it meant, not that it was literally titled blade magic. It doesnt matter if its called blade magic or not. Its obvious however, that the creators of the book wanted to make "melee combat" more interesting and so essentially simplified several supernatural effects and made them into "extrodinary abilities".

Whether its a white raven manuever that mimics Cats grace for a turn, or about a whole third of Desert wind which practically dublicate half the fire and speed spells in the game, I feel the same as LS, and i believe the original creators would agree that Its "Magic Melee" and not just melee.

Honestly, this is an issue, because some people flip out when it is broadly called blade magic and automatically assume everyone is throwing fireballs around and doing crazy teleportation shenanigans, when, save for blowing feats or buying magic items to get that sort of thing, it is only the monk analogue that can those things. Then people say things like "it feels too anime" and other such nonsense which doesn't really address the issue when other posters have said that they have no problem with the fluff (in so much that they can accept that a lot of it is bad, but hey, welcome to a 3.5 book!) or how they dealt with fluff edits and showing how a Warblade could be anyone from Ajax to a pre-divine Hercules to even a Conan and so much more.

In the end, they are allowed to have whatever opinion on Tome of Battle that they do have. They could say they don't like because it's too bananas, but that just sounds silly to me and my habit when Tome of Battle does show up is to get as much info on a given person's particular views and try to show them that it isn't just crazy Kung-fu spirit fists, energy balls, and suddenly elementals, but also much more mundane for a truly rough and tough melee character. While it does have a very high optimization floor, assuming that most of the people aren't doing the stereotypical healbot cleric, blaster wizard, skill-monkey rogue, and hit it with a stick non-focused fighter, Tome of Battle isn't ground shattering: it is simply new options for "monks," "paladins," "fighters," "barbarians," and "rangers." The fact that it meshes so well with the latter three classes says something to at least giving more uses to those classes, sans quotations.

EDIT: A note on the Crusader's healing: considering how HP are rather ambiguous in nature and the presence of the marshal ACF from PHB2 that allows him to simply say a word and give temporary HP from pure motivation can lead one to assume that not every lost point of HP is from a cut or nick or scratch, but some of it also represents the strength of motivation and endurance, which, given a being with great divine insight and quick words, makes sense that most of his stuff is simply a modified cure X wounds on stick. Yeah, crusaders can slap someone so hard they mimic the effects of a heal spell on an ally, but this is DND land, where cats are lethal to newborn children and a 1st level character to juggle cows.

[Elric VIII]

Tome of Battle isn't ground shattering: it is simply new options for "monks," "paladins," "fighters," "barbarians," and "rangers." The fact that it meshes so well with the latter three classes says something to at least giving more uses to those classes, sans quotations.

This is exactly why I, personally, like ToB (although you forgot that they help melee rogues out quite a bit too). The classes you listed are all pretty front-loaded, so after 2-6 levels ToB classes are great for making up the deficits.

After all, I see nothing more barbaric about Barbarian 20 when compared to Barbarian 2/Warblade 18 or Crusader 18. You can focus on Tiger Claw to emulate a feral nature or perhaps Devoted Spirit to represent a ferverant rage.