Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[atemu1234]

I personally use it in my campaigns, but I don't have any PCs who actually want to learn the subsystem and put it into use. What's your opinion?

[Threadnaught]

I like it, the Crusader looks like a fun Class to play. Swordsage has two other variants, one of which very few are willing to discuss seriously. And Warblade is, wow, it's like a not boring version of Fighter.

Then there's the Maneuvers and Stances, so many interesting ways to attack with a weapon. Stances offer small bonuses all day long and are therefore awesome. I like breaking the game as Wizard, but ToB Classes get to do special crazy stuff all day long, without running out of powers.

Never underestimate how enjoyable constantly using powers can be.



It's the only book I have that I willingly broke my price limit for.

[Flickerdart]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

[The Insanity]

What's your opinion?

It's positive.

[atemu1234]

It's positive.

Are you Aladeen, or Aladeen?

[VoxRationis]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

[facelessminion]

I loved the book, and am tickled pink with how well Dreamscarred Press is managing Path of War thusfar.

[malonkey1]

I'm a fan. I actually liked it so much that I pre-ordered all the Path of War stuff from DSP. I feel like ToB gives a lot more options to martials, although I will admit that many of those options are still "whack a guy". But with ToB, you can whack people in more varied and useful ways!

[Darrin]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

*slow clap* Nicely done.

[Studoku]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

You ban clerics? That seems a little harsh.

[Ilorin Lorati]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

...First time I've ever seen a sig-worthy post without it already being called out. May I?

[Threadnaught]

I hate Tome of Battle. It's nowhere near anime enough. In a game where everyone else is flying and shooting lasers and transforming into dragons, it lets you...poke a guy, or sometimes poke a guy twice. And you aren't even required to call out your attack, unlike every spell in the game. It's ridiculous.

I hate the Player Handbook, far too anime. D&D is supposed to be about medieval fantasy, where characters die of cholera and toil away on the turnip harvest, not fight epic monsters and perform heroic deeds like some {scrubbed} Japanese cartoon character.

[molten_dragon]

It's one of my three favorite 3.5 splatbooks. I can generally find a use for some martial adept levels with almost any mundane build I'm considering. It adds a lot of fun to my gaming experience.

[WhamBamSam]

I love ToB to bits. It might just be my favorite D&D book. It has some sloppy editing in a few places, but that's 3.5 for you. In general, it's a fantastic resource that I want to be on the table in any 3.5 game, even if I don't plan on using anything out of it.

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

Would you have thought it cruel if the ToB classes had been printed in place of the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk in the PHB? Because the ways to play a warrior from before the book came out pretty much don't function alongside anything else that's even remotely magical.

Also, I really like the maneuver system. It doesn't feel vanican to me, it feels like martial arts, even if some of the disciplines/higher level maneuvers do a few unrealistic things.

[Val666]

Best book eva

[Averis Vol]

I really like it, but I kinda dislike the maneuver schools were divided up. I just feel like some should be available to the other classes (like setting sun being available to warblades, Iron heart being available to crusaders......Swordsages get basically everything anyways, no beef there thematically.),and maybe they should be a little less magical and a bit more mystical, the obvious difference being how flashy they are, desert wind, I'm lookin at you.

But even more so, I think just throwing on more damage and making everything explode isn't really progressive seeing how high damage is already inflated.

[Divide by Zero]

I dislike having semi-Vancian fighters, and the idea of having an entire set of classes intended to outdo anyone who wanted to play a warrior before the books came out is a little cruel.

So you dislike that it makes martial characters more relevant?

For what it's worth, ToB classes actually multiclass really well with the core martial classes, there's just less incentive to take them to level 20 (not that there was much in the first place...).

[Zanos]

It lets martial characters make a decision other than "power attack amount" and "target", so I love it. I typically play casters, but it's nice to be able to optimize a bit more without overshadowing other characters.

[Aegis013]

One of the greatest subsystems in 3.5. Use of the book is always encouraged (though not required) at my table.

[pwykersotz]

I use it, I like it. I don't love it.

The Tome of Battle give some much needed love to martial characters. I respect that. Unfortunately, it also has a ton of frustrations like needlessly complex refresh mechanics (Crusader), poorly defined boundaries (Iron Heart Surge), allowing skill checks to replace saves (this would be fine if the skill system weren't cracked wide open), and no sense of what an appropriate use of abilities outside of combat would look like.

All in all, 7/10 rating.

[facelessminion]

So you dislike that it makes martial characters more relevant?

For what it's worth, ToB classes actually multiclass really well with the core martial classes, there's just less incentive to take them to level 20 (not that there was much in the first place...).

