Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[Red Fel]

Thank you for the greater effort. This summary is much more accurate.
It confuses Feat vs nonFeat for At Will vs Expend and Recover but at least it is more accurate.
It confuses a preference for X over Y as a claim to play a straight X.

Fighter gets a bunch of feats to improve their At Will abilities
Warblade gets fewer feats and 1 stance to improve their At Will abilities
Thus I find Fighters are more efficient at improving At Will abilities

Why did I say "efficient"? Because I optimize for the lowest level that contains the options I want. Trying to compress a list of feats and a list of passive class features(Sneak Attack +1d6, Pounce, ...) necessitates the main class be a bonus feat class like Fighter.

That is why I prefer using Fighter over Warblade as the main class in my builds. Because it satisfies a need. That need being getting more feats in fewer levels so that the ECL of completion is as low as possible.

Again, thank you.

While I recognize your position, and respect your tastes - an appreciation for passive benefits is one of the reasons I prefer melees to casters, so I understand where you're coming from somewhat - I feel the need to point out that, although Warblades do not gain as many feats, and those they do are from a smaller list, they do enjoy some passive class features unrelated to maneuvers. To wit:

• Int to Ref saves when not flat-footed
• Ability to adjust any weapon-specific feat to accommodate a different weapon (meaning, for instance, that taking EWP only once suffices for any exotic weapon)
• Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge
• Int to confirm crits
• Int to damage versus flat-footed or flanked opponents
• Int to oppose bull rush, disarm, feint, overrun, sunder, trip
• Int to attack and damage rolls on AoOs

I realize that these features, alone, do not make the class mind-blowingly amazing. Given your stated position, OldTrees, I do not expect these to change your preferences. (Nor do I aspire to do so. I prefer informing to persuading, generally.) But I feel that, for the sake of completeness, it should be noted that Warblade does have some passive abilities that do not require expend/refresh tracking.

But yes. Ultimately you (again, the generic "you," not you specifically) are balancing these class features, plus maneuvers, plus four bonus feats from a narrow list, against Fighter's more extensive list of bonus feats. And it's apples, oranges, and personal preference.

[OldTrees1]

But yes. Ultimately you (again, the generic "you," not you specifically) are balancing these class features, plus maneuvers, plus four bonus feats from a narrow list, against Fighter's more extensive list of bonus feats. And it's apples, oranges, and personal preference.

Which is exactly why I am a big ToB fan since Fighter(and pretty much most of 3.5 before ToB) fails the fans of Oranges. (Or was Warblade the Apples? )

[Vogonjeltz]

You seem to be missing the point. The feat is part of a progression. The unarmed damage, the improved unarmed strike, anything else listed in that ability, it's all part of a progression. It even perfectly fits your definition of a progression. You're not really saying anything at this point.

It is better. It's just not enough better.

The static part of the monk class feature isn't a progression, the sage variation only grants the progression, not the static bits. Reading comprehension would serve you well in critiquing my points going forward.

With the multitude of ways to get bonuses, and the fact that literally nobody single classes, the actual final difference between two characters is almost always four points or less, usually much less.

BAB is a terrible class feature that the system thinks is worth far more than it actually is. Go look at Incarnum By The Numbers sometime and see what someone with Wizard BAB can do as a front liner. During your entire career, BAB will make up less than half of your attack bonus.

In the designers eyes, an extra 1/3 BAB per level is worth six skill points a level. That's ridiculous.

Frankly if you were to give everyone in the entire game rogue BAB, I doubt anyone would even notice.

Yes, +1>+0, but it's not +1 vs +0. It's +34 vs +32. It's +5 vs +3. It's +16 vs +13. And while you can say that having a higher number is better (and it is), there's no bonus for over hitting your opponent: you just have to beat his AC. It doesn't matter if you do it by one or by five or by thirty: it's a binary status.

It matters anytime there's an opposed attack roll, or for feats like melee evasion. Incidentally making all the BAB progression identical is what happened for 5e, they also made it so only fighters can get 4 attacks.

[eggynack]

The static part of the monk class feature isn't a progression, the sage variation only grants the progression, not the static bits. Reading comprehension would serve you well in critiquing my points going forward.

The static part isn't a progression. The whole thing is a progression, and the whole thing includes the static part. That's what a progression is. You gain a certain amount of ability related to a certain task, in this case unarmed strike, at certain increments. The unarmed swordsage gets that whole progression, because the adaptation doesn't specify that it only gets the parts that increase damage, so it gets the whole shebang.

