|
So I probably should have looked up that fighter power for myself on the compendium, but I wanted to see in the book first before checking for errata.
Actually it's only a level 3 encounter power, and even though it's been altered in the compendium, I don't think it's really that out of whack in the phb. You get two attacks initially against the same target, they only do 1 weapon damage (so no bonuses for strength), and if you hit with both you can make a third attack against another target- in the phb you do get your strength bonus to damage with the final attack (which they took away in the errata). That's a little broken, but not anything close to game breaking.
Uh, if that's how you read it, you read it wrong, you get another attack for each hit. Remember its two attacks that say "On a hit make a secondary attack."
Our party barbarian basically did the same thing... So no points on the ToB complaint regarding the spoiler, I'm sorry. As a matter of fact, I want to say our PFRPG Barbarian typically out damaged the ToB class we had someone playing briefly while we were using the BETA rules (they eventually gave up that character to run a BETA class, go figure).
The true curve of ToB is it shines at low levels (like the other melee gear dependent classes with "constant" combat ability -but less gear dependant as they have a few abilities to work with instead of a feat or two) slowly building up at mid levels where it plateu's and then hits the same decline the other melee/combat classes do while the casters increase. They never get to the point where they just plain outdo the casters, they just keep up better than most of the combat classes and fall behind slower. A melee class that wasn't completely outshone by the casters during the "meat" of the adventuring career was a very good thing.
Uh...huh...
SO your generally low AC barbarian (comparatively to other classes) was soloing monsters with DR, fast healing, AND at the time an immunity to crits? Yeah, I'm calling that one out. THe main issue with it was the warblade was doing so no problems at all, I highly doubt your barbarian had as easy a time as that Warblade.
Highly, doubt.
I get you're one of those fanatics about the Tome of Battle, but even the designer said there were flaws with it, not the LEAST being that it has zero resource management. The fact of the matter is that as raw the ToB allows characters to go on indefinitely without need of rest. Don't believe me? I pointed out several things that make that true, not the least of which is that you can easily delve deep into the Devoted Spirit Maneuvers as a warblade, lose nothing and gain almost complete immunity to being killed via hitpoints. Then turn around and easily make it hard for you to fail the SoD spells in the same build.
All this, and you lose NOTHING....
The barbarian(3.5) could outdamage a ToBer, depending on build of course. The strength of ToBs not so much the amount of damage it could deal, even though it is a lot, but its versatility. Crusaders get to ignore damage reduction, and the Warblade could just will status affects away. The poster never said whether or not it was the core barbarian, and that is important when saying a class cant do something. It could have been the pouncing barbarian. I cant even believed they allowed that version to make it into the books. I have always assumed the core class was default, but I have fallen for that too many times in a debate to assume the core is what is being discussed. I have not played Crimson Tide so I don't know how much DM ability or dice rolls had to to with the ability to survive the encounter with a meleeist as your main guy.
That is all for now.
Hey sorry for the ThreadJack here folks but this post is for P.H. Dungeon.
Bro, are you going to join us over in the Tomb of the Emperor Gods thread? We've already begun. I'm looking forward to getting to play with ya man. I think this will be the first time ever we've both been Players in the same game together.
I see how you could read it that way and technically you probably read it right, but I don't think that's how it's intended to be read, and wouldn't let a player in my game use it that way.
Uh, if that's how you read it, you read it wrong, you get another attack for each hit. Remember its two attacks that say "On a hit make a secondary attack."So I probably should have looked up that fighter power for myself on the compendium, but I wanted to see in the book first before checking for errata.
Actually it's only a level 3 encounter power, and even though it's been altered in the compendium, I don't think it's really that out of whack in the phb. You get two attacks initially against the same target, they only do 1 weapon damage (so no bonuses for strength), and if you hit with both you can make a third attack against another target- in the phb you do get your strength bonus to damage with the final attack (which they took away in the errata). That's a little broken, but not anything close to game breaking.
I didn't realize it had started...
Hey sorry for the ThreadJack here folks but this post is for P.H. Dungeon.
Bro, are you going to join us over in the Tomb of the Emperor Gods thread? We've already begun. I'm looking forward to getting to play with ya man. I think this will be the first time ever we've both been Players in the same game together.
|
|
...Our party barbarian basically did the same thing... So no points on the ToB complaint regarding the spoiler, I'm sorry. As a matter of fact, I want to say our PFRPG Barbarian typically out damaged the ToB class we had someone playing briefly while we were using the BETA rules (they eventually gave up that character to run a BETA class, go figure).
The true curve of ToB is it shines at low levels (like the other melee gear dependent classes with "constant" combat ability -but less gear dependant as they have a few abilities to work with instead of a feat or two) slowly building up at mid levels where it plateu's and then hits the same decline the other melee/combat classes do while the casters increase. They never get to the point where they just plain outdo the casters, they just keep up better than most of the combat classes and fall behind slower. A melee class that wasn't completely outshone by the casters during the "meat" of the adventuring career was a very good thing.
Uh...huh...
SO your generally low AC barbarian (comparatively to other classes) was soloing monsters with DR, fast healing, AND at the time an immunity to crits? Yeah, I'm calling that one out. THe main issue with it was the warblade was doing so no problems at all, I highly doubt your barbarian had as easy a time as that Warblade.
Highly, doubt.
I get you're one of those fanatics about the Tome of Battle, but even the designer said there were flaws with it, not the LEAST being that it has zero resource management. The fact of the matter is that as raw the ToB allows characters to go on indefinitely without need of rest. Don't believe me? I pointed out several things that make that true, not the least of which is that you can easily delve deep into the Devoted Spirit Maneuvers as a warblade, lose nothing and gain almost complete immunity to being killed via hitpoints. Then turn around and easily make it hard for you to fail the SoD spells in the same build.
All this, and
Good point, I was thinking standard build Barbarian, as opposed to Standard Build ToBer.
Forgive me, I forgot that standard build ToBer is superior to everything except highly specialized fighters and Barbarians.
|
|
I see how you could read it that way and technically you probably read it right, but I don't think that's how it's intended to be read, and wouldn't let a player in my game use it that way.