Let's not Rudisplork this thread by goading others, please. They said exactly what they dislike, why not just accept that as is?

I emphatically disagree with them, but doing so isn't going to somehow make debate of the type you're trying to start worthwhile.

[Blackhawk748]

I enjoy it, though ive only played a Warblade a few times and i really dont have much interest in playing the other two, maybe the Swordsage. Even though the Warblade is strictly better than the Fighter i still find myself playing Fighters more than Warblades, probably just familiarity.

[OldTrees1]

I have only 2 complaints about the system. It is great. Could have been better, but it is great.
1) I prefer abilities not to be expended/unreadied.
2) I prefer abilities the build together. ToB is more about active abilities(most maneuvers) than about passive abilities(just the stances).

[Squirrel_Dude]

If I had the option I'd replace the fighter and the monk in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with the Warblade and Swordsage without a second thought.* I love them that much. My favorite thing about the system (and I love psionics for the same reason): 1 initiate working alone = powerful, 2 initiates working together = powerful^2. The synergy between classes encourages teamwork among player characters.



*Well... that also assumes Tome of Battle would be appropriately edited before it was put into the Core Rulebook. Easily my biggest problem with the book.

[facelessminion]

If I had the option I'd replace the fighter and the monk in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with the Warblade and Swordsage without a second thought. I love them that much.

If you work with PF, have you had the opportunity to look at the Path of War stuff? :)

[Squirrel_Dude]

If you work with PF, have you had the opportunity to look at the Path of War stuff? :)

I took part in the playtest. Can't wait to get the full .pdf on Tuesday.

[RenaldoS]

The fluff is very boring, although the crunch is good. I actually think some of the classes are a little too strong at low levels and this scares a lot of DMs away from using the book.

[Firechanter]

It's my favourite splat. I was skeptical when I first heard of it -- I am effing lazy and hate getting into new subsystems -- but this one is really worth the while. Of course it has its shortcomings, such as shoddy editing and some inconsistent stuff. But on the whole it's melee done right.

Oh and I never had the feeling that it was "too anime" or anything, and at this point I should add that I am not particularly fond of anime, so if it felt like that I would probably not like it. It does feel somewhat like Wuxia, though, but that's cool.

I generally prefer playing Melee types, and Warblade is my favourite melee class evar.

What's not to like about ToB:
- Some maneuvers are downright broken, as in "they don't do what they should do, and do things they shouldn't"; primary candidate of course Iron Heart Surge. But there are fixes for that.
- Martial Lore is another useless skill. Just ignore it.
- Martial Scripts are ill-conceived, an utterly stupid idea. Ignore.
- Let's better not talk about Weapons of Legacy.
- some maneuvers have strange level ratings compared to the rest of the game. For instance, if you want Pounce... you can take 9 levels of Warblade and use Pounce as a maneuver once or twice in an encounter... or you can take 1 level of Barbarian and do it all the freaking time. It would make more sense as a level 3-4 maneuver.
- Class design has some flaws. Crusader doesn't have a proper capstone, for instance. Warblade has some unnecessary shortcomings, such as the lack of Ranged weapon proficiencies or certain skills missing from the class list which would befit the "intelligent warrior" type. Also, the stance progressions are broken (especially for the Warblade).

That looks like a rather long list, but if you compare that to all the stuff that's great in this book, and realize that half the issues are solved simply by ignoring them, and the rest is easily fixed, it's really not a big deal.

Long story short, ToB is lovely. I wouldn't want to play 3.5 without it again, and its absence from Pathfinder is one of the main reasons why PF will never replace 3.5 as my preferred system.
[Yes I know about PoW, but it's 3rd Party and none of the PF GMs I can play with will allow that.]

[Hiro Protagonest]

The only thing that'd get me to consider playing 3.5 is Warriors & Wuxia, in my sig.

[malonkey1]

*Well... that also assumes Tome of Battle would be appropriately edited before it was put into the Core Rulebook. Easily my biggest problem with the book.

Well, to be fair, I have a sneaking suspicion that WotC granted the 3e/3.5 writers Protection from Editors, trying to go the opposite direction of certain, more restraining individuals in TSR's upper echelons. *Cough*Lorraine Williams*conspicuous cough*, which, as a downside, meant that the books were poorly edited. As an upside, the game developers didn't have to make campaign settings (Spelljammer) purely out of rebellion. As another downside, the game developers didn't make stupid awesome campaign settings like Spelljammer.

That said, I've noticed that many gaming books released after 2001, with a few exceptions (Kudos, New World of Darkness), are full of typographical errors. I wonder if there's a reason for this?