Red Flags for DMs?

[Zanos]

I couldn't disagree more. Granted, we are talking "red flags", not "run away", and the overuse and inappropriate use of the above is certainly horrible. However, I have found that players often have to be told when their character simply wouldn't take an action. Often it's because of the disparity between PC knowledge and Player knowledge.

P: "I cast _____ so the party can swim in the lava"
DM: "He wouldn't do that"
P: "Yes, he would. And it will work because ___"
DM: "Fine. Your PC casts the spell and jumps in the lava. He is now dead because the spell specifically states it doesn't work like that".

Actual conversation from a game of mine.


Now, if the DM is preventing you from throwing a tomato at a guard or stealing from a shop; sure, he's gone too far.

I feel like that's a really bad conversation. Normally I would respond with "Your character has enough spellcraft to know that _____ doesn't protect you from lava" as the first thing that I say, rather than "You wouldn't do that."

But in general that's not people are referring to when they complain about DMs say "your character wouldn't X". In my experience it's more of an issue of some DMs thinking that alignment is descriptive, and therefore if you're LG you "wouldn't do that."

[weckar]

Still, if there is a genuine disparity between IC and OC knowledge (in the IC's favor), then it is the DMs reponsibility to rectify that when the knowledge matters.

[Barstro]

I feel like that's a really bad conversation. Normally I would respond with "Your character has enough spellcraft to know that _____ doesn't protect you from lava" as the first thing that I say, rather than "You wouldn't do that."

But in general that's not people are referring to when they complain about DMs say "your character wouldn't X". In my experience it's more of an issue of some DMs thinking that alignment is descriptive, and therefore if you're LG you "wouldn't do that."

It was a summary of the conversation. I assure you, the DM tried while the Player ignored.

I'm not sure how I feel about alignment restrictions. I think I'd want a DM to say that the character wouldn't do that, but then allow the player to give a reason that such an act is within the PC's alignment. I'll leave it at that, since most of my experience with this sort of thing is where I feel a DM should have given more direction, while most of you have had DMs be overly restrictive.

[digiman619]

There is a time and place for disagreements, and it is not during the game. And if the player ''can't'' find the time to disagree any other time...well, guess it was not that important, right?

Let's say your right and that in-game is never the appropriate time for disagreement. Have you ever retconned the events in the game world because a player made their case on why they should do X, which would have been disruptive if brought up in-game? Or is it too late to change anything at that point? Because if you won't make such a change, you are telling your players that their choices do not matter, and if you will make such a change, you are wasting everyone's time because significant chunks of the session can be rendered moot if someone wanted to do something but it wasn't "appropriate at the time".

Well, it is ridiculous...but I know most people do it. And sure most of the board would support a jerk player disrupting a game in protest as he can't use the Tome of Battle in the game. But, oddly, only because they support that book...they don't support the ''protest idea''. And if a player protested something they did not like or approve of they would have the same ''ridiculous' reaction...go figure.

Um, no they wouldn't. If someone posted to these boards a thread that boiled down to "I wanted to use ToB, but the DM said no. So in response, I was a disruptive jerk", no one would tell them they're doing the right thing. If it was just the first half ("I wanted to use ToB and the DM said no"), we might commiserate with them, we might urge them to find a game that lets them play with the rules they like, but no one would be congratulating him if he screwed over everyone else in the game as protest.

Side note: I hate that book and everything in it. Kantana's are awesome....well except that first printing of OA that gives them the threat range of ''9-19'', I don't use that misprint in my games. And that is a typical ''sneaky jerk player move'' to write ''kantana'' on their dwarven cleric character sheet along with weapon focus (battle axe) from their domain that they ''exploit'' and apply to the kantana and then roll an 11 and are all like ''yes Critical Threat!''

A few thoughts: 1) You are indeed describing a jerk player... because he or she is blatantly cheating. Ignoring errata and using an obvious typo to justify doing broken things indicate a personality that isn't fun to game with ever, regardless of game, 2) This is not "typical" behavior in any game I have ever played, on either side of the screen. 3) As far as I can tell, there isn't a single god in any official campaign setting that a katana as a favored weapon. Unless they are inventing a deity to be a cleric of, there is no way for this to happen. 4) Do you care to explain why you hate the book? Is it because you find it unbalancing? Even in the late game? Regardless, you will get no guff from me about your dislike. I may disagree with it, but your opinions are your own and are just as valid as mine. 5) If this is typical of your players, then you have my pity. You have a statistical anomaly in that such thankfully rare behavior is more common in your region.