[Vogonjeltz]

The static part isn't a progression. The whole thing is a progression, and the whole thing includes the static part. That's what a progression is. You gain a certain amount of ability related to a certain task, in this case unarmed strike, at certain increments. The unarmed swordsage gets that whole progression, because the adaptation doesn't specify that it only gets the parts that increase damage, so it gets the whole shebang.

If that were true the entry would say it grants the monks unarmed strike class feature.

It doesn't say that, instead it just mentions the progression which only refers to the increasing unarmed strike damage.

[eggynack]

If that were true the entry would say it grants the monks unarmed strike class feature.

It doesn't say that, instead it just mentions the progression which only refers to the increasing unarmed strike damage.

I don't really see what you're missing here. Improved unarmed strike is an ability fully capable of being part of a progression. Also, if we're going to play the "It would say this" game, then if what you're saying were true, then the entry would say that it grants the monk's unarmed damage progression, instead of the unarmed strike progression.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't really see what you're missing here. Improved unarmed strike is an ability fully capable of being part of a progression. Also, if we're going to play the "It would say this" game, then if what you're saying were true, then the entry would say that it grants the monk's unarmed damage progression, instead of the unarmed strike progression.

I'm not missing anything, I'm pointing to the bad editing of the variant description. If they wanted to give the whole class feature they should have written it that way, but they didn't so it isn't that way.

And unarmed isn't an attack, it's unarmed strike, so no strictly speaking it would say exactly what it does.

[eggynack]

I'm not missing anything, I'm pointing to the bad editing of the variant description. If they wanted to give the whole class feature they should have written it that way, but they didn't so it isn't that way.

They did write it that way. Unarmed strike progression is the progression associated with the ability unarmed strike.

And unarmed isn't an attack, it's unarmed strike, so no strictly speaking it would say exactly what it does.

The table where the ability is is called unarmed damage.

[Fax Celestis]

And when was the last time you made an opposed attack roll?

[Curmudgeon]

And when was the last time you made an opposed attack roll?

I can't speak for Vogonjeltz, but my characters tend to do that fairly often. Opposed attack rolls are the mechanic for disarm attacks. Rather than kill folks and then take their weapons, I find it's much more efficient to do it the other way around.

[Madhava]

I like ToB; good book overall.

I was a skeptic at first. Possibly from reading all the talk about how this 'makes the Fighter obsolete.' But no; Fighter is still a fine dip for many non-primary-caster builds. Pretty much just as it was before. Also, a straight Fighter (for players who love a challenge), or whatever, became able to feat for martial stance, which is a nice little boost.

There are a handful of things that I don't care for in ToB, but most are nitpicky, or just personal taste...

• Crusader: I really wanted to love this class. And I would have... but I can't stand the maneuver readying/recovery mechanic. It's the randomess-element that I've got a problem with, & also the rediculous fluff which attempts to rationalize it.

• Bloodstorm Blade: Defying laws of physics is fine if there's something supernatural happening; a returning weapon is perfectly acceptable Because It's Magic. But this... I find a little questionable. And last,

• Assorted maneuvers which wheren't exactly thought through or clarified thoroghly: Mind strike, for instance. Should this be considered a mind-affecting attack? Does it still work if you can't reach the target's head? What if the target has no head, or many heads?

[Brookshw]

My opinion on Tome of Battle?

well it almost balances wizard and fighter, but I still feel like its missing something. its definitely going in a good direction, but it needs some work.

Kind of disappointing they didn't do anything comparable to metamagic for maneuvers. I guess you can get that from feats, especially tactical versions, but just seems like there was room to grow that was ignored. I've often thought stances might have been interesting for metamagics, not the stances we currently have necessarily, but theoretical stances that will never be written (outside of homebrew).

[Morty]

As far as the argument of giving fighters more versatility and/or power through feats goes... the problem is that the feat system, in itself, is awful. It's bloated, filled with nonsensical prerequisites and trap options, and even for a Fighter feats are an incredibly scarce resource in exchange for what they actually give you. Tying an entire class to it basically dooms it.

[Gwendol]

As far as the argument of giving fighters more versatility and/or power through feats goes... the problem is that the feat system, in itself, is awful. It's bloated, filled with nonsensical prerequisites and trap options, and even for a Fighter feats are an incredibly scarce resource in exchange for what they actually give you. Tying an entire class to it basically dooms it.

