Have you ever noticed how much the game just hates mundanes?

[Masakan]

No one is taking your Wiz-Wiz away from you, child, we're only suggesting that more should have been given to the core martial classes, and perhaps just a teensy bit less to the casters.

Ok 1. Name calling does not make you look cool, it just makes you look pretentious.
Second, complaining about what should have been put in what is essentially an outdated system is completely pointless. You can either take it for what it is, homebrew some new stuff for the core classes or move on the 5e.
But don't bother speaking if all your gonna do is bitch and not bring any sort of solution to the table.

[Jormengand]

The argument Jormewhatever has in every single one of these threads where ToB is awful because martials should only have the resource management system they think is right for martials.

You could just have copied and pasted my name if it was so hard for you. Plus, no. I couldn't give a flying damn what resource management system someone has if they're martial: duskblades are martial. Clerics can be martial. Druids can be martial. But if you're mundane, I don't like the idea of you forgetting how to stab someone because you just stabbed them. If you're magical, it makes sense that you should be able to run out of mojo after you already hit someone with a sword made of lightning or personally asked your deity if they'd mind giving you full BAB for a while. It doesn't make sense that you're going to run out of stamina with which to sword someone but it's okay because you have enough stamina to punch them in the face.

[Masakan]

You could just have copied and pasted my name if it was so hard for you. Plus, no. I couldn't give a flying damn what resource management system someone has if they're martial: duskblades are martial. Clerics can be martial. Druids can be martial. But if you're mundane, I don't like the idea of you forgetting how to stab someone because you just stabbed them. If you're magical, it makes sense that you should be able to run out of mojo after you already hit someone with a sword made of lightning or personally asked your deity if they'd mind giving you full BAB for a while. It doesn't make sense that you're going to run out of stamina with which to sword someone but it's okay because you have enough stamina to punch them in the face.

So you have problems with pure mundane characters having a few extra tricks up their sleeves, but your perfectly fine with casters rewriting the laws of reality just because they can only do it a few times a day......Do i need to point out the logical fallacy in this?

[Jormengand]

So you have problems with pure mundane characters having a few extra tricks up their sleeves, but your perfectly fine with casters rewriting the laws of reality just because they can only do it a few times a day......Do i need to point out the logical fallacy in this?

No, I do: it's the straw man fallacy. I never said I had a problem with martials having strong abilities. Quite the opposite. What I take issue with is the idea that when a guy stabs another guy in a funky way, he then suddenly forgets to do that kind of stab for a while. That's stupid.

[Masakan]

No, I do: it's the straw man fallacy. I never said I had a problem with martials having strong abilities. Quite the opposite. What I take issue with is the idea that when a guy stabs another guy in a funky way, he then suddenly forgets to do that kind of stab for a while. That's stupid.

First of all thats not even how it works. I would imagine doing those kinds of maneuvers is physically taxing and so they would have to recenter themselves before using them again. Maybe im just rationalizing it but they dont forget how to use them

[Jormengand]

First of all thats not even how it works. I would imagine doing those kinds of maneuvers is physically taxing and so they would have to recenter themselves before using them again. Maybe im just rationalizing it but they dont forget how to use them

It doesn't make sense that you're going to run out of stamina with which to sword someone but it's okay because you have enough stamina to punch them in the face.

I'd be fine if you had, like, a pool of "Stamina points" based on your constitution and level, and you got some number of them back per round, but it seems odd to me that you're so tired that you can't do that cool swordy thing but can do that cool punchy thing, and your sister is too tired to do the cool punchy thing but she's absolutely got the energy for that cool swordy thing.

[Windrammer]

The argument Jormewhatever has in every single one of these threads where ToB is awful because martials should only have the resource management system they think is right for martials.1

That sentence doesn't make very much sense

You haven't seen any of the movies Cap is in? Because in every single one of them he bounces his shield around to hit people.

...Are you trolling me? You cropped out the part of what I said that renders what you just responded with irrelevant. Are you trying to misrepresent me for the two or three people reading this discussion or are you just careless? Whatever, this is what copy and paste is for.

I don't read comics, but I'll say with confidence that Captain America has NEVER done something like lightning throw. Now I didn't say that maneuver was good, because it isn't. It's just absurd in concept. Imagine there's eight people in that path. Imagine a sword bouncing between all of them, hitting each for slashing damage. If you visualize that, it should either look like a magic, animated weapon or a comedy gag. When he throws that shield and it bounces between a couple bad guys you think "that's a bit silly but I can stomach it". Now imagine that bouncing between EVERYBODY in a sixty foot line.