[Zanos]

It was a summary of the conversation. I assure you, the DM tried while the Player ignored.

I think he's just an idiot, in that case.

I'm not sure how I feel about alignment restrictions. I think I'd want a DM to say that the character wouldn't do that, but then allow the player to give a reason that such an act is within the PC's alignment. I'll leave it at that, since most of my experience with this sort of thing is where I feel a DM should have given more direction, while most of you have had DMs be overly restrictive.

It's not about being within the PCs alignment, it's about it being in character. A LG character can do something Evil or Chaotic and still be acting within their character, and the player has full control over who their character is and what's in character for them. Unfortunately a lot of people have taken alignment to be an inflexible straightjacket, where nobody ever does any actions that aren't in line with their current alignment.

The DM gets to determine the repercussions for any actions, of course.

[Segev]

"Ask first" is, IME, either
* I have an idea, but I lack the social skills to express it (red flag), don't trust you to follow it (yellow/red flag), or can't stand discussing it (red flag), or
* we're playing a game of "mother may I", with the GM probably being a control freak (red flag), or just being a workaholic and assuming all responsibility for game balance and fun (red flag).

So... A red flag either way?

Perhaps I should have been specific. Saying "ask first" or "everything with permission" is fine if you actually mean that. If what you actually mean is that only a specific set of things is allowed (banning a book(s) or most of a book, for instance), you should just say that. I see very little point in having an actual ban list and not at least trying to communicate it somewhat. Maybe you can't make an exhaustive list because it would be very large, but if that's the case, that seems like it would be a pretty hefty list of bans that players should know about (and thus strikes me as being fairly easy to make generalizing statements about). Bans fall under houserules and your players should know about them.

In my experience, "Ask first" is actually a good sign that the GM understands that there are broken combinations and builds, but that not every build that uses elements of those broken things is, itself, broken. "Ask first, show me what you're building and why, and we'll discuss it," is what this tells me.

And yes, such a GM might allow one character to use Halfling skip rocks, another character to use the martial stance that lets you re-roll 1s on damage, and a third character to use the martial strike that lets you re-roll and stack damage on the max roll of a damage die...but wouldn't allow any one character to use all three. Or even the last two together.

One GM's approach is to require you to tell him of any tricks or exploits you intend to use, and he'll let you know if he's okay with them or not. Either way - because you discover (or "discover") one you didn't tell him about in play, or because he underestimated how dangerous it would be to his game's balance - he has a blanket rule that he'll give you one chance to work with him to replace a broken trick's pieces, and, if you don't take that chance and use the trick again, he reserves the right to simply take away the pieces without replacement.

Sounds tyrannical, except that it only gets that way if a player refuses to work with him.

Again, takes trust, though, because otherwise one can see it as adversarial and just keep trying to break things.



Regarding "you wouldn't do that," that's uncouth. Now, there might be some times where it's necessary. "No, your character doesn't rape Jim's PC. I don't care that he could and would. That's not happening in my game." But if you're reaching that point, you're no more than one step away from kicking people out of the game.

Generally speaking, you should be communicating "that spell doesn't protect you from lava," not "your character wouldn't cast that spell and jump into lava." Now, the poster has claimed that the real conversation conveyed that information. But the summary didn't, so that's why people are reacting to it as bad communication by the GM.

[ATHATH]

So, Darth Ultron, why do you dislike the ToB? I'm curious.

[Florian]

One GM's approach is to require you to tell him of any tricks or exploits you intend to use, and he'll let you know if he's okay with them or not. Either way - because you discover (or "discover") one you didn't tell him about in play, or because he underestimated how dangerous it would be to his game's balance - he has a blanket rule that he'll give you one chance to work with him to replace a broken trick's pieces, and, if you don't take that chance and use the trick again, he reserves the right to simply take away the pieces without replacement.

Sounds tyrannical, except that it only gets that way if a player refuses to work with him.

Again, takes trust, though, because otherwise one can see it as adversarial and just keep trying to break things.

Interestingly enough, that´s the standard advice how to handle this kind of situation in the Pathfinder GameMastery Guide. If someone comes across a too powerful combination during game, let them have fun using it a bit, then take them to the side and have some talk about it.

