Results 511 to 536 of 536
Thread: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
-
2014-09-18, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
A bitch and a half to enchant meaningfully, though, and if your primary configuration isn't doing the job, either you're enchanting each striking surface separately, which has its own problems, or you're stuck with either Scorpion Kama if you got MIC access like that (it's a set item, which may have its own baggage, though if you're going monk full-tilt the rest of it can be useful) or begging your DM to either let your Gauntlets adjust to your Unarmed Strike damage (not that much of a stretch, they're explicitly called out as scaling to the non-class version, but still) or let you enchant handwraps or something as weapons. If you got a crafter in your party and your DM's feeling generous, he MAY be able to swap out your enchantments for equal-level ones with minimal cost, but that's iffy on its own right and will still take a significant amount of time. That's assuming that you can enchant Unarmed Strikes in the first place, which may or may not be available, in which case you're stuck with oddball items like the NoNA or the AoMF if you're really desparate and can convince your DM to let it accept better enchantments than just +1 Atk/Dmg.
EDIT: And really, the only things powerful about it are the difficulty in disarming someone of them (even literally disarming the Unarmed striker won't do the trick, you'll probably kill/neutralize them outright before you pull it off) and their base damage dice. Someone who's truly trying to put a hole in something would be able to do so with a toothpick if they could 2-hand it, the weapon's base damage rarely matters in the slightest as long as it's not directly countered (like a normal whip, for instance, or something that only deals non-lethal damage no matter what). Go look up an Ubercharger, and calculate what percentage of that damage comes from the weapon itself.Last edited by aleucard; 2014-09-18 at 05:53 PM.
-
2014-09-18, 06:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- ⚣
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Actually, unarmed strikes are one of the easiest weapons to enhance, to the point where you can hit epic numbers of enhancements (+11 or more) with little to do.
A monk using a tooth of Leraje (+5 enhancement bonus), stacked weapon crystal of lesser energy assault (acid/cold/electricity/fire/sonic - the equivalent of five +1 weapon enhancements, for cheap) and least fiendslayer (+1 equivalent) and least truedeath (+1 equivalent) and least returning (+1 equivalent), battlefist (+9 in non-enhancement bonus weapon qualities), Item Familiar (Unarmed Strike) (+3 equivalent), Ancestral Relic (Unarmed Strike) (+10 equivalent), Kensai (+10 equivalent), five chronocharms (each with a necklace of natural weapons item ability attached to it) (+45 equivalent), gauntlets of extended range (added to battlefist for the equivalent of the Distance quality, and stacks therewith), bracers of striking (+20 equivalent), and a few others. Such as going warforged, enhancing his slam attack, and using Bestial Strike to add another +9 on there (or FAR more if you use the above to enhance his slam attack, too).
Granted, those numbers above are the max, and it'll be expensive as all get out to boost ALL of those all the way up to +10 all the way around, and multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack (although +X equivalents do), but there's no x10 epic modifier, so it's a helluvalot cheaper, overall, and you can't do that with anything but a ranged weapon with ammo (but nowhere near that extent).Last edited by Rubik; 2014-09-18 at 07:03 PM.
-
2014-09-18, 06:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Actually, trivially easy. Just get a Necklace of Natural Attacks (bottom of the page).
-
2014-09-18, 06:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
-
2014-09-18, 06:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- ⚣
- Gender
-
2014-09-18, 06:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
-
2014-09-18, 06:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
-
2014-09-18, 08:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
-
2014-09-18, 08:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
The issue is that some anti-ToB folk actually just don't understand the thing they hate. There are other anti-ToB folk, ones who go into their hatred with full knowledge of the thing they hate. With them I disagree, where I would simply say that those of the first group are wrong. Point is, some who dislike it actually are ignorant, and claiming as such is fair, while claiming that all who dislike it are ignorant is inaccurate and unfair. Keledrath has stated the former, while your example ToB lover was a person who stated the latter.
-
2014-09-18, 09:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
its most ardent supporters claimed that anyone else who was running D&D without it was an of ignorant, incompetent, and/or mean-spirited heretic who didn't know how to run D&DTo be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant. Ignorance is only a bad thing if you refuse to stop being ignorant
And the people who insist on being ignorant often are incompetent and/or mean spirited.Last edited by Just to Browse; 2014-09-18 at 09:03 PM.
All work I do is CC-BY-SA. Copy it wherever you want as long as you credit me.
-
2014-09-18, 09:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Keledrath's statement. He only mentioned "anyone who things ToB is overpowered . . .is ignorant" without covering any of the other ground you did in your next-to-last sentence. He may not have meant that anyone who disliked ToB thought it was overpowered, but by omitting other cases and just jumping on that one . . . especially as a direct reply to my statement that was *not* restricted to people who think ToB is overpowered . . .well, it conveys the kind of impression I was describing earlier, even if it was not intended. Just too quick to pull the trigger on the "ignorant" label.
As a side note, I'm not even sure that saying "ToB is overpowered" is always wrong. If you're saying it is overpowered compared to optimized high level magic spells . . . then yeah, you are pretty much wrong. If you're saying its overpowered because its (acknowledged by its supporters) high optimization floor is too much for a low-op table (which doesn't have to be a gaming style borne of ignorance - gentlemens' agreements are a thing), then the statement may actually be correct, even if it is correct only for that (not altogether uncommon) situation and not all situations.
-
2014-09-18, 09:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
I don't see how providing a particular example in which a ToB-hater is ignorant gives any way over to a blanket claim of ignorance. His argument was that some people who hate ToB actually are ignorant. I don't think there's a real onus on him to make the inverse claim.