Uh, if that's how you read it, you read it wrong, you get another attack for each hit. Remember its two attacks that say "On a hit make a secondary attack."So I probably should have looked up that fighter power for myself on the compendium, but I wanted to see in the book first before checking for errata.
Actually it's only a level 3 encounter power, and even though it's been altered in the compendium, I don't think it's really that out of whack in the phb. You get two attacks initially against the same target, they only do 1 weapon damage (so no bonuses for strength), and if you hit with both you can make a third attack against another target- in the phb you do get your strength bonus to damage with the final attack (which they took away in the errata). That's a little broken, but not anything close to game breaking.
That's why there was an errata on it, because in the LFR we had problems with fighters getting riding lizards, mounted combat, and making eight attacks in a standard action.
I knew there was a reason I avoided those rpga games.
That's why there was an errata on it, because in the LFR we had problems with fighters getting riding lizards, mounted combat, and making eight attacks in a standard action.I see how you could read it that way and technically you probably read it right, but I don't think that's how it's intended to be read, and wouldn't let a player in my game use it that way.
Uh, if that's how you read it, you read it wrong, you get another attack for each hit. Remember its two attacks that say "On a hit make a secondary attack."So I probably should have looked up that fighter power for myself on the compendium, but I wanted to see in the book first before checking for errata.
Actually it's only a level 3 encounter power, and even though it's been altered in the compendium, I don't think it's really that out of whack in the phb. You get two attacks initially against the same target, they only do 1 weapon damage (so no bonuses for strength), and if you hit with both you can make a third attack against another target- in the phb you do get your strength bonus to damage with the final attack (which they took away in the errata). That's a little broken, but not anything close to game breaking.
|
|
I knew there was a reason I avoided those rpga games.
That's why there was an errata on it, because in the LFR we had problems with fighters getting riding lizards, mounted combat, and making eight attacks in a standard action.I see how you could read it that way and technically you probably read it right, but I don't think that's how it's intended to be read, and wouldn't let a player in my game use it that way.
Uh, if that's how you read it, you read it wrong, you get another attack for each hit. Remember its two attacks that say "On a hit make a secondary attack."So I probably should have looked up that fighter power for myself on the compendium, but I wanted to see in the book first before checking for errata.
Actually it's only a level 3 encounter power, and even though it's been altered in the compendium, I don't think it's really that out of whack in the phb. You get two attacks initially against the same target, they only do 1 weapon damage (so no bonuses for strength), and if you hit with both you can make a third attack against another target- in the phb you do get your strength bonus to damage with the final attack (which they took away in the errata). That's a little broken, but not anything close to game breaking.
Yeah, now its only SIX..../facepalm
To many of us it just not fit the feel of the games we want to run. When I read ToB i think of something like Bleach. And yes thats kinda how it comes off as a DBZ super mystical powered secret sword technical fighter.
Now this word work fine for some games but it brakes the feel of most setting for me to have soulreaper like powers with there mystic fighting styles
I do not want magic using melee class.
Wow, no offense, but I never want to play in one of your games (and apparently nether does my wife), because that is my favorite character type. LOL
*Favorite Classes*
Duskblade
Hexblade
P.S. Looking to play the battle sorcerer soon too.
*Favorite PrCs* (haven't played these yet though)
Adjuration Champion
Swift Blade
Edrich Knight
P.P.S. You don't have a problem with a Paladin Class?
|
|
I have only banned a few items from my 3.x games over the years. Usually if something gets banned it is because everyone at the table looked at the option and decided that in the interest of fun it would probably be better to not play that way.
I have seen enlarged power-attacking psychic warriors with monkey gripped huge war-scythes using powers to get more crits and scoring crits in the 300-350 range regularly.
I have seen Mocha-bear druids getting crazy and romping all over the face of things, along with their companion, and their summoned pals.
I have seen nigh untouchable dwarven defenders and flickering noctumancers.
I have seen absolutely insane specialist racial paragon/alternate class featured up summoners throwing down 3 summons per round.
It just kind of comes with the territory. I was the player of one of the builds listed above in a game that did not have any real power gamers in it, and one night after I soundly romped almost singlehandedly everything the DM had prepared for the group in the session. He did something I did not expect.. He informed that I had won the game. Defeated 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons and then proceeded to ask what game I wanted to run, since his game had to come to a sad end with the DM on the losing side of the conflict. I was a little shocked and it led to a some really good dialogue between he and I.
That character was the last of my munchkin toons. Sure there is broken stuff in any system. But if you are playing with adults who all value the quality of the game it is not hard to look at something as a group and realize that one character kicking the crap out of everything/taking 10 minute turns to manage their army of minions/ is never ever really in danger of losing/whatever other check-mate build they are rocking just takes away from the quality of the game for the whole group.
Sure its fun to kick ass and take names. But it is also fun to win a battle by the skin of your teeth. And sometimes its even fun to lose.
I don't really ban things unless they are written in such a way that they are completely unplayable or the flavor of the material just does not match the story I am trying to tell and the player has not offered a good story reason why it should be allowed. My group has been together for a long time and they have pretty good radar for power cheese. If one player is dominating some aspect of the game with it, they usually handle it for me.
I try not to discourage players from making characters that they find to be powerful. I just try and also encourage them to respect the story and the quality of the play experience for everyone at the table.
I do sometimes limit the number of materials available (like phb + 1 book of the players choice at character creation and another source book at level 5 or 10, and maybe a third book around level 15) But I do not usually limit what books my players pick. If they want some strange book, they can have it if they take the time to tell me about the character and it's story and why it exists in the campaign world as it is presented, then I let them go with it. Sometimes its fun to play something that does not fit in. And it leads to interesting stories.
Every so often a mechanic that I would call OP comes up. If it is really an issue and the players do not correct it themselves, then I will pull the player aside and talk to them. If the behavior persists, then I am not above announcing to the player in front of the group (as it was once announced to me for the unrepentant powerhousing of someones carefully crafted game), that they have in fact : Won the game!
