Least Favorite Class and Why

[Brova]

Well, for starters I'm not a "Dude". But letting that slide...

Figure of speech, sorry.

"When you're less martial than someone who admits to using spell-like abilities, ur doin it rong."

But martial adepts aren't. They fight with swords, in armor. That's the whole thing that being martial means.

That's my problem with ToB. It's basically a case of "I swing my sword at someone, and then cast a spell on them if I hit."

Given that anything in D&D that is high level is represented by spells, I don't think you can design a system that doesn't feel that way.

I wouldn't mind affects that, say, scaled with the actual damage you dealt, which is what I did when I actually tried making a martial fix that - while obviously magical - actually felt like your martial prowess was relevant.

But dealing damage isn't martial prowess. Wizards deal damage with fireball and scorching ray. Clerics deal damage with flamestrike and searing light.

[Jormengand]

But dealing damage isn't martial prowess. Wizards deal damage with fireball and scorching ray. Clerics deal damage with flamestrike and searing light.

And warriors deal damage with their sword. If you're casting spells with an attack roll with your sword, the folks at Paizo call you a "Magus."

[Morcleon]

And warriors deal damage with their sword. If you're casting spells with an attack roll with your sword, the folks at Paizo call you a "Magus."

The largest category of maneuvers aren't similar to spells and are, in fact, dealing damage with swords (and other weapons). Most are "if you land an attack, enemy gets X effect depending on how you hit them". A lot of these are things like more damage, more attacks, ignoring DR, tripping, disarming, status effects, etc. Basically, things that you could reasonably do if you're good enough at fighting. The second largest category is counters, where you either dodge attacks because you're that awesome, or you counterattack at the exact right time.

If you dislike the supernatural aspect, ban Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.

Also, Paizo does not know balance very well.

[Sith_Happens]

And warriors deal damage with their sword. If you're casting spells with an attack roll with your sword, the folks at Paizo call you a "Magus."

Hey look, it's StreamOfTheSky's complaint about Fighters in action.

[AmberVael]

If you're casting spells with an attack roll with your sword-

I think you need to work more on this point.

Yes, maneuvers have a fairly notable resemblance to the spell system. But why does that automatically make them spells? Can't similar mechanical underpinnings represent more than one thing? For instance, there are feats that grant very magical abilities, and feats that grant mundane abilities. That doesn't make the mundane feats more magical, or the magical feats more mundane. Just because you can get Evasion from Incarnum or psionics doesn't make Evasion magical.

If you want to argue about content, then I don't understand there either. The vast majority of maneuvers have quite simple mundane explanations- being able to double move and attack is as easy to explain as Spring Attack, for example. There are some less easy to explain maneuvers... but most of them are called out as supernatural.

Now, I can understand disliking the readying mechanic, and I can also understand disliking that Tome of Battle doesn't present a system that stands out a little more distinctly from existing systems if that's what you're trying to express, but I don't think the "they're spellcasters" argument works. You're going to be a bit more nuanced and clear than that.

[Jormengand]

Most are "if you land an attack, enemy gets X effect depending on how you hit them".

Every touch spell ever?

A lot of these are things like more damage, ignoring DR

Shocking Grasp? Versatile Weapon?

tripping

Blade Lash?

disarming

Mm, Blade Snare? Okay, not quite.

status effects, etc.

I'm not listing every status effect spell on the magus list.

Also, Paizo does not know balance very well.

That's not actually relevant, though...

[Jormengand]

Hey look, it's StreamOfTheSky's complaint about Fighters in action.

Funny, then, that my martial fix is explicitly magical. But they actually use their swords for more than "I poke you, you take spell effect. Nyah nyah."

[Morcleon]

Every touch spell ever?

Shocking Grasp? Versatile Weapon?

Blade Lash?

Mm, Blade Snare? Okay, not quite.

I'm not listing every status effect spell on the magus list.



That's not actually relevant, though...

All of these are also effects that you can replicate with mundane methods. ToB just lets you do it without having to dedicate a weapon and several feats to one specific task.

Power Attack, weapons of different types (or just hitting hard enough that you do enough damage through the DR), actual tripping, actual disarming, various feats that let you deal effects on attacks.