@ATHATH:

ToB is curious, as how you look at it depends on whether you have a pronounced martial-caster disparity at your table, or not. If yes, it can help fix things a little bit, if no, then it´ll only cause trouble.

[Darth Ultron]

To be fair, some disagreements arise around situations that come up DURING the game. Do you expect them to sit on their hands until the situation has long passed?

Yes I do.

I never got the Player vs Dm mentality (see the other thread) where a hostile player sits on the edge of their seat just waiting to attack the DM and disrupt and stop the game. so, I simply don't allow that in my game.

Let's say your right and that in-game is never the appropriate time for disagreement. Have you ever retconned the events in the game world because a player made their case on why they should do X, which would have been disruptive if brought up in-game? Or is it too late to change anything at that point? Because if you won't make such a change, you are telling your players that their choices do not matter, and if you will make such a change, you are wasting everyone's time because significant chunks of the session can be rendered moot if someone wanted to do something but it wasn't "appropriate at the time"..

Yes, it has happened, but it's rare. After all it's often more a rule sort of thing, and very often when a player though ''my one torch should have made the barn explode for 1000d1000 damage'' and I say ''the torch lays on the dirt ground inside the barn and burns nothing''.

Um, no they wouldn't. If someone posted to these boards a thread that boiled down to "I wanted to use ToB, but the DM said no. So in response, I was a disruptive jerk", no one would tell them they're doing the right thing. If it was just the first half ("I wanted to use ToB and the DM said no"), we might commiserate with them, we might urge them to find a game that lets them play with the rules they like, but no one would be congratulating him if he screwed over everyone else in the game as protest..

I'm not so sure....

A few thoughts: 1) You are indeed describing a jerk player... because he or she is blatantly cheating. Ignoring errata and using an obvious typo to justify doing broken things indicate a personality that isn't fun to game with ever, regardless of game, 2) This is not "typical" behavior in any game I have ever played, on either side of the screen. 3) As far as I can tell, there isn't a single god in any official campaign setting that a katana as a favored weapon. Unless they are inventing a deity to be a cleric of, there is no way for this to happen. 4) Do you care to explain why you hate the book? Is it because you find it unbalancing? Even in the late game? Regardless, you will get no guff from me about your dislike. I may disagree with it, but your opinions are your own and are just as valid as mine. 5) If this is typical of your players, then you have my pity. You have a statistical anomaly in that such thankfully rare behavior is more common in your region.

Well, the ''why'' of the hate for the ToB could be a whole thread...and has been in the past. But my top three are: Too stupid anime, it is a poorly done sub-rules system that does not fit into the rest of the rules and it's a very bad attempt to just ''give mundane spells(and not call them spells)''.

Also...downright amazingly, the ''type'' of player that ''loves'' the ToB so, so, so much that they refuse to play the game(or at least any mundane character in a game) without it...are amazingly also the ''type'' of player I don't get along with and disagree with.....

And way too many ToB types only like the rules in that book as they are trying to exploit something in the game to get advantage (this is the old ''oh DM I changed my maneuver thingy five times and did not tell you..hehe..so I er, um, always have the perfect one ''on'' my character at all times, no matter what...sometimes even two or three at a time...hehe.'')

So,
Darth Ultron, why do you dislike the ToB? I'm curious.

Short answer is above.

[martixy]

I couldn't disagree more. Granted, we are talking "red flags", not "run away", and the overuse and inappropriate use of the above is certainly horrible. However, I have found that players often have to be told when their character simply wouldn't take an action. Often it's because of the disparity between PC knowledge and Player knowledge.

P: "I cast _____ so the party can swim in the lava"
DM: "He wouldn't do that"
P: "Yes, he would. And it will work because ___"
DM: "Fine. Your PC casts the spell and jumps in the lava. He is now dead because the spell specifically states it doesn't work like that".

Actual conversation from a game of mine.


Now, if the DM is preventing you from throwing a tomato at a guard or stealing from a shop; sure, he's gone too far.

Even before the end of your first sentence, you could see where this is going. And it was going nowhere coherent.

Arguing semantics over how the DM would say "This isn't how any of this works" and trying to graft it onto a conversation over matters of player agency is straight up derailing the discussion(including due to posts like this one, which then have to go explain what the difference is).

---

@Segev, I completely agree.
I feel like this red flag may stem not from "Ask me first", but "Ask, cuz I'm too lazy to actually provide documentation on my preferences/restrictions" and the player then getting a NO 90% of the time.