Yes, Captain America has thrown a shield and had it bounce between people, as I said in the part you cropped out. Why are you pretending that Captain America has ever done anything like what Lightning Throw does? Lighting throw is That's a weapon that can do slashing damage +12d6 to like, twelve people... in six seconds. I could write a book about how much different and more extreme this is than Cap's shield tricks, but do I really have to? Can't you just be reasonable and think this through instead? Please, give me an example of Captain America hitting 12 people with the force that can KILL a bear with one good throw of his shield. And even then, it still wouldn't be the same, as lightning throw works with any weapon, and that weapon will do the normal damage it is meant to. As in, that sword is finding a way to hit each person with the sharp edge. Furthermore, after travelling sixty feet, between 12 people, it returns to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVoInlWIcrI

Okay.

How is that less reasonable than anything the Wizard does? Because you personally don't like it?

Um... What? What thread do you think you're in? Where did you get that from? Did you think I was arguing that Lightning Throw makes Warblades better than Wizards?

How incredibly insightful of you to realize that people who can sap all the dexterity from most creatures for the cost of a ranged touch attack and a third level spell slot are better than the people who can throw a sword really really hard at a lot of people. It never would have occurred to me that the epic level guy who can do two whole full attacks in one round isn't as strong as the guy who can say "I wish the bad guy was dead" and give up a pinch of XP for it to be so. Thank you for showing me the light, I'm really going to think about how a guy who can roll an attack to block someone else's attack can possibly stand up to someone who can summon an impenetrable wall of force around themselves. This is truly blowing my mind.

You were asking why the Fighter was boring. That's why.

You know, perhaps we've had different experiences with the english language but I'm pretty sure the way you just used the word "that" doesn't clarify anything in the slightest, as it's in response to a question that accounts for more than one potential answer. Is it the name, or is it the role? "Yes!"

As presented, it sounds like you're saying that the fighter is boring because of their name, in which case you're successfully making me rethink having this discussion with you at all.

Solve noncombat problems. Like the Rogue's ability to sneak, the Cleric's ability to be a priest, the Wizard's ability to divine, the Druid's ability to do nature shenanigans, or the Artificer's ability to build magical stuff.

Then... Let them do it. No character is supposed to be the solution for everything. Characters have roles, I and many others happen to like the warrior role. If you like disarming traps and diplomancing shopkeepers then that's your tastes and I'll respect them whether or not I understand them.

So your contention is that it is totally plausible for there to be Dragons and Wizards and Demons and what not, but completely ridiculous that someone could throw their sword really hard? I don't think that's a standard you'll find many people sharing.

That's probably because it's not very close to what I'm actually saying. You can be snippy if you want but you're wasting both our time when you decide to ignore the actual argument. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat it... I'm talking about what's credible in the context of heroic fantasy. Really, mos of that comes down to how it looks in the mind's eye, and what you can imagine occurring in a fantasy film. Bouncing a sword between twelve people in a sixty foot line and having the sword return to you just looks stupid.

[Masakan]

I'd be fine if you had, like, a pool of "Stamina points" based on your constitution and level, and you got some number of them back per round, but it seems odd to me that you're so tired that you can't do that cool swordy thing but can do that cool punchy thing, and your sister is too tired to do the cool punchy thing but she's absolutely got the energy for that cool swordy thing.

Ok at that point that's just word play

[Nifft]

Ok at that point that's just sword play

I think you were missing a letter.

[Windrammer]

Ok 1. Name calling does not make you look cool, it just makes you look pretentious.
Second, complaining about what should have been put in what is essentially an outdated system is completely pointless. You can either take it for what it is, homebrew some new stuff for the core classes or move on the 5e.
But don't bother speaking if all your gonna do is bitch and not bring any sort of solution to the table.

I don't consider 3.5 an outdated system. 5e is a different system with different appeal, and it's more restrictive in what you can do. I continue to play 3.5 because I like it. I do homebrew stuff for core classes. Now, I didn't make this post. I just visited it. I thought the OP stated the issue pretty well and even provided a perspective that hadn't occurred to me. So I was aghast at how illogical people were being in the responses. That's why I'm in the heart of the discussion, because I disagree with what many people here are saying. You came at me, rudely, and with a dumb thing to say that barely related to what you were responding to. Don't complain when you get a similar response. And I really, really don't care if I'm striking people as pretentious on an anonymous traditional gaming forum.