Followed directly by the question: What game do you want to run now that you have defeated the DM and become the DM yourself as a result?
I have found that once your average powergamer is put in the DM chair a few times, they just stop doing it in such a disruptive way.They will always optimize (hell I optimize my characters and NPCs). But it is one thing to have a statistically good character, and quite another to have a character that is much better without a doubt than anything else of its EL, or the rest of the party for that matter. I have also found that many of them make excellent DM's due to the diligence of the rules. SO its been a win/win for me.
love,
malkav
Wow, no offense, but I never want to play in one of your games (and apparently nether does my wife), because that is my favorite character type. LOL
*Favorite Classes*
Duskblade
Hexblade
P.S. Looking to play the battle sorcerer soon too.*Favorite PrCs* (haven't played these yet though)
Adjuration Champion
Swift Blade
Edrich KnightP.P.S. You don't have a problem with a Paladin Class?
None taken , You may not enjoy my games however, I was talking of Bo9s and not fighter/mages. I myself love fighter/mage combo and feel it has a great place in the game. The Bo9s did not fit to me, seeming more like a soul reaper or any of 1000 other animi shows. That is not a bad thing really, but it was jarring and does not fit within most games as it just feels off and someones system bash
As for your list there
Duskblade[would allow if I did no core classes that game}
Hexblade [would allow if I did no core classes that game}
P.S. Looking to play the battle sorcerer soon too.[ would allow}
Adjuration Champion[No]
Swift Blade[ do not know it}
Edrich Knight [Any time}
Some games I only allow core classes, other I allow non core, but really my players never ask for anything but core, not liking the none core ones they have saw.
So you see it's not fighter /mages I dislike, it's that one ruleset I find jarring and a bad fit
Interpretation is based on what you hear and "see" as such in game it is based on fluff. Easily remedied in most cases with minimal time spent on the DM's side. Just tell the player ahead of time that, and I'm sure they'd be willing to redesign the description. It has just become a "special" melee attack not an alternative form of magic. Problem solved in 70-80% of the abilities. ToB isn't actually a new school of magic, it was just that WotC tried to get it accepted by attempting to pass them off as magic and blowing that up. Gut the backstory, make the different types a secretive school or training grounds (Ninja, Sohei, Monk, weapons master, any number of PrC's) and tada! capable of being ported into your nearest campaign.
Ok, so you're old school, so am I. ToB was great to represent the "old school" fighter/mages or elf classes. With the changes to the system in 3.x multiclassing became a negative with many classes as they lost so much to gain so little, that would be even more apparent in PFRPG. Now, our DM's wife, who played an elf back since the beginning who ended up being a elf fighter/mage in 2nd ED actually was able to play her favorite character with out being completely and totally disappointed. Porting over a high level character to 3.x nerfed it so much in regards to what it was supposed to be she lost interest. And there was no way in the rules to actually fix that.
Enter ToB, she could now play that elf was was a renowned duelist and had a flair for fire magic with out her fighting abilities being non exisitent or completely dependent on her equipment, instead of her skill, because she wanted to keep a measure of magical ability as well. Having a class that fills that area, the magical fighter (outright blatent magic appearance) or supernatural fighter (more mystical and subdued effects) is a good thing. It cuts down on multiclassing and the silliness that leads to in an attempt to create the result you want for your character. This is even more true in PFRPG, they don't discourage you from multiclassing, but you will only ever get the middle of the road abilities. The ToB classes fit even more with that in mind, they were built from the ground up, have their own end game goodies (which aren't nearly as great as a wizard's or sorceror's by far) and allow a character concept to exist that isn't nerfed by the requirements of the rules back handedly.
Again it was a good thing, not liking the fluff and disregarding the rules for lack of wanting to put any work (however minor as I have explained further up) doesn't make it a bad thing. It makes it something you don't like and you not liking it doesn't make the rules broken either, it just means you don't like it. Anyone who doesn't have knowledge (insert whatever) is going to be going "WTF! is that?" regardless on anything over DC 10 for any school of magic or anything past a certain common understanding. Under/equal to DC 10 you get - That is a new fighting style, and leave it at that, no work involved. That is part of the rules too, and something I've seen disregarded quite often.
The rules won't play well with others if you don't want them too, that goes for everything.
That sounds like DM ego cheese aka Rule: 0 to me. If you don't want to put effort into a game you probably shouldn't be GM'ing honestly. GM'ing requires a lot more from the person doing so than just playing, we found that out a long time ago when the normal DM wanted to play and we started a round robin type thing with all the players running a published adventure. It was kinda a mess and sometimes just plain unenjoyable, you could tell who put forth the effort and those who didn't. Who wanted to be doing it or at least who enjoyed doing it (our normal DM for instance) and who didn't. If you don't want to put forth the time or effort GM'ing isn't what you should be doing probably, it is almost like it is a knack or something. I guess you could say it takes a certain type of person and when you find that person, it just shows in the group - really. Now don't go taking this a bashing, it is just some tid bits of "wisdom" from a very long gaming "career" I'm trying to impart.
To iterate my troubles with this.
First of all, the "fluff" business. I'd like to beat whoever coined the term "fluff" over the head with my first edition DMG until the binding comes off. Your "fluff" as you term it is my "crunch," as I've run a narrative-heavy game since 1st edition, and the narrative is the important thing for me. I couldn't give a fig for the mechanics if they don't support that. If I don't want a monastery of spiky-haired anime clones in my world, then there's not going to be one. The same thing over the years has gone for talking anthropomorphic foxes with large breasts, even if the player wanting them says they'll have the same stats as elves. Hell, I've even banned half-orcs because I didn't want orcs in my world. Just because it's something the player likes doesn't mean it's something the DM is interested in.
But now, as to the "crunch"--another term I detest, and I say this as someone who has written a good deal of roleplaying game mechanics--there is a real problem with 3.X with skill bloat. The original main book gave characters X numbers of skill points which could be spent on Y skills.