But it is a good thing if it comes from a more permissive attitude.

For example in the game I'm preparing right now, that's exactly what I said. I.e.
"You can use anything first party + Dragon/Dungeon under the sun, and potentially third party as well, but ask me first. (No DCFS, Locate city nukes or chain gating solars, please.)"

[JNAProductions]

DU, it's been said before. You don't get points for knocking down straw men.

What if someone does 80 HP of lethal damage, and then 20 HP of nonlethal to someone with 95 HP, but you rule that they need to take 95 nonlethal to be knocked out-a clear rules error. And the player knows it. Are they supposed to just sit there and say nothing?

I'm not saying you make that mistake-but you're not perfect. I guarantee you you've made actual, legitimate rules mistakes, that would be easy to correct. That's a much better example, and a more realistic one.

No player is going to say "I use the torch to light the barn on fire and every enemy immediately dies without any collateral damage", unless they're stupid/disruptive. But "I use my torch to light the barn on fire" is a pretty reasonable tactic. You're free to rule what the exact mechanics are, but in general, you should say "Yes, and" or "Yes, but" rather than "No". As a player, I'd much rather hear "Yes, you can set the barn on fire, but it'll take some time to reach your enemies" or "Yes, you can set the barn on fire, but you risk hurting your allies" than "No, nothing happens".

Finally, this:

I never got the Player vs Dm mentality (see the other thread) where a hostile player sits on the edge of their seat just waiting to attack the DM and disrupt and stop the game. so, I simply don't allow that in my game.

Players don't do that. Not unless they're actively being jerks-in which case, don't play with them-or if you constantly make mistakes and they have a reason to be on guard. Good players are there to have fun-they don't want the game to stop any more than the DM does.

As others have said, you seem to like the Player vs. DM mentality-you just hate it when players have any power in that.

[Barstro]

Arguing semantics over how the DM would say "This isn't how any of this works"

Clarifying an overly broad position is not arguing semantics.

"You can use anything first party + Dragon/Dungeon under the sun, and potentially third party as well, but ask me first. (No DCFS, Locate city nukes or chain gating solars, please.)"

Agreed. "Ask me first" is a great way to make sure the DM and players are on the same page and agree both with allowable materials and how things interact with each other. It also speeds the game along when the DM knows how certain obscure abilities work.

Besides, the player is keeping things from the DM only once. After that first "surprise", it's as if you ran it by the DM in the first place.

[Thurbane]

I couldn't disagree more. Granted, we are talking "red flags", not "run away", and the overuse and inappropriate use of the above is certainly horrible. However, I have found that players often have to be told when their character simply wouldn't take an action. Often it's because of the disparity between PC knowledge and Player knowledge.

P: "I cast _____ so the party can swim in the lava"
DM: "He wouldn't do that"
P: "Yes, he would. And it will work because ___"
DM: "Fine. Your PC casts the spell and jumps in the lava. He is now dead because the spell specifically states it doesn't work like that".

Actual conversation from a game of mine.


Now, if the DM is preventing you from throwing a tomato at a guard or stealing from a shop; sure, he's gone too far.

I wouldn't call that disagreement, I would simply say you've applied my phrase in a way I hadn't even considered when posting it (i.e. using OOC knowledge to have a PC act on something he wouldn't actually know).

Even in that case, as a DM, I wouldn't simply say "Your character wouldn't do that!". I'd remind the player that his character is acting on knowledge his character wouldn't have, and ask him to reconsider. Or call for a relevant knowledge check, if anyone had the right ranks (maybe Spellcraft or KNowledge Arcana, in your example). Only if the player was insistent on using OOC character knowledge to justify an action his character wouldn't reasonable take would I rule the character couldn't act in that particular way.

The above example you cite, though, doesn't sound like a character using OOC knowledge - it sounds like a rules disagreement. Even if the player was wrong, I'd explain why the spell wouldn't work the way the player thinks it does first, rather than declaring a PC dead then explaining.

FWIW, depending on the spell, it actually would work. There is a rule buried somewhere that any resistance to fire makes characters immune to lava. There was also an online WotC article that said you can use a cantrip (Prestidigitation from memory) to get fire resistance of 1. I've seen these two used in combo to justify lava immunity from a level 0 spell. It wouldn't fly in my game either, but if this is what your player was doing, I can certainly see how they arrived at this conclusion.