[Jormengand]

Ok at that point that's just word play

No, it's not. My issue is that they're essentially vancian casters with swords and shorter rest times. I wouldn't have an issue if mundane A was mundane A: if you're going to claim that it's because they're running out of stamina, they should have mechanics which actually make sense with that.

[Morty]

I'd be fine if you had, like, a pool of "Stamina points" based on your constitution and level, and you got some number of them back per round, but it seems odd to me that you're so tired that you can't do that cool swordy thing but can do that cool punchy thing, and your sister is too tired to do the cool punchy thing but she's absolutely got the energy for that cool swordy thing.

And that's not what happens. Readying and expending maneuvers is an an abstraction of the flow of martial combat, where a fighter tries different strikes and counters based on the situation. And as any martial artist and fencer will tell you, you can't just do the same thing over and over. It's not "forgetting" strikes and counters and to treat it this way is to needlessly focus on form over function.

Is ToB's the most elegant way to portray it? Not really. But it's certainly better than anything D&D had come up with prior to that book. It could have been done better, although I'm not sure if 3e's obstructive rules would have allowed it. A pool of points called "combat momentum" might grind people's gears less, I suppose.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I'd be fine if you had, like, a pool of "Stamina points" based on your constitution and level, and you got some number of them back per round, but it seems odd to me that you're so tired that you can't do that cool swordy thing but can do that cool punchy thing, and your sister is too tired to do the cool punchy thing but she's absolutely got the energy for that cool swordy thing.

See, I always considered this part of the natural combat flow -- never really broke my immersion. I've seen a number of times when, in sparring/competing across various martial arts (naming fencing, judo, aikido, english longsword, and staff fighting), my attacks have failed to be successful because I've become overly reliant on the same technique, and my opponent has adjusted. With a bit of time to use other tricks and throw off their expectations, I could easily launch the same attack again.

It's not 100% realistic (I can indeed hit a bunch of times in a row with the same move if my opponent has trouble blocking that particular strike, or doesn't pick up the pattern, or I'm significantly better than he is), but it's definitely good enough for D&D.

In fact, it's BETTER that combat momentum as a pool of points, which would imply that I can hit my opponent the same way seven times in a row, then can't use ANY techniques until I've recovered. That's pretty unrealistic.

I suppose you could balance each maneuver with its own pool, but that gets into heavy bookkeeping REALLY fast.

[Nifft]

No, it's not. My issue is that they're essentially vancian casters with swords and shorter rest times. I wouldn't have an issue if mundane A was mundane A: if you're going to claim that it's because they're running out of stamina, they should have mechanics which actually make sense with that.

They have abilities which have a cooldown.

In that regard, they're like OD&D Dragons, which IIRC was the first monster to have an ability with a cooldown (breath weapon, 1d4 rounds before using it again).

Video games emulated the OD&D dragon and now "cooldown" has a bit of a bad name, but it was a D&D mechanic originally.

[Masakan]

{scrubbed}

[Jormengand]

And that's not what happens. Readying and expending maneuvers is an an abstraction of the flow of martial combat, where a fighter tries different strikes and counters based on the situation. And as any martial artist and fencer will tell you, you can't just do the same thing over and over. It's not "forgetting" strikes and counters and to treat it this way is to needlessly focus on form over function.

Is ToB's the most elegant way to portray it? Not really. But it's certainly better than anything D&D had come up with prior to that book. It could have been done better, although I'm not sure if 3e's obstructive rules would have allowed it. A pool of points called "combat momentum" might grind people's gears less, I suppose.

See, I always considered this part of the natural combat flow -- never really broke my immersion. I've seen a number of times when, in sparring/competing across various martial arts (naming fencing, judo, aikido, english longsword, and staff fighting), my attacks have failed to be successful because I've become overly reliant on the same technique, and my opponent has adjusted. With a bit of time to use other tricks and throw off their expectations, I could easily launch the same attack again.

It's not 100% realistic (I can indeed hit a bunch of times in a row with the same move if my opponent has trouble blocking that particular strike, or doesn't pick up the pattern, or I'm significantly better than he is), but it's definitely good enough for D&D.

Then why can a wizard throw three lightning bolts and I don't get so much as a bonus on my reflex save for him being so damned predictable? And even if doing the same technique twice isn't likely to work against a skilled swordsman, why can't I do it against the dude in the bathrobe who just lobbed three lightning bolts at me but hasn't picked up a proper sword in his life?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Then why can a wizard throw three lightning bolts and I don't get so much as a bonus on my reflex save for him being so damned predictable?