Yes, but as has been noted repeatedly, that's a problem with the feats (especially Core feats) that all classes share, and that the fighter suffers the most from due to obvious reasons.

[Necroticplague]

• Bloodstorm Blade: Defying laws of physics is fine if there's something supernatural happening; a returning weapon is perfectly acceptable Because It's Magic. But this... I find a little questionable.

Captain America and Draven would both have a couple of strong words on this subject. And on the subject of defying rules of physics:

Extraordinary abilities, though they may break the laws of physics, are nonmagical, don’t become ineffective in an antimagic field, are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted.

nonmagical =/= follows the laws of physics.

• Assorted maneuvers which wheren't exactly thought through or clarified thoroghly: Mind strike, for instance. Should this be considered a mind-affecting attack? Does it still work if you can't reach the target's head? What if the target has no head, or many heads?

That maneuver doesn't say about all that crap because it doesn't need to. The only thing linking it with the head is the sentence of italicized fluff at the beginning. The rest of it functions very clearly.

[Vogonjeltz]

They did write it that way. Unarmed strike progression is the progression associated with the ability unarmed strike.

The table where the ability is is called unarmed damage.

The feat portion of the class ability neither has the ability to progress nor is it part of the damage progression.

There is demonstrably no change in the feat itself, which by definition culls it from the concept of progression.

And when was the last time you made an opposed attack roll?

I can't speak for Vogonjeltz, but my characters tend to do that fairly often. Opposed attack rolls are the mechanic for disarm attacks. Rather than kill folks and then take their weapons, I find it's much more efficient to do it the other way around.

Curmudgeon answered this. Most of the enemies in the campaigns I've played in have been item using, so sunder and disarm are fairly critical actions.

If your campaigns exclusively feature dragons and non item using creatures, it would probably feel less important.

[Flickerdart]

Oh yea, and a small touch of pedantic nitpicking: Staggering strike requires sneak attack to function. If your fighter has sneak attack, it isn't gonna have all those feats.

Didn't you hear? The fighter class comes with a rogue and barbarian dip built in. It's almost as if "bonus feats forever" isn't good enough as a standalone class feature!

[Psyren]

My opinion on Tome of Battle?

well it almost balances wizard and fighter, but I still feel like its missing something. its definitely going in a good direction, but it needs some work.

There's literally no way to balance these two against each other without either nerfing Wizard into the ground, buffing Fighter into the stratosphere, or simply playing 4e (more or less the halfway-point between the two.) I don't see what's so desirable about that end-state anyway.

Wizards left where they are (with a few adjustments) and Fighter augmented to/replaced with Warblade is the ideal scenario to me.

[aleucard]

There's literally no way to balance these two against each other without either nerfing Wizard into the ground, buffing Fighter into the stratosphere, or simply playing 4e (more or less the halfway-point between the two.) I don't see what's so desirable about that end-state anyway.

Wizards left where they are (with a few adjustments) and Fighter augmented to/replaced with Warblade is the ideal scenario to me.

You don't need martials to be Supermen to make it somewhat balanced; you just need to make sure the martials have functions that are both useful and not accessible to a Caster with even comparable effectiveness in any way, Summons and relatives included. Such a thing is not really possible outside of Uberchargers and the like when ToB is not involved, and is only barely so when it is. Nerf buffs in such a way that they work off of existing ability rather than in ignorance of it (thus forcing Casters to at bare minimum Gish if they want to be comparable to their Fighter buddy even with their buffs, and still not as good as if those buffs were put on said Fighter instead). Massively nerf any form of Minionmancy that supplants martials in the fields of tank and melee offense (goon squads are alright, Godzilla-standins are not). Augment blasting so that its damage-per-optimization is maybe 20-30% higher than martial options in trade for the smaller ammo capacity (and make it so blasting can be done more times per spell slot to account for how weak it is compared to other spells). The comparison from magic to melee should be much more subjective, rather than magic being objectively better in almost any day that a standard campaign could throw at a party, with other goodies aside.

This is talking about balancing magic and martial, however, not on describing our opinion on the ToB. Maybe a different thread?

[mangosta71]

The feat portion of the class ability neither has the ability to progress nor is it part of the damage progression.

There is demonstrably no change in the feat itself, which by definition culls it from the concept of progression.

The change is from not having the feat to having the feat. The feat makes the monk's unarmed strike better. By definition it's part of the progression.