[LTwerewolf]

But my top three are: Too stupid anime,

I suggest you try reading a few treatises. Western cultures named their moves too. The character doesn't have top scream the name of the move any more than a wizard has to shout "IMA FIRIN MAH LAZORS" when they cast magic missle.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I suggest you try reading a few treatises. Western cultures named their moves too. The character doesn't have top scream the name of the move any more than a wizard has to shout "IMA FIRIN MAH LAZORS" when they cast magic missle.

It's pointless to argue with anyone who thinks the ToB is anime garbage. Cause that's a load of **** and reflavoring things is easy. ffs I remember just a day ago reading on here someone reflavored the wizard as a martial for a weird custom world.

The real issue here is guy at the gym fallacy comboed with Martials don't get nice things. It's on par with trying to argue religion. The person will never budge their position and thinks they're automatically right. The solution is to simply never play with those types of people. In one of the groups I'm playing in someone tried to join recently who was of a similar attitude. Thankfully we all voted to remove said person rather quickly. Can't have one person ruining the fun of everyone else.

[LTwerewolf]

I'm totally cool with people not liking the mechanics of it. Not every mechanic is for every person. Pretending that it can't be anything but "stupid anime" is very different though. Personally I prefer path of war over ToB (I DM a 3.P game) since it's been done better (and with editing!).

[Zanos]

Warblade and Crusader are mostly fine. People will bring up Iron Heart Surge but giving the finger to magical effects with determination is a western media trope as well. Some of the Swordsage disciplines are definitely wacky anime, though. I learned to teleport and shoot fire out of my hands by training real hard like, senpai. Weeaboo fightan magic indeed.

[Segev]

It is, sadly, pointless to argue with Darth Ultron. If he doesn't agree with you and you make a point that undermines his position, he assigns a straw man to you instead and attacks that, all the while claiming that it's the only possible thing you could have meant. He doesn't actually listen to what people say. Or read-and-comprehend it, I suppose, since this is text. He's here to declare his truth, not to have a discussion.

Which is sad, because occasionally he has some good points, but then turns around and slams them so far into an extreme wall that they lose their value.

[Barstro]

Which is sad, because occasionally he has some good points, but then turns around and slams them so far into an extreme wall that they lose their value.

The Michael Moore of D&D?

[Segev]

The Michael Moore of D&D?

That's being a bit unfair to Darth Ultron.

[Barstro]

The above example you cite, though, doesn't sound like a character using OOC knowledge - it sounds like a rules disagreement.

True. But in a debate over somewhat reasonable interpretations of a rule, one should probably side with the DM who advises that the description of a spell does not state what the player thinks it does.

Something more on point, but less concrete, was the player who prayed for guidance from his (good) god, was told by his god told seek help from a second (good) god, and proceeded to attack the second god. But that was probably met with "do you really want to do that" instead of "your character wouldn't do that".

All of that, however, is tangential to the original reason for your post.

[digiman619]

I never got the Player vs Dm mentality (see the other thread) where a hostile player sits on the edge of their seat just waiting to attack the DM and disrupt and stop the game. so, I simply don't allow that in my game.

Someone who does that is an ***hole. They will be an ***hole when they play because they are an ***hole all the time. Don't play with these people, and don't be around them any longer than needed.

Yes, it has happened, but it's rare. After all it's often more a rule sort of thing, and very often when a player though ''my one torch should have made the barn explode for 1000d1000 damage'' and I say ''the torch lays on the dirt ground inside the barn and burns nothing''.

You know the Wizard of Oz had characters of than the Scarecrow, right? You don;t need to replace them all with straw men.

I'm not so sure....

Then I defy you to find a thread where that happened. Because outside of a "Worst DMs Ever" thread, I've never seen such a sentiment be applauded.

Well, the ''why'' of the hate for the ToB could be a whole thread...and has been in the past. But my top three are: Too stupid anime, it is a poorly done sub-rules system that does not fit into the rest of the rules and it's a very bad attempt to just ''give mundane spells(and not call them spells)''.

I will not argue with you on this. I disagree vehemently, but I will respect your opinion.

Also...downright amazingly, the ''type'' of player that ''loves'' the ToB so, so, so much that they refuse to play the game(or at least any mundane character in a game) without it...are amazingly also the ''type'' of player I don't get along with and disagree with.....

...You do know that Caster/Martial Disparity is a real thing, right? It's not some smear campaign that all the Fighters and Barbarians made up, it's eminently provable, right? Because ToB is one of the few things that give a martial anything like the versatility that casters have, while not also giving them the game-busting power casters have.