Because dodging lightning doesn't get easier? It's faster than you are, period. You dodge it to the best of your ability, which is how your dodging always works. Otherwise we reach a point where we're getting bonuses to AC against attacks from enemies just because they've attacked you before.

And even if doing the same technique twice isn't likely to work against a skilled swordsman, why can't I do it against the dude in the bathrobe who just lobbed three lightning bolts at me but hasn't picked up a proper sword in his life?

Because even amateur combatants pick up patterns, would be my guess. Again, it's not an exact simulation, but it IS a fully functional one.

[Brova]

This means that not only are the players fighting smartly (they can repostion themselves), but that means that the characters are fighting smartly since now it's the characters that are changing things around. It's a built-in mechanic that allows players to make smarter choices but also is reflected in that the characters themselves are making smarter choices.

That's a distinction without a difference. Any decision the player makes is (from the perspective of the game world) one the character makes. The only difference is if the player is metagaming.

People hitting things with big sticks fighting alongside people doing crazy mystical **** is a staple of fantasy no matter the medium.

Yes, and the people doing that hit enemies with sticks are not as good as the people who do crazy magic. When Team Avatar defeats the Fire Lord, the mundane characters (Sokka and Suki) go fight a different battle than the people with superpowers.

Demanding to play "guy with a stick" in a game with high powered Wizards is demanding to play a low level character. That's dumb, and it is not a thing the game should support.

If you refuse all three, then you're deluding yourself into something that's simply demonstrably false, and I never want to play in a game you run.

There's absolutely a solution that works and refuses all three: kill the mundane fighter. Guy without magic is not an acceptable character concept in high level D&D. Once you accept that, people can just be Beastmasters or Spirit Ragers or whatever, and there is no problem.

I favor this solution.

If you're designing a D&D edition, you have to cater to these people, unfortunately.

No, you don't. In fact, I'd say that given the option of catering to those people and not catering to those people, you should not cater to them unless doing so is obviously bad design. Because those people's demands are terrible, and the game is better if you ignore them.

Plus, no. I couldn't give a flying damn what resource management system someone has if they're martial: duskblades are martial. Clerics can be martial. Druids can be martial. But if you're mundane, I don't like the idea of you forgetting how to stab someone because you just stabbed them.

Fortunately, that's not how ToB works. The Crusader is divinely inspired with martial skill. He "forgets how to stab people" because his god (or philosophy) is no longer guiding him to do that particular thing. The Swordsage has prepared his body to do particular stunts, and has to refocus. The Warblade overextends himself when he uses maneuvers, and has to break his offense to recuperate.

Yes, Captain America has thrown a shield and had it bounce between people, as I said in the part you cropped out. Why are you pretending that Captain America has ever done anything like what Lightning Throw does?

A thrown shield hitting multiple enemies is just a lower level version of a thrown sword doing that. If your hangup is that I can't find a movie that is exactly D&D, I can't really help you.

Um... What? What thread do you think you're in? Where did you get that from? Did you think I was arguing that Lightning Throw makes Warblades better than Wizards?

Reasonable in the sense of believable. Not powerful.

As presented, it sounds like you're saying that the fighter is boring because of their name, in which case you're successfully making me rethink having this discussion with you at all.

Yes. There's a design problem with a class called a "Fighter". It has no concept. Compare that to the Monk. He's got a concept: he knows kung fu. Or the Wizard, who does magic. Or the Summoner, who summons stuff. Or the Berserker, who rages at stuff. Or seriously, do I need to go on?

Then... Let them do it. No character is supposed to be the solution for everything. Characters have roles, I and many others happen to like the warrior role. If you like disarming traps and diplomancing shopkeepers then that's your tastes and I'll respect them whether or not I understand them.

No. Bad design. Characters need to contribute to all parts of the game.

That's probably because it's not very close to what I'm actually saying. You can be snippy if you want but you're wasting both our time when you decide to ignore the actual argument. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat it... I'm talking about what's credible in the context of heroic fantasy. Really, mos of that comes down to how it looks in the mind's eye, and what you can imagine occurring in a fantasy film. Bouncing a sword between twelve people in a sixty foot line and having the sword return to you just looks stupid.

That's your opinion. Lots of people think that looks totally reasonable. For example me. Or people who watch fighting anime.

[Jormengand]

Because dodging lightning doesn't get easier? It's faster than you are, period. You dodge it to the best of your ability, which is how your dodging always works. Otherwise we reach a point where we're getting bonuses to AC against attacks from enemies just because they've attacked you before.