[Dienekes]

Funny, then, that my martial fix is explicitly magical. But they actually use their swords for more than "I poke you, you take spell effect. Nyah nyah."

This is still weird. Combat has always been: I poke you, you take an effect. Normally, that effect is weapon damage + Strength modifier + bonuses granted by feats, and sometimes you have + rider ability.

ToB changed that to weapon damage + Strength modifier + bonus granted by maneuver, and a lot more often you have + rider ability. Most of those rider abilities are explicitly non-magical. In fact I can only think of 1 that's really magical that the Warblade gets.

[Jormengand]

All of these are also effects that you can replicate with mundane methods. ToB just lets you do it without having to dedicate a weapon and several feats to one specific task.

Power Attack, weapons of different types (or just hitting hard enough that you do enough damage through the DR), actual tripping, actual disarming, various feats that let you deal effects on attacks.

See, I don't mind actual tripping and actual disarming, because you're actually rolling off to see who's better at tripping/not getting tripped (well, in PF you have CMD, but that's just a static version of the same thing). In the Tome of Magic: Swords Edition it's just "I spent a spell-I-mean-maneuver slot, so you are tripped. Now, handle it!"

This is still weird. Combat has always been: I poke you, you take an effect.

No, that's touch spells. Combat is "I hit you with a stick, and the amount of damage I deal feeds into that effect." For example, my fix has a life-steal heal which is dependent on the damage you deal and the damage already dealt.

[Dienekes]

See, I don't mind actual tripping and actual disarming, because you're actually rolling off to see who's better at tripping/not getting tripped (well, in PF you have CMD, but that's just a static version of the same thing). In the Tome of Magic: Swords Edition it's just "I spent a spell-I-mean-maneuver slot, so you are tripped. Now, handle it!"

You still have to make the attack roll, indicating your skill with a weapon.

[Jormengand]

You still have to make the attack roll, indicating your skill with a weapon.

So does the wizard. It's just that weapon's his index finger. Which prepared a very stirring dissertation on the subject.

[Dienekes]

So does the wizard. It's just that weapon's his index finger. Which prepared a very stirring dissertation on the subject.

So by this logic doesn't that make the wizard closer to the fighter?

[AmberVael]

See, I don't mind actual tripping and actual disarming, because you're actually rolling off to see who's better at tripping/not getting tripped (well, in PF you have CMD, but that's just a static version of the same thing). In the Tome of Magic: Swords Edition it's just "I spent a spell-I-mean-maneuver slot, so you are tripped. Now, handle it!"

This is actually just flat out wrong. When you use Disarming Strike you still need to make a disarm check. When you use Mighty Throw, you need to make a trip check. When you use dazing strike, your enemy gets a saving throw. There is no "magical sudden effect" like you're describing.

[Jormengand]

So by this logic doesn't that make the wizard closer to the fighter?

No, it just means that using attack rolls doesn't mean you're martial. What means you're martial is the things you would optimise when making a fighter or a barbarian: weapon damage rolls. With your weapon. Which is being used as more as a spell-poking stick.

[Brova]

No, it just means that using attack rolls doesn't mean you're martial. What means you're martial is the things you would optimise when making a fighter or a barbarian: weapon damage rolls. With your weapon. Which is being used as more as a spell-poking stick.

But if martial classes did different things, you would optimize them in different ways. You aren't actually criticizing Tome of Battle, you're just asserting that it is different from what came before. And given that what came before ranged from "bad" to "depressingly awful", I can't really bring myself to care.

[Dienekes]

No, it just means that using attack rolls doesn't mean you're martial. What means you're martial is the things you would optimise when making a fighter or a barbarian: weapon damage rolls. With your weapon. Which is being used as more as a spell-poking stick.

That's strange reasoning, as it means that fighters and barbarians don't try to optimize their attack roll (they do). It also implies that wizards are as good at making attack rolls as fighters and barbarians (they are not).

Also, on a whim I went through my copy of ToB for every instance of the word "trip" in a maneuver. Every single one of them said this: If the attack is successful, you can make a Trip attempt. Also (and this one is odd) the Warblade doesn't have access to a single maneuver that lets him trip anything. They're all from Setting Sun.