Two words: Power and Attack.

We were discussing tripping. Who uses Power Attack on a trip attempt? (And if you want to do a lot of trips, why aren't you playing a Setting Sun swordsage?)

There's literally no way to balance these two against each other without either nerfing Wizard into the ground, buffing Fighter into the stratosphere, or simply playing 4e (more or less the halfway-point between the two.) I don't see what's so desirable about that end-state anyway.

Balancing the classes makes the wizard not automagically the best at every single situation the party runs into. Seriously, in 3.5, the rest of the party might as well not even be there.

You don't need martials to be Supermen to make it somewhat balanced; you just need to make sure the martials have functions that are both useful and not accessible to a Caster with even comparable effectiveness in any way, Summons and relatives included. Such a thing is not really possible outside of Uberchargers and the like when ToB is not involved, and is only barely so when it is. Nerf buffs in such a way that they work off of existing ability rather than in ignorance of it (thus forcing Casters to at bare minimum Gish if they want to be comparable to their Fighter buddy even with their buffs, and still not as good as if those buffs were put on said Fighter instead). Massively nerf any form of Minionmancy that supplants martials in the fields of tank and melee offense (goon squads are alright, Godzilla-standins are not). Augment blasting so that its damage-per-optimization is maybe 20-30% higher than martial options in trade for the smaller ammo capacity (and make it so blasting can be done more times per spell slot to account for how weak it is compared to other spells). The comparison from magic to melee should be much more subjective, rather than magic being objectively better in almost any day that a standard campaign could throw at a party, with other goodies aside.

You could also change buffs so that they can't be targeted on the caster, or make them not all stack.

Of course, skipping the feat chains there does the Martial Monk absolutely no good, because Weapon Supremacy is not a prerequisite for any other feat.

The Monk (regular or Martial version) has a limitation in their Bonus Feat class feature: The Monk is free to select feats for which they do not (yet) meet the prerequisites, which in turn lets them acquire additional feats having those freely-selected feats as prerequisites. This grants the Monk player flexibility by acquiring feats at their convenience rather than in prerequisite order. The Monk still cannot use any feat until they meet all its prerequisites.

Specific trumps general. The monk class entry is more specific than the general feat rules.

[OldTrees1]

Didn't you hear? The fighter class comes with a rogue and barbarian dip built in. It's almost as if "bonus feats forever" isn't good enough as a standalone class feature!

Wow, just wow. Are you really resorting to a strawman attack? Against an explanation of personal preference?

1) A preference for using Fighter over Warblade as the main class is not equivalent to claiming to use a straight Fighter. Especially when multiclassing martials is the norm. Even more so when it was explicitly stated that dipping for high quality passive class features is part of the design process that lead me to my preference of preferring Fighter as the main class over Warblade.

2) A preference for At Will abilities is not equivalent to "bonus feats forever". There are enough feats that are good enough(Improved Trip or better) to necessitate using a Bonus Feat class when trying to compress the most value into the lowest ECL.

3) You were smart enough to know better. Stop maliciously misrepresenting my explanation of my preference as a means of satisfying your anti-Fighter-Players bile.

[Xerlith]

Captain America and Draven would both have a couple of strong words on this subject. And on the subject of defying rules of physics: nonmagical =/= follows the laws of physics.

Yeah. This is a classic case of Just That Good (Warning = TVTropes link). Bloodstorm Blade does everything we want D&D Xena, Captain America, Draven, Sokka (Boomerang!) to do. There're really lots of nonmagical guys that do much more than BsB does.

Wow, just wow. Are you really resorting to a strawman attack? Against an explanation of personal preference?

1) A preference for using Fighter over Warblade as the main class is not equivalent to claiming to use a straight Fighter. Especially when multiclassing martials is the norm. Even more so when it was explicitly stated that dipping for high quality passive class features is part of the design process that lead me to my preference of preferring Fighter as the main class over Warblade.

2) A preference for At Will abilities is not equivalent to "bonus feats forever". There are enough feats that are good enough(Improved Trip or better) to necessitate using a Bonus Feat class when trying to compress the most value into the lowest ECL.

3) You were smart enough to know better. Stop maliciously misrepresenting my explanation of my preference as a means of satisfying your anti-Fighter-Players bile.

Guys, both of you. Multiclassing exists, you know. Seems you forgot.
If someone built a Zhent Dungeoncrasher Figher 9/Spirit Lion Barbarian1/Warblade 10 would that break the reality for you two?