This is fine, until you start putting out splat books and Y skills suddenly becomes Y+Z skills, and your wizard or rogue or especially bard, who was formerly the master of all knowledge, suddenly cannot answer questions, by the RAW, because he does not have Knowledge Psionics or Martial Lore or Knowledge Yet-More-Special-Snowflake-Esoteric-Cheese Lore. And even if he could learn about these things, he wouldn't have enough points to spend on them. Allowing in every new bit of crap WotC released without question screwed the concept of the Loremaster.
The anti-magic zone, and things that still work in an anti-magic zone? Another problem, especially since to the best of my knowledge I've get to see rules for a "psionic dampening field" or an "anti-wuxia zone." ("Ha-ha! Your special martial maneuvers are useless now! I have changed the laws of metaphysics, cut your invisible wires and slashed your special effects budget!") Yes, I could invent this, but I shouldn't have to. Two separate systems of special-snowflake-cheese that get to trump magic? Why were either of these considered necessary, or even useful, aside from the desire to sell more splat books?
I could, conceivably, roll Martial Lore in with Knowledge Nobility & Royalty, since identifying sword styles is the sort of thing a court herald should be doing, though this still doesn't fix a whole lot of other things. And I could make up Outre Lore to take in Knowledge Psionics, Knowledge Dungeoneering and all the other Far Realms stuff which might reasonably be lumped together. I could, but I could also consider it easier to just ban both of these and not bother.
As to the question of how else to do an elf fighter-mage with flame-effects that aren't entirely dependent on an enchanted weapon? Well, what about making an elf with Pathfinder Wizard 1/Fighter X with a bonded item (sword), Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor? She can make a sword that is magic only for her, and if she loses it, she can make another one after taking some time to attune herself to it. Seems reasonable enough, and closer to 1st ed than any Book of Nine Swords cheese.
But all-in-all, I'm not going to implement every system just because someone wrote it up. I have no use for Incarnum as well, dislike Truenaming as written, but have no real problems with Shadow Magic apart from the lack of supplements and support. Pact Magic should have been part of the Warlock class from the get-go, which is one of the few thing 4e has done vaguely right, though porting it backwards into Pathfinder is troublesome. And so far as I'm concerned, the business about vestiges not being gods is twaddle. They're just household gods, loa spirits and so on.
Which is a long way of saying "My world, my rules."
First of all I am beginning to hate these boards for eating my post.
I will try to condense my previous post into something smaller.
Second anything can be broken, but that does not make it inherently broken.
Why do people ban things without trying to counter them?
Why do people ban things according to what is on paper?Monks: I dont see this to much online, but I have seen it in real life.
Psionics
Tomb of Battle
Pathfinder Warlock
Spell CompendiumWhy do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules, and say you will ban it anyway. It makes no sense to try to skew someone's opinion just because you dont like something.
If you buy an RPG book, car, or anything else, and you dont use it as intended you have no right to call the item defective. If I try to use my cell phone as a hammer do I really get to blame Verizon if it breaks.
The original post was much longer, and better argued, but I was on a roll, and I cant repeat it. I attempted to answer all responses that may have come in the original post. :(
PS: I am not saying nothing is broken, and I know everything(most theoretical builds) dont even need to be played to know they are broken.
I have usually 2 things to say to people (players) that complain like this to the people that spend 10x more time in preparation of games (DM):
1. My game, my rules. Either play with us or go play Diablo 2 (or WoW).
2. Run your own game and lets see how you like every player taking whatever they want from whichever book they want.1. Basically you have no answer to the question so why even waste your time posting. (rhetorical)
2. I do DM.
Off topic:
DM'ing brings you NO entitlement. It does not mean you have to answer to the players hand and foot, but it does not mean you can just tell them to go away at your leisure either. You are not a bigger part of the team than anyone else....
1. Actually that is the answer. It is so easy. Play my game or run your own. In my experience DM are much harder to find then players. Quality DMs even harder. I consider myself a quality DM.
Although it might not look like that to powergamers or munchkins, but I do not play with those kind of players.2. Good for you. Then you can put up any rules you want in your games. But you cannot expect other DMs to run games by your rules.
Off Topic: Of course it does. You do most work. You spend more energy during and before sessions. You never get to kill the whole party and cheer afterwards (well you can but you will probably need to find new players after that :D), while the players do that every session.
You have to listen to players whine like little girl often. YES, you do get benefits for being a DM. Just like a manager of a company gets more benefits with bigger responsibility then a standard worker.
Being a DM is also about fun for the DM. DM is not there to be a manservant to a bunch of people. He is there to have fun just like them. If a DM does not have fun because of a player or a player does not have fun because of a DM both of them are free to leave and not play with each other (well in the case of a DM not having fun the player is going to be leaving). The DM can set up ANY rules he wants to have fun and have easier time running his game. The player can play or leave. He can try to show the DM why allowing this will not make problems to the DM and let the DM still have as much fun. But if he cannot, coming to public forums and complaining to all will not help.
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,
So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?
Easy: mathematically prove that X isn't broken.
Easy: mathematically prove that X isn't broken.Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?
That is usually not enough. Something being broken is always a case of numbers.
Easy: mathematically prove that X isn't broken.
What is broken? Why do things have to be some sort of mathematics to be broken?
Hypothetically:
There is a new feat in book X which allows a player to fly at 200' perfect so long as he only wields a light weapon.
Is this broken? If so, please show me the mathematics. How does the light weapon affect the balance in numerical terms?
The point being there are a lot of things that can't be defined by mathematics that are indeed broken.
The point being there are a lot of things that can't be defined by mathematics that are indeed broken.
I never said otherwise.
The question asked was "how can you say that the person making a claim that X is overpowered doesn't know the rules?". An easy answer to that is if it is mathematically provable that, following the rules, X falls within standard values. This was the case with the Book of 9 Swords, for example, which many people who didn't bother to actually read the rules claim was broken, when in fact a standard power attacking barbarian did more damage at every level than a Bo9S character.
But all-in-all, I'm not going to implement every system just because someone wrote it up.Which is a long way of saying "My world, my rules."I agree with these two statements of yours. As DM you are the final word on what does or does not exist in your campaign world.