[nyjastul69]

When did this thread become a ToB debate? I suggest letting people express their opinions and move on.

[Necroticplague]

No, it just means that using attack rolls doesn't mean you're martial. What means you're martial is the things you would optimise when making a fighter or a barbarian: weapon damage rolls. With your weapon. Which is being used as more as a spell-poking stick.

Not all martials do that. Two weapon fighters optimise amount of plausible attacks, dungeoncrashers optimize bull rush checks, and yet they are both still martials.

When did this thread become a ToB debate? I suggest letting people express their opinions and move on.

We are. Just as one person is free to express their opinion that ToB is just melee spellcasting, others are free to express their opinion that it is actually fairly similar to a fighter.

[Jormengand]

Not all martials do that. Two weapon fighters optimise amount of plausible attacks, dungeoncrashers optimize bull rush checks, and yet they are both still martials.

Cool. And what martial class only optimises their ability to hit, not to actually deal any damage because their spells do all the work for them?

Magus. That's what.

[Shadowscale]

Sorry, I didn't mean to start a debate, I have no problem with ToB existing and people liking it, I wish it just wasn't the answer for everything and didn't get me dirty looks when I play a fighter or ranger.

[Dienekes]

Cool. And what martial class only optimises their ability to hit, not to actually deal any damage because their spells do all the work for them?

Magus. That's what.

Not a very good one though.

Sorry, I didn't mean to start a debate, I have no problem with ToB existing and people liking it, I wish it just wasn't the answer for everything and didn't get me dirty looks when I play a fighter or ranger.

Nah, don't worry. ToB discussions pop up every couple of days. If it wasn't you, it'd be someone else.

Also, never be bothered by people giving you looks for playing what you wanna play. Screw 'em it's a game, go have fun.

What we're arguing about is some of the logic as to why certain individuals don't like ToB seems faulty, not that they have to like it.

[Jormengand]

Not a very good one though.

Hey, playing a magus is fun. Playing a ToB class is fun, too: they're almost perfect gishes. They're just not martials.

[Dienekes]

Hey, playing a magus is fun. Playing a ToB class is fun, too: they're almost perfect gishes. They're just not martials.

No, I mean a guy whose playing a magus who is only trying to pump up their attack is terrible at optimization. Just terrible, most I know do try to increase their damage as well.

Though on that note, Warblades are the same. I have never seen one not try to optimize their damage, strength, and all the jazz that a fighter does.

[Jormengand]

Warblades are the same.

[Dienekes]

If you continued reading I also said they're the same to fighters. But you're not gonna respond to that part, I take it.

[Jormengand]

If you continued reading I also said they're the same to fighters. But you're not gonna respond to that part, I take it.

Well, the fact that you consider magus, warblade and fighter all to be fundamentally the same may highlight the reason we disagree about whether the warblade feels martial or not.

[Dienekes]

Well, the fact that you consider magus, warblade and fighter all to be fundamentally the same may highlight the reason we disagree about whether the warblade feels martial or not.

I never said that either. I said that in terms of optimization they all try to optimize the similar or the same things. Ability to hit, damage, strength, and so on. There are definite differences in feel. But you're the one that said that being a martial meant you need to optimize the damage you deal with a weapon. Which all three of them do.

[Jormengand]

I never said that either. I said that in terms of optimization they all try to optimize the similar or the same things. Ability to hit, damage, strength, and so on. There are definite differences in feel. But you're the one that said that being a martial meant you need to optimize the damage you deal with a weapon. Which all three of them do.

But Magus and Warblade share that their abilities aren't usually keyed off weapon damage. They're basically touch attacks that you happen to make with a sword, not an index finger - shocking grasp would not look at all out of place as a maneuver in one of the more magical disciplines. They're just using their weapons as spell-poking sticks and by the way they deal damage.

[ryu]

Well, the fact that you consider magus, warblade and fighter all to be fundamentally the same may highlight the reason we disagree about whether the warblade feels martial or not.

It is disingenuous to remove a statement from its context for the purpose of trying to make it apply to criteria you know full well the original speaker didn't mean. I'd like to think we can have a more honest debate than that.