Then, though, to be fair, notice how I need a bunch of ACFs for the first two to be useful... So that's something too.

[Morty]

Expecting the warblade to match up to a wizard is not a reasonable demand, because it can't, and it shouldn't - the wizard class is far too powerful, versatile and game-breaking. It has its own set of problems, which are not always related to what a martial class can or can't do.

[Psyren]

Fighter has a place. Someone new to D&D could be extremely daunted by ToB - it is still stumping our veterans here to this day after all, and that's not even taking the rampant editing errors into account.

Then there are those folks who simply don't want to deal with the bookkeeping (however light) or maneuvers readied and known. One of the primary engagements roleplaying games provide is abnegation, and "5-foot-step then full attack" does that quite easily. So even someone who knows that, logically, Warblade is more capable, has valid reasons to choose Fighter anyway. And so long as they have access to their full WBL and a little optimization grease, they can succeed.

Balancing the classes makes the wizard not automagically the best at every single situation the party runs into. Seriously, in 3.5, the rest of the party might as well not even be there.

This might shock you, but not every wizard in every campaign ever is being run by Tippy.

[Amphetryon]

Wow, just wow. Are you really resorting to a strawman attack? Against an explanation of personal preference?

1) A preference for using Fighter over Warblade as the main class is not equivalent to claiming to use a straight Fighter. Especially when multiclassing martials is the norm. Even more so when it was explicitly stated that dipping for high quality passive class features is part of the design process that lead me to my preference of preferring Fighter as the main class over Warblade.

2) A preference for At Will abilities is not equivalent to "bonus feats forever". There are enough feats that are good enough(Improved Trip or better) to necessitate using a Bonus Feat class when trying to compress the most value into the lowest ECL.

3) You were smart enough to know better. Stop maliciously misrepresenting my explanation of my preference as a means of satisfying your anti-Fighter-Players bile.

My emphasis. I have read all of your posts. I have yet to see a character concept you've posited where the highlighted portion is both true and requires a fighter bonus feat, as used by a fighter and only a fighter.

This is not bile. I am not attacking anyone.

[Red Fel]

If someone built a Zhent Dungeoncrasher Figher 9/Spirit Lion Barbarian1/Warblade 10 would that break the reality for you two?

Then, though, to be fair, notice how I need a bunch of ACFs for the first two to be useful... So that's something too.

Yes, but it's also worth noting that Fighter and Barbarian have ACFs. It's a fair point to observe that, unlike the ToB classes - which sadly lack in supporting materials - there are plenty of ACFs out there that let you tailor a Fighter or Barbarian (or even Monk!) to taste. Admittedly, Fighter's ACFs tend towards "trade a bonus feat for this particular ability," which raises the question of when we started thinking that feats were the equivalent of a class ability to begin with, but then we get drawn back into the quagmire, so let's not.

I should also point out that I do use Fighter and Barb dips, even in my ToB builds - and occasionally in my non-ToB casters-with-a-melee-bent builds. But I use them for very specific purposes. In dip form, Fighter basically serves as a feat engine - it provides full BAB and a bonus feat or two. Barbarian, as a dip, gets me Pounce, and perhaps Whirling Frenzy if that's my thing. (In one build, I actually used Improved Grab and Whirling Frenzy. It was a grappler build. I make no apologies.)

I don't tend to use ToB classes for dip purposes, by contrast. Unless I'm gishing, I prefer to maximize my ToB class levels. There's a reason for that. Upthread, people mentioned progression. I won't get into the particulars that they are (or were) debating, but in my mind, a progression in the context of a class is something that benefits from taking additional levels. The ability scales in utility. For example, Rogues gain additional Sneak Attack damage, casters gain an increase in CL, Barbarians get extra uses of Rage. Fighters get... more feats, which may or may not have anything to do with feats they've already taken.

ToB classes get a progression too. It's a good progression, and a valuable one; your class levels increase your IL, which lets you take better maneuvers. As a result, when using ToB classes, I don't take dips; if I do dip, they're not small one- or two-level dips, but larger five- or six-level dips. More like a scoop than a dip, really. And it's because taking those extra levels pays off. It gets me a better stance, or some higher-level maneuvers, or both.

[mephnick]

This might shock you, but not every wizard in every campaign ever is being run by Tippy.

Seriously.