It's like dodging a bullet inasmuch as you're not dodging the bullet but the gun. And dodging the wizard should be easier if he's being predictable.

Because even amateur combatants pick up patterns, would be my guess. Again, it's not an exact simulation, but it IS a fully functional one.

I don't like that martial initiators, and only martial initiators, have to deal with the possibility that their opponent might pick up on their fighting pattern. A fighter can try to trip, disarm, or even feint at the same person repeatedly, and even succeed, but if you're a martial initiator trying to do anything even vaguely interesting then nope, not on the cards.

Fortunately, that's not how ToB works. The Crusader is divinely inspired with martial skill. He "forgets how to stab people" because his god (or philosophy) is no longer guiding him to do that particular thing. The Swordsage has prepared his body to do particular stunts, and has to refocus. The Warblade overextends himself when he uses maneuvers, and has to break his offense to recuperate.

Also, the ToB apologists disagreeing with each other on why the maneuvers need to be re-prepared doesn't really speak of a very good, cohesive fluff.

[Masakan]

It's like dodging a bullet inasmuch as you're not dodging the bullet but the gun. And dodging the wizard should be easier if he's being unpredictable.



I don't like that martial initiators, and only martial initiators, have to deal with the possibility that their opponent might pick up on their fighting pattern. A fighter can try to trip, disarm, or even feint at the same person repeatedly, and even succeed, but if you're a martial initiator trying to do anything even vaguely interesting then nope, not on the cards.

Please tell me your not saying you don't like tome of battle....for being more realistic and being better than the core mundane classes because of it?

[Nifft]

I don't like that martial initiators, and only martial initiators, have to deal with the possibility that their opponent might pick up on their fighting pattern. A fighter can try to trip, disarm, or even feint at the same person repeatedly, and even succeed, but if you're a martial initiator trying to do anything even vaguely interesting then nope, not on the cards.

That's just one popular way to fluff the mechanic.

You're free to fluff it differently, including making it actual magic or psionics or whatever (except it's internal magic so it ignores Anti-Magic Fields, except when it doesn't ignore AMFs).

There are no flavor police who will kick down your door if you fail to use the most popular fluff.

[Jormengand]

Please tell me your not saying you don't like tome of battle....for being more realistic and being better than the core mundane classes because of it?

No, no I'm not. What I'm saying is that I dislike it because you're basically going "Here, have all these goodies... oh, except that you have to deal with crap that even the freaking fighter doesn't have to deal with." If the fighter can trip people in enough varied, inspired and different ways so as to be unpredictable, then I think that the warblade should be able to perform maneuvers in enough varied, inspired and different ways so as to be unpredictable.

I basically dislike the fact that they decided to shove a stupid, unnecessary restriction on maneuvers on the basis that warblades are too dumb to do what fighters (and also warblades who aren't using maneuvers) do all the damn time.

That's just one popular way to fluff the mechanic.

You're free to fluff it differently, including making it actual magic or psionics or whatever (except it's internal magic so it ignores Anti-Magic Fields, except when it doesn't ignore AMFs).

There are no flavor police who will kick down your door if you fail to use the most popular fluff.

I'm aware that it's magic, but I'm also aware that some people on this forum insist that it's the Really Ultimate For Real Way Of Playing A Mundane Character And If You Prefer Something Else You're Bad And Wrong, and I don't like that.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It's like dodging a bullet inasmuch as you're not dodging the bullet but the gun. And dodging the wizard should be easier if he's being predictable.

It's like dodging a gun where the projectile fired is 10ft in diameter and travels instantaneously -- that's a fair sight harder. Plus, we have no indication that the wizard ever has to point out a direction for his spell, actually. He could just make jazz hands, look at the sky, and fire it anywhere. If you know lighting will hit SOMEWHERE but not where its going to be almost impossible to dodge: human reflexes just aren't that fast.

I don't like that martial initiators, and only martial initiators, have to deal with the possibility that their opponent might pick up on their fighting pattern. A fighter can try to trip, disarm, or even feint at the same person repeatedly, and even succeed, but if you're a martial initiator trying to do anything even vaguely interesting then nope, not on the cards.

A Paladin can only Smite a few times per day. A Barbarian reaches a point where he can't get angry again. A Monk can't deflect more than a single arrow per round. A 2nd level Rogue takes either no damage or full damage from an attack -- it can never partially dodge.

There's a lot of nonsense in D&D. Again, you're allowed to not like ToB, but that doesn't make it a bad system.