However I disagree with the argument you seem to be making that description cannot be divorced from mechanics. I'm not a fan of the more obviously magical abilities in ToB, but Skylancer4 is correct that most of the maneuvers can be explained without sounding magical. Of those that are described as magical sounding effects, many (maybe not all, I haven't gone through all of them) can have their descriptions changed to sound non-magical without changing the underlying mechanics. Yes it is a time investment and you can choose not to bother, but it is an option, yet you seem ready to dismiss it even being a possibility.
I dismiss it because while, as a DM, I can happily reskin one monster as another, using statblock X for creature Y, if I hand this over to the players, they'll have a reasonable expectation that the statblock in their reference book matches the pictures and the flavor text. And when the pictures and the flavor are wuxia, wuxia and more wuxia, it's absurdly hard to divorce the two.
As for skill bloat, a majority of that is page filler. It's one of the symptoms of trying to shove a new supplement on the market every month or two. It's just the most minor example of the things WotC did that makes one ask "What were they thinking?" or "Were they even thinking?". Supplements tended to be developed in a vacuum completely disconnected from anything that came before or after except for adding new spells to core classes (because those sell books).
It's not just page filler. When you make a skill that actively trumps the core skills, it's detrimental to the game as a whole. And trumping a previous power is one of the hallmarks of cheese.
I can understand there are things in supplements that don't fit into your view of your game world. I can understand not wanting to put the effort into adjusting it to make it fit. What I have a problem understanding is finding something that you feel doesn't fit, then decrying the supplement in public forums as "cheese" (a term that's getting overused) simply because it doesn't fit with your style of play.
It's not just that it doesn't fit my style of play. I've played in games where other players are playing various Book of Nine Swords classes and they're absurdly powerful, to the point where players of other classes have to comb the books for cheese to have even a chance of keeping up.
I'd rather not have the game be an arms race.
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?
I am glad someone finally quoted that for me.
The posters in question specially named instances where the something was used incorrectly in the WoTC boards. When it was proved every broken instance was due to a misreading of the rules they said I still wont allow it after several days of debating. If they knew they already had their minds made up why even come on line debating the issue. It seems silly to me to do so.
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?I am glad someone finally quoted that for me.
The posters in question specially named instances where the something was used incorrectly in the WoTC boards. When it was proved every broken instance was due to a misreading of the rules they said I still wont allow it after several days of debating. If they knew they already had their minds made up why even come on line debating the issue. It seems silly to me to do so.
We are only human and like to have the mob on our side when making decisions that someone else is not going to like.
But when we see that is not going to happen we go with what we already decided before.
What is even more funny is all these people coming on these topics and expecting to be able to change the mind of the OP. That happens only in 1 out of 100 cases.
|
The point being there are a lot of things that can't be defined by mathematics that are indeed broken.I never said otherwise.
The question asked was "how can you say that the person making a claim that X is overpowered doesn't know the rules?". An easy answer to that is if it is mathematically provable that, following the rules, X falls within standard values. This was the case with the Book of 9 Swords, for example, which many people who didn't bother to actually read the rules claim was broken, when in fact a standard power attacking barbarian did more damage at every level than a Bo9S character.
Yes but the Barbarian isn't overcoming DR, setting on fire, causing the enemy to be flat-footed for a round, flanking without really flanking, healing a friend with a hit to an enemy, causing various status conditions, or the other myriad of things in the TOB.
An optimized barbarian does do more damage than a TOB person....usually, but the TOB dude does a ton of extra crap on top of being a great damage output machine. Straight damage output comparison is not a good median guide in these examples.
Why?
Because people lives proving they're right, that's why. Even if you explain them how so-and-so rule/class feature/spell actually works they'll either:
a) Call you names and say you're wrong.
b) Come up with some other reason to hate it, because they -need- to be right.Being objective, every system has loopholes, every system can be abused, but every time you ban or nerf something you're taking away options from the players. There are only two ways around this problem:
a) Nerf -everything- so nothing can be "abused".
b) Stop worrying about how the system can be abused by people you wouldn't play with anyway, and have fun with the people you actually care to play the game with.Call me arrogant, call me a picky pr1ck, but I prefer to play with adults so I don't have to treat them like children.
Very well said. my vote +1
Why do you go online cry about something being broke, get shown that the ability only broke your game because you did not know the rules,So you assume that someone who tells that x is broken, just doesn't know the rules ? How do judge that someone don't know the rules just because he says that something is broken ?I am glad someone finally quoted that for me.
The posters in question specially named instances where the something was used incorrectly in the WoTC boards. When it was proved every broken instance was due to a misreading of the rules they said I still wont allow it after several days of debating. If they knew they already had their minds made up why even come on line debating the issue. It seems silly to me to do so.We are only human and like to have the mob on our side when making decisions that someone else is not going to like.
But when we see that is not going to happen we go with what we already decided before.
What is even more funny is all these people coming on these topics and expecting to be able to change the mind of the OP. That happens only in 1 out of 100 cases.
The following is a better example.
If you, as an example, say something is broken I will only tell you the mistakes you made((rules wise). If you come online asking should it be allowed because you think its broken and we prove you misread a few things, and you basically bet defensive and say our opinions dont count then you should never have come online in the first place.
The point being there are a lot of things that can't be defined by mathematics that are indeed broken.I never said otherwise.
The question asked was "how can you say that the person making a claim that X is overpowered doesn't know the rules?". An easy answer to that is if it is mathematically provable that, following the rules, X falls within standard values. This was the case with the Book of 9 Swords, for example, which many people who didn't bother to actually read the rules claim was broken, when in fact a standard power attacking barbarian did more damage at every level than a Bo9S character.
Yes but the Barbarian isn't overcoming DR, setting on fire, causing the enemy to be flat-footed for a round, flanking without really flanking, healing a friend with a hit to an enemy, causing various status conditions, or the other myriad of things in the TOB.
An optimized barbarian does do more damage than a TOB person....usually, but the TOB dude does a ton of extra crap on top of being a great damage output machine. Straight damage output comparison is not a good median guide in these examples.