This "god wizard does everything" trope has never actually been realized in a single game I've played in a decade. Powerful? Sure. I've had my combats where a mage has controlled the battlefield, or shut down a boss. I've also had plenty of mages die in combat. Outside of combat it's been relatively rare to see divination abuse or any of the other theory-crafting that goes on here. Enough happens during a day that the skilled characters actually take care of skill obstacles instead of mages wasting spells they might need. Honestly the only real problems I've had have been with Druids, which have way too much going for them. They have mechanical and permanent class abilities that actually void the need of other characters. Though to be fair, I don't play DnD/Pathfinder past level 12, as I know it breaks down a bit, but I think those higher levels of play are pretty rare in the first place.

Obviously YMMV, but I think the "1 wizard, 3 glorified NPCs" theory is a little ridiculous.

[Thiyr]

@mangosta: I'd totally power attack on a trip attack. Get a guisarme (or whichever polearm trips), take knockback and dungeoncrasher, and let the good times roll in (to explain, knock back doesn't require you to do damage, just make a melee attack roll while using power attack. Doing it while tripping adds the bonus of it being a touch attack, so you can get a bigger boost from knockback) Alternatively, use it to get damage on your bonus attack or something. Can't remember context of people bringing up power attack, but there are reasons :p

@psyren: as far as new players and ToB, I found its actually a really good place to start. Aside from the high floor making it hard to screw them up in a more experienced group, i found it easier to explain than casting. Because its still based mostly around fighting, they get the basics of "attack, move, roll d20+stuff to do stuff", but because it has individual resources, its harder to forget " hey, I can trip stuff". Plus, the rules are mostly condensed into the maneuver's text, so they have a clear picture of what happens. At least, that's how it worked out when I was teaching a guy with 0 tabletop experience. Your point certainly still stands, though. Isn't gonna work for everyone.

[Vhaidara]

@psyren: as far as new players and ToB, I found its actually a really good place to start. Aside from the high floor making it hard to screw them up in a more experienced group, i found it easier to explain than casting. Because its still based mostly around fighting, they get the basics of "attack, move, roll d20+stuff to do stuff", but because it has individual resources, its harder to forget " hey, I can trip stuff". Plus, the rules are mostly condensed into the maneuver's text, so they have a clear picture of what happens. At least, that's how it worked out when I was teaching a guy with 0 tabletop experience. Your point certainly still stands, though. Isn't gonna work for everyone.

I agree with this. I generally introduce people onto ToB classes. Maneuver Cards make the entire thing a cakewalk to teach.

[malonkey1]

Yes, but it's also worth noting that Fighter and Barbarian have ACFs. It's a fair point to observe that, unlike the ToB classes - which sadly lack in supporting materials - there are plenty of ACFs out there that let you tailor a Fighter or Barbarian (or even Monk!) to taste. Admittedly, Fighter's ACFs tend towards "trade a bonus feat for this particular ability," which raises the question of when we started thinking that feats were the equivalent of a class ability to begin with, but then we get drawn back into the quagmire, so let's not.

I should also point out that I do use Fighter and Barb dips, even in my ToB builds - and occasionally in my non-ToB casters-with-a-melee-bent builds. But I use them for very specific purposes. In dip form, Fighter basically serves as a feat engine - it provides full BAB and a bonus feat or two. Barbarian, as a dip, gets me Pounce, and perhaps Whirling Frenzy if that's my thing. (In one build, I actually used Improved Grab and Whirling Frenzy. It was a grappler build. I make no apologies.)

I don't tend to use ToB classes for dip purposes, by contrast. Unless I'm gishing, I prefer to maximize my ToB class levels. There's a reason for that. Upthread, people mentioned progression. I won't get into the particulars that they are (or were) debating, but in my mind, a progression in the context of a class is something that benefits from taking additional levels. The ability scales in utility. For example, Rogues gain additional Sneak Attack damage, casters gain an increase in CL, Barbarians get extra uses of Rage. Fighters get... more feats, which may or may not have anything to do with feats they've already taken.

ToB classes get a progression too. It's a good progression, and a valuable one; your class levels increase your IL, which lets you take better maneuvers. As a result, when using ToB classes, I don't take dips; if I do dip, they're not small one- or two-level dips, but larger five- or six-level dips. More like a scoop than a dip, really. And it's because taking those extra levels pays off. It gets me a better stance, or some higher-level maneuvers, or both.

Wait, that's right. ToB was horribly undersupported. I don't even think they got web enhancements or Dragon magazine material... did they?