Also, the ToB apologists disagreeing with each other on why the maneuvers need to be re-prepared doesn't really speak of a very good, cohesive fluff.

But that doesn't matter, since the core system is really sound and the fluff is heavily mutable. I haven't EVER used the fluff as written, actually. I tailor the moves and descriptions to the character in question, and keep the mechanics.

[Masakan]

No, no I'm not. What I'm saying is that I dislike it because you're basically going "Here, have all these goodies... oh, except that you have to deal with crap that even the freaking fighter doesn't have to deal with." If the fighter can trip people in enough varied, inspired and different ways so as to be unpredictable, then I think that the warblade should be able to perform maneuvers in enough varied, inspired and different ways so as to be unpredictable.



I'm aware that it's magic, but I'm also aware that some people on this forum insist that it's the Really Ultimate For Real Way Of Playing A Mundane Character And If You Prefer Something Else You're Bad And Wrong, and I don't like that.

Simple Answer, Houserule the Recovery mechanic away and let them spam skills for days on end...anyone ever tell you, you are WAY too by the book?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Because dodging lightning doesn't get easier? It's faster than you are, period.

Someone summoning lightning is fine because it's fantasy, but someone being faster than lightning is unrealistic and can't happen...

[Morty]

You've also boiled it down to the aspect of the enemy predicting your attacks, in order to reduce the argument to absurdity. The enemy predicting the attacks is part of it, but only a part. It also has to do with momentum, positioning, fatigue and circumstances. All abstracted to readied and expended maneuvers. Again - not perfect. But deliberately interpreting it in the most nonsensical way possible and deriding it is sort of dishonest.

[Jormengand]

It's like dodging a gun where the projectile fired is 10ft in diameter and travels instantaneously -- that's a fair sight harder. Plus, we have no indication that the wizard ever has to point out a direction for his spell, actually. He could just make jazz hands, look at the sky, and fire it anywhere.

Take fireball then: you specifically point at your target.

A Paladin can only Smite a few times per day.

Supernatural.

A Barbarian reaches a point where he can't get angry again.

Which makes sense. Sometimes you're just too tired to be angry.

A Monk can't deflect more than a single arrow per round.

Perfectly natural. It would worry me more if you could get a hundred archers shooting her and she's just like "Nah."

A 2nd level Rogue takes either no damage or full damage from an attack -- it can never partially dodge.

A little odd, but oh well?

There's a lot of nonsense in D&D.

So let's add more!

But that doesn't matter, since the core system is really sound and the fluff is heavily mutable. I haven't EVER used the fluff as written, actually. I tailor the moves and descriptions to the character in question, and keep the mechanics.

Good for you I guess?

Simple Answer, Houserule the Recovery mechanic away and let them spam skills for days on end...anyone ever tell you, you are WAY too by the book?

Right, only the problem is that people insist that using the ToB by-the-itself is the One True Way To... you know the rest.

[Shackel]

Jorme, I'm a PF player so I don't remember which 3.5 class did something similar to this, but I know the "Pathwalker"(Psychic Warrior archetype) has a maneuver regaining method of just needing to make a normal attack or full-attack. What do you think of that method? It seems to fit a lot more into the idea that the maneuvers are fitting into the flow of battle, subtly changing your stance so that it cannot be done again in rapid-succession. You can keep your enemy on their toes by becoming an unpredictable flurry of maneuvers, or you can space them out to keep flow.

The Warlord in PF seems to fall in that same category too: an active way of regaining your maneuvers with the Gambits. Do you think active methods would make more sense, or do you find issue with them being "expendable" in the first place, and prefer something like, say, the Tactical feats from 3.5?

[Nifft]

I'm aware that it's magic, but I'm also aware that some people on this forum insist that it's the Really Ultimate For Real Way Of Playing A Mundane Character And If You Prefer Something Else You're Bad And Wrong, and I don't like that.

It feels like you're biting my hand for having the audacity to try to help bridge the gap between your preference and the more popular preferences.

Well, whatever. It's no harm to my games if you can't use ToB stuff.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Someone summoning lightning is fine because it's fantasy, but someone being faster than lightning is unrealistic and can't happen...

I have no issue with someone being faster than lightning. That's why you get a reflex save! You CAN be faster than lightning.

I was attempting to explain why it might be harder to get into a pattern of dodging lightning blasts, that's all.

And honestly? I wouldn't be opposed to gaining bonuses to saves against repeated uses of the same spell. But D&D has never BEEN consistent, and that lack of consistency is NOT a reason for Tome of Battle to be considered a poor source book.