And way too many ToB types only like the rules in that book as they are trying to exploit something in the game to get advantage (this is the old ''oh DM I changed my maneuver thingy five times and did not tell you..hehe..so I er, um, always have the perfect one ''on'' my character at all times, no matter what...sometimes even two or three at a time...hehe.'')

And what's stopping any prepared caster from doing the same thing? Why aren't they on your ****list? Yes, a martial adept can take 10 minutes to change maneuvers. Giving them 10 minutes in-game to do this is reasonable. Not checking what they're swapping is boneheaded to say the least. It'd be like letting Clerics and Druids be spontaneous casters and then complaining they're overpowered. If you can't see that's the fault of the ***hole player and lax-to-the-point-of-being-incompetent DM rather than the rules, I don't know if I can help you.

[icefractal]

Tangential, but this is something that’s puzzled me for a while - why is there a correlation between viking-hat DMing* and disliking Tome of Battle? It’s not like ToB introduces any narrative-based rules that change the normal player/GM areas of authority. A ToB character works the same in a PC role as does any of the core classes.

Is it simply that there’s another correlation causing it? Like viking-hat DMs tend to like super-classic D&D tropes and so ToB is too thematically different? Or they tend to have groups with very low-power PCs where doing more than 1d8+3 damage at 5th level breaks things? Or is there something inherently opposed between “strong DM authority” and “fighting styles with named maneuvers”?

Edit: Just noticed that Darth Ultron did elaborate. And besides support for the “not classic enough" reason, he does bring up a third reason I was forgetting - disliking it because of who likes it. Has ToB become a political thing, where it gets hate for being affiliated with the wrong 'side'? That's depressing if so.

* Not meaning that as an insult, it just seems like the most applicable term.

[dehro]

To be fair, some disagreements arise around situations that come up DURING the game. Do you expect them to sit on their hands until the situation has long passed?

Yes I do.

I'd be out of that game faster than you can say "THACO is stupid"

[ComaVision]

Personally, I've only seen grognards that hate/dislike/ban ToB.

[Svata]

Because martials can't have nice things.

[martixy]

Weeaboo fightan magic indeed.

I actually like it more because of this phrase. :)

[Zanos]

I actually like it more because of this phrase. :)

I actually adopted it even though I like and allow the book, it's pretty funny.

[Blu]

I don't get why people dislike the idea of sword magic or something of the sorts.
Maybe because people measure fighters with reality standards, while magic is OK because there is no comparisson with reality.
I mean, it's fantasy, why can't the answer for marcial stuff be magic as well?

For example, the barbarian. Instead of being the guy that gets pissed off, why not just say he infuses his body with magic or something of the sort?

[Coretron03]

Well, the ''why'' of the hate for the ToB could be a whole thread...and has been in the past. But my top three are: Too stupid anime, it is a poorly done sub-rules system that does not fit into the rest of the rules and it's a very bad attempt to just ''give mundane spells(and not call them spells)''.

Also...downright amazingly, the ''type'' of player that ''loves'' the ToB so, so, so much that they refuse to play the game(or at least any mundane character in a game) without it...are amazingly also the ''type'' of player I don't get along with and disagree with.....

And way too many ToB types only like the rules in that book as they are trying to exploit something in the game to get advantage (this is the old ''oh DM I changed my maneuver thingy five times and did not tell you..hehe..so I er, um, always have the perfect one ''on'' my character at all times, no matter what...sometimes even two or three at a time...hehe.'')

1: Too anime. This is pretty much fluff. Fluff can be changed. Sure, swordsages teleporting but so can monks. Crappily but monks can teleport. Do you ban monks for being too anime? Sure, shooting fire you may not like, but is is ok that a clerics devotion to a concept of their choosing lets them shoot fire a swordsages devotion doesn't? It sounds like the only option you want martials to have is "Whack it with a stick". I don't know what about warblades and crusaders are too anime. Save replacing diamond mind? Your mind is so honed it allows you to move physically faster and be more resilent. Crusaders strike? People can cast healing spells. I don't see the problem?

2: People wanting to play interesting and poeerful martials that don't require much work! God forbid they want options!

3: this has nothing to do with ToB. The same player could do worse with a wizard/cleric/druid. Your player is a **** and he is breaking the rules. I don't know in what world that's the rules fault.