The point of ToB was to allow fighter types to do something with a standard action, and to give them secondary abilities. I am sure if someone found a way to make a fighter do these things there would not be as many complaints.
|
|
The point of ToB was to allow fighter types to do something with a standard action, and to give them secondary abilities. I am sure if someone found a way to make a fighter do these things there would not be as many complaints.
Actually the point of Tome of Battle was to replace the Paladin, Fighter, and Monk, because Wizards didn't care about them anymore. Its easier to build a new class that replaces an older class than to shore up the older class.
An optimized Fighter/Barbarian/Monk could beat them time and again in DPS, but as far as actual utility, they will win hands down.
I also maintain that it was a testbed for 4th edition, along with Star Wars Saga edition.
Yes but the Barbarian isn't overcoming DR, setting on fire, causing the enemy to be flat-footed for a round, flanking without really flanking, healing a friend with a hit to an enemy, causing various status conditions, or the other myriad of things in the TOB.
Actually he could do just about any of those things with the right feats or alternate class features. I picked Barbarian for a reason. And, again, TOB characters are actually sub-par damage dealers compared to the other full-BAB classes. The difference in damage between the barbarian and the initiator classes is quite dramatic at higher levels. A level 20 barbarian can kill a great wyrm red dragon in a single round with straight-up hit point damage. The best an initiator class can do is three rounds, and that's only by abusing Stormguard Warrior (a feat which is available to ANY character).
Why I ban books:
I ban things to either maintain feel (sometimes you really just don't need a Monk in your tale of knights vs dragons), eliminate problems that require inordinate amounts of game focus to build (I don't want to auto debuff my party every encounter for no reason other than metagame balance, so I don't enable CoDzilla with nightsticks/persistent meta), or to provide a more manageable set of stuff to work from (I never allow campaign specific stuff like FR or Dragonlance anymore, just so that I don't have to deal with balancing another 100 books into a campaign).
Why people stick to stupid/unfounded ideas even when proven wrong:
a)They refuse to see they are wrong
b)They don't really listen
c)They don't understand the arguments, and/or the arguments are too complex for them to follow
d)They dislike the way something "feels" and therefore disregard actual mechanics (and often ignore anything else presented that contradicts that "feel")
e)They didn't actually want to get information, they just wanted to either be proven right, or to argue for its own sake
f)Some combination of all of the above
To all the ToB haters out there:
1)The vast majority of maneuvers are not "anime/wuxia". Only the S.Sage schools really fall into that category, and it is stated up front. The Warblade is all about focus and "martial spirit" so to speak, and their maneuvers are things I've seen in dozens of fantasy novels, movies, etc. The Crusader maneuvers are very similar to pally abilities, but make better use of them. Perhaps this is WotC's fault for putting the Desert Wind school first in the maneuvers section. Dunno. But the fact is that the maneuvers are still easy to flavor as more Western sword/sorcery fantasy.
2)The ToB is balanced against 3.5 as a whole, not core. They are not the best warrior builds out there, that goes to the pouncing barbarians, multiclassed munchkins, and CoDzilla. What ToB did was enhance the variety and entertaiment value of playing a warrior. Did they obsolete the poorly designed fighter, and all but a few level dips into the horrible paladin and ranger? Yep. Is that bad? Imo, no. And were I ever to run the core 3.5 classes again, I'd probably give them access to a school, just so they don't have to stand around and suck the whole time the casters are doing stuff.
3)ToB is balanced to PF. The classes are flat weaker in numbers (raw bonuses to hit/damage/ac on fighters/rangers/palladins are just higher). They have more versatility to make up for it.
For psionics haters:
I shockingly didn't see many in this camp on this thread. But then again, ToB gave most of the psi haters something new to hate. Anyway, extensive CharOp board discussions over at the WotC site back in the day pretty much came to the consensus of "psi is weaker in all regards than magic". WotC even purposefully designed it that way, and nerfed it when any area of psi began to look more powerful than arcane. From powers that are subject to DR/PR at the same time, to limiting summoning to 1 critter at a time, they made sure not to let psi shine. The only exceptions are a few broken powers that can be abused through rules loopholes, and blasters (but most casters can be incredible blasters, so it doesn't seem to be something to write home about). So, I do understand when people disallow for flavor, but really, they are not 'overpowered' by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, they are more powerful than some 3.5 core classes. The fighter and paladin in particular. I can understand not wanting an in game arms race. It has been mentioned in another discussion of this book that the author of those classes has stated somewhere that the classes needed more work to tone them down and specifically mentions removing the recharge mechanics from them.
I'm not saying you should be using the book in your games. I'm saying that while it may not be perfect it does have usable material that can be worked into someone's game and shouldn't be decried as a whole because it's not something you would use.
This.
Though I will say that it is also, imo, not wrong to abandon the fighter/palladin entirely when running 3.5. As written, they flat sucked. When you incorporate some of the paladin feats/abilities from other books, such as the spirit ally and the ability to cast their spells as a swift action, they are salvagable. But the fighter just flat sucked. Using that as a limit on the other classes seems like a bad idea.
The book author points out that he'd tone stuff down, but he seemed to be placating the knee jerk "my standard fighter sux even more now" reactions people were having than working within the overall balance of 3.5.
A final consideration when considering game balance for the ToB classes: they work best as 20lvl single class builds. They don't prestige for the most part, and are solid all the way through. This cuts down on most of the really scary cheese from 3.5.
An addendum to my previous post:
Spell Compendium spells are treasure in my games. Why? Well, aside from whatever brokenness might come from weird combinations, I feel that the spells blur the lines between casters too much. Druids/clerics/wizards have diff spell lists for a reason, and many of the spells in the SC attempt to reduce the differences, and shore up holes in spell list design. I like there being differences between them.
To all the ToB haters out there:
1)The vast majority of maneuvers are not "anime/wuxia". Only the S.Sage schools really fall into that category, and it is stated up front. The Warblade is all about focus and "martial spirit" so to speak, and their maneuvers are things I've seen in dozens of fantasy novels, movies, etc. The Crusader maneuvers are very similar to pally abilities, but make better use of them. Perhaps this is WotC's fault for putting the Desert Wind school first in the maneuvers section. Dunno.