As a side note, I'm not even sure that saying "ToB is overpowered" is always wrong. If you're saying it is overpowered compared to optimized high level magic spells . . . then yeah, you are pretty much wrong. If you're saying its overpowered because its (acknowledged by its supporters) high optimization floor is too much for a low-op table (which doesn't have to be a gaming style borne of ignorance - gentlemens' agreements are a thing), then the statement may actually be correct, even if it is correct only for that (not altogether uncommon) situation and not all situations.
-
2014-09-18, 09:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
- Location
- Minnesota
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Last edited by Hiro Protagonest; 2014-09-18 at 09:27 PM.
Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
My Steam profile
Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting
-
2014-09-18, 09:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Yes, but his statement was issued as a direct reply to my own fairly broad statement that ToB defenders often appeared overzealous to condemn. Issuing an immediate reply that is restricted to a specific subset of the anti-ToB crowd to whom the "ignorant" label can be most safely applied without referring even once to the remaining anti-ToB crowd to whom that label cannot be so safely applied . . . well, that does not exactly dispel the perception that the pro-ToB crowd is quick to jump to applying such labels, now does it?
-
2014-09-18, 09:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- GMT -5
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Eggy described my point exactly.
The big point of my post was that little bit following what you quoted. The part about Wizard being a million times more overpowered than anything from ToB (again, excluding abuse of IHS and WRT. And probably not even then). Therefore, if you believe ToB is overpowered, you are ignorant of what a wizard can do. I also went on to say that this ignorance is not a bad thing. The problem is when people go
TOB OP, AUTO-BAN, BURN THE STUPID BOOK
without ever actually reading it or getting second opinions.
There are groups that auto-ban monks for being overpowered. Are they ignorant? Yes. Does that make them bad? No. If they come on here and have it demonstrated (probably by reading some Pickford threads) that monk is garbage compared to wizard and still insist on banning monk for being overpowered (as opposed to banning it for being a trap), that is when they are being incompetent and mean-spirited.I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.
Shadeblight by KennyPyro
-
2014-09-18, 09:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Of course it doesn't dispel that perception. It wasn't meant to. His argument is that people who love ToB absolutely do say that members of the opposition are ignorant, but that it's a completely fair and justified accusation some amount of the time. If you want to make a generalization based on his argument, it would be that such accusations are always predicated on some actual ignorance, but my suspicion is that the truth, and his claim, lie somewhere between the accusation never being justified and it always being justified. The essential challenge, I suppose, would be to find situations in which the accusation is made where it isn't justified, but again, we're really working with theoretical argument constructs here.
-
2014-09-18, 09:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
This is only exacerbated by humanity's tendency to slip into generalization language when speaking about a single case.
Ex: "To be fair, anyone who thinks ToB stuff (ignoring the vagueness of WRT and IHS) is overpowered has clearly never seen a wizard played to its potential, and therefore is ignorant."
This statement assumes but does not state that "Balance is defined by Wizards being played properly, rather than being defined by Bards or Barbarians being played properly". The unstated assumption creates a generalization language when we can tell a specific language was intended in order to make the logic valid.
-
2014-09-18, 09:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- GMT -5
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.
Shadeblight by KennyPyro
-
2014-09-18, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
-
2014-09-18, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2014-09-18, 09:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Oh, then it was rightly criticized as being an invalid argument. Given a definition of balance X, showing Y+100>X provides no information about if Y is or is not greater than X. So showing a properly played Wizard is OP gives no evidence to support the claim that ToB is never OP for any definition of balance X. This then makes the conclusion about ignorance, ignorant.
Last edited by OldTrees1; 2014-09-18 at 09:51 PM.
-
2014-09-18, 09:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Well, yeah. It wasn't meant to dispel it, but it was meant to justify the actions that cause it. My statement later was meant to dispel it, as were a few later, because while some folk might act like that in some situations, it's certainly not all folk, and it's certainly not in all situations.
Edit: Well, if we're going to go that direction, then I can equally claim that anyone who says that ToB is imbalanced is being ignorant, because they're ignoring the relative nature of balance to reach their conclusion. If the poster's claim does feature an acknowledgement of the relative nature of balance (The warblade is totally overpowered in my rogue/aristocrat/commoner party), then I suspect that Keledrath would feel that a claim of ignorance there would be unjustified.Last edited by eggynack; 2014-09-18 at 09:55 PM.
-
2014-09-18, 10:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- GMT -5
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Except that I am saying the Y is not overpowered compared to Y+100. So if X is Core (Things already existing in the game world) and contains everything from Y+100 (full OP Wizards) to Y-100 (Core only Monks), then no comparison can be made to Y, because Y is everything. I am saying that Y is balanced compared to Y+100, not to X, because X includes Y+100.
I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.
Shadeblight by KennyPyro
-
2014-09-18, 10:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Gender
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Well, this argument has certainly become oddly meta and confusing.
-
2014-09-18, 10:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
That's fair to say. Keledrath's initial reply to my statement *was* symptomatic of the problem I was describing, for reasons already described . . . but it was a truthful statement at least, and *far* better than some of the things that have been said by . . . I'm not sure "more actively malignant" is really the right phrase, but I cannot at the moment think of a better one . . . defenders of the ToB that I have very unfond memories of, and I should have done a better job of pointing that out when making my subsequent posts.
-
2014-09-18, 10:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Your opinon on Tome of Battle
Then return 2 posts.
Either
You were assuming yet not stating the assumption that balance was defined by(aka "compared to") wizards. Aka using generalization language when not intending generalization language.
OR
You were trying to conclude Y<X from Y+100>X.
Sidenote: In my notation, Y+100 was Wizards, Y is ToB. X =/= core since core is not a standard of balance. X could be unrestrained core (aka Wizard) or some other definition within core's balance spectrum.Last edited by OldTrees1; 2014-09-18 at 10:27 PM.