False. If the abilities represent western ideals, it's pure coincidence. The writers are pretty open about that fact that the majority of inspiration from the book comes from Wuxia/Anime sources. It's also the only book I've ever seen written by wizards of the coast that they felt needed to have the source of it's inspiration right there in the book.
The abiliies are seen as being Wuxian because, like spells, they allow martial characters to break the normal laws of the game. The fact that they are written in similer stat blocks doesn't help, neither does some of the sillier abilies. By RAW, a drow warblade could walk out into an open area at daytime and remove the sun from existance. Simply by learning martial fighting styles a Tiger Claw warrior can have senses as sharp as a dog, something so powerful that modern techonology isn't able to replicate it.
Never mind the strange way in which a warblade could charge a foe, deal +100 damage from a single strike one round but not be able to do it the next, or that a crusader can, using some of the stances, spend his time punching a tree to heal himself.
Stopping people from associating it with Anime/Wuxia isn't simply done by weeding out the magical schools. In fact, I've never seen anyone complain about the other "magical" school in the book, Shadow Hand, so why is Desert Wind such a hot topic? Maybe it actually has something to do with the school or the book.
I have problems with TOB, but I'd have significantly less if
a) The abilities weren't written as spells.
b) They actually boosted melee classes. They havn't. It's not a book with alternate rules for upping melee classes, it's a book with three new classes, that's all. If they had sample progressions for core classes then I'd see less of a problem.
c) At higher levels I'd say they're "adding more options", since, if you want pure damage, a full-attack is probably better than most manouvers. However, there is no such drawback levels 1-6, which is also the level range that martial classes stand out on their own the most.
d) They shouldn't try to pass off healing and other silly abilities as mundane. The fact that Shadow Hand is rarely brought up but Desert Wind is despite both having supernatural abilities should be a testamount to this. Some abilities, whether they have the (Su) tag or not, are just plain hard to see as being mundane. The iron heart manouver allowing you trip when you hit? Sounds mundane. A stance allowing you to count area around you as difficult terrain for movement? Fine. Abilities which only work on creatures within certain size catagories? Eh? Manvouers that allow you to strike the ground, and then allow you to hurt foes due to the ripples in the ground it causes? Being able to have your weapon cut through armour and sheilds as easily as if they wern't there? Sorry, but if someone told me abilities like that were possible RL (as most mundane abilites are) then I'd think you were crazy.
a)They refuse to see they are wrong
Don't we all.
|
|
My new player (starting a Wizard, of course) is in love with the Spell Compendium spells, so I'm going through them to weed out the problem children for PFRPG.
I tossed repair minor damage right away -- it's cure minor wounds for constructs. I was going to create a stabilize construct spell to replace it, but I just houseruled that you could use mending to accomplish the same thing.
To all the ToB haters out there:
1)The vast majority of maneuvers are not "anime/wuxia". Only the S.Sage schools really fall into that category, and it is stated up front. The Warblade is all about focus and "martial spirit" so to speak, and their maneuvers are things I've seen in dozens of fantasy novels, movies, etc. The Crusader maneuvers are very similar to pally abilities, but make better use of them. Perhaps this is WotC's fault for putting the Desert Wind school first in the maneuvers section. Dunno. But the fact is that the maneuvers are still easy to flavor as more Western sword/sorcery fantasy.
I just paged through the ToB. There is a large swath of fire magic and a large swath of shadow magic, which to be fair are noted as supernatural abilities, and then there's silly cheese like the Aura of Tyranny, which is not listed as a supernatural ability but still surrounds you with a an aura of dark energy that suck the HP out of your allies and pumps them into you.
And somehow this is not magic? Yeah, right.
2)The ToB is balanced against 3.5 as a whole, not core. They are not the best warrior builds out there, that goes to the pouncing barbarians, multiclassed munchkins, and CoDzilla. What ToB did was enhance the variety and entertaiment value of playing a warrior. Did they obsolete the poorly designed fighter, and all but a few level dips into the horrible paladin and ranger? Yep. Is that bad? Imo, no. And were I ever to run the core 3.5 classes again, I'd probably give them access to a school, just so they don't have to stand around and suck the whole time the casters are doing stuff.
The trouble is, they were made into yet another variety of caster but with a form of magic that can't be understood without buying a separate skill or emulated short of a judgement call from the DM along with Limited Wish or Wish. And even that's uncertain. Meanwhile, the Swordsage gets the ability to Sense Magic about magical arms and armor--an ability which only the Maester prestige class has at will, and has to lose a whole caster level to get.
Admittedly, Pathfinder has made this whole ability moot in that everyone can now identify things much more easily, but it still is a matter of arms escalation.
SWORDSAGE: Ah, I see this sword you made is +3 flametongue. This will be perfect for my Ruby Nightmare Blade!
WIZARD: You realize I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, right?
3)ToB is balanced to PF. The classes are flat weaker in numbers (raw bonuses to hit/damage/ac on fighters/rangers/palladins are just higher). They have more versatility to make up for it.
Versatility is a power. From what I've seen in play, Book of Nine Swords character are the Swiss Army Knives of Doom, never caught unprepared or without an applicable tool--unlike, for example, the wizard who prepares Water Breathing and then gets teleported to a desert, or just runs low on spells.
And part of the reason I dislike ToB is the same reason I dislike 4e: It doesn't feel like the old game I like.
|
Easy: mathematically prove that X isn't broken.What is broken? Why do things have to be some sort of mathematics to be broken?
Hypothetically:
There is a new feat in book X which allows a player to fly at 200' perfect so long as he only wields a light weapon.Is this broken? If so, please show me the mathematics. How does the light weapon affect the balance in numerical terms?
The point being there are a lot of things that can't be defined by mathematics that are indeed broken.
Bless you, Dennis. I wish that point would actually be taken into consideration sometimes.
My puppyhood is broken.
Stuff...
Can't say as I agree with you on virtually any point. Having played with ToB extensively through 3.5, and now again with pathfinder, I can't say my experiences have been at all similar to yours. And the few feel issues that I've seen that were inappropriate (weird magical effects on normal fightery characters) were avoided by just picking abilities more in theme with the character in question. And versatility-wise, maneuvers are less versatile than spells, and you get a whole lot less, and it is more than balanced out by all the cool new toys/bonuses of the PF classes.
But I don't think I'm going to convince you, nor you me. So I will avoid writing an exhaustive list in an attempt to do so, and simply agree to disagree.
I also maintain that it was a testbed for 4th edition, along with Star Wars Saga edition.
That was also a part of it, probably the main part of it since they had more than enough years to fix the fighter, barbarian, and monk.
For those that dont like ToB based on the fluff, and fluff alone, why not change the fluff?
Now that I think about if anything is not liked for fluff why not change the fluff, assuming said change wont break your game?
Why not make a game world that can include everything? Why does everything have to be so set in stone?
1. Actually that is the answer. It is so easy. Play my game or run your own. In my experience DM are much harder to find then players. Quality DMs even harder. I consider myself a quality DM.
Although it might not look like that to powergamers or munchkins, but I do not play with those kind of players.2. Good for you. Then you can put up any rules you want in your games. But you cannot expect other DMs to run games by your rules.
Off Topic: Of course it does. You do most work. You spend more energy during and before sessions. You never get to kill the whole party and cheer afterwards (well you can but you will probably need to find new players after that :D), while the players do that every session.
You have to listen to players whine like little girl often. YES, you do get benefits for being a DM. Just like a manager of a company gets more benefits with bigger responsibility then a standard worker.
Being a DM is also about fun for the DM. DM is not there to be a manservant to a bunch of people. He is there to have fun just like them. If a DM does not have fun because of a player or a player does not have fun because of a DM both of them are free to leave and not play with each other (well in the case of a DM not having fun the player is going to be leaving). The DM can set up ANY rules he wants to have fun and have easier time running his game. The player can play or leave. He can try to show the DM why allowing this will not make problems to the DM and let the DM still have as much fun. But if he cannot, coming to public forums and complaining to all will not help.
1. If you dont play with munchkins then why do you have to tie their hands with "I said so" instead of explaining why. If that is not what you meant I apologize but that is the way you make it sound. W
2. I never said you had to run by my rules, but you inferred that I am complaining because I never had to DM. I only countered your statement.
3. Why do I need to kill the party to be happy. I know you said cheer, not happy(ness), but there is not to much difference. If I bring them to the brink of death without killing them I am happy. I have never actually had to deal with players whining. I am sure any DM will come across the occasional whiner, and so will I one day, but players whining sounds like a consistent thing with the way you wrote it.
PS: It sounds like due to the fact that you are a rarity(DM) you get to do whatever you want. Would you still feel this way if your group had another DM?
For those that dont like ToB based on the fluff, and fluff alone, why not change the fluff?
I believe I've mentioned how much I detest the term "fluff."
But that said, players have expectations based on what they read. If they read a book with wuxia names and artwork and assorted crap, they're not going to expect something different.
But fine, I have no problem with being proved wrong. I've got a very European game with almost no Asian influence. The monks are more like Friar Tuck than Jet Li. And a magical swordsman? Maybe something along the lines of one of the Spanish fencing masters of the Circle school:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/other/magic_circle.html
Here's my challenge to you: Look at that article, then show how such a character could be realized and reflavored via the Tome of Battle, rather than just picking the Duelist class or something similar.
Now that I think about if anything is not liked for fluff why not change the fluff, assuming said change wont break your game?
That's assuming a lot, since without the "fluff," all that's left is the "crunch," and if the crunch is overpowered, then yes, indeed, it can break your game.
Why not make a game world that can include everything? Why does everything have to be so set in stone?
There are game worlds that can include everything. They're called Tales of the Floating Vagabond and others. You can have the ghost of Emily Dickinson, a large breasted cat girl and Cthulhu all walk into a bar and no one will bat an eye.
Then there are games where, after having imagined infinite possibilities, a game master imagines the fun of a story with a somewhat narrower focus.
So, to that end, how do I realize a Spanish fencing master of the arcane circle school via the Tome of Battle?
Uh...huh...
SO your generally low AC barbarian (comparatively to other classes) was soloing monsters with DR, fast healing, AND at the time an immunity to crits? Yeah, I'm calling that one out. THe main issue with it was the warblade was doing so no problems at all, I highly doubt your barbarian had as easy a time as that Warblade.
Highly, doubt.
You can "call out" that all you want - but when the half orc, raging barbarian with the two handed weapon who regularly deals twice the DR normally gets in range of the creature that relies on mitigating damage and prolonging a fight, things end fast. That we're using ToB should clue you in that we weren't using "core only" as well. The BETA Barbarian out did the Warblade regardless of your disbelief.
I get you're one of those fanatics about the Tome of Battle, but even the designer said there were flaws with it, not the LEAST being that it has zero resource management. The fact of the matter is that as raw the ToB allows characters to go on indefinitely without need of rest. Don't believe me? I pointed out several things that make that true, not the least of which is that you can easily delve deep into the Devoted Spirit Maneuvers as a warblade, lose nothing and gain almost complete immunity to being killed via hitpoints. Then turn around and easily make it hard for you to fail the SoD spells in the same build.
All this, and you lose NOTHING.
So excuse me if I feel I have thoroughly explored that book, debated it, and talked about it, perhaps ten times more than YOU are arguing it.
The fact that you cannot encounter a group of players that haven't created several house rules surrounding that book attests to this point. Many, don't even realize they've done so.
Hardly a fanatic, just someone who bought the book went through it and gave it to the group to pour over. We used it quite often because as I said before, it leveled the playing field between the melee combatant classes and casters mid game.
Lose nothing in comparison to what? I'm not saying the ToB characters weren't better than the core melee classes... I'm saying they bumped the melee classes up to a point where they can keep up a little longer with the casters. When we looked through the book at least half of us immediately realized that you could probably replace the core classes with the ones and it was probably a good idea to do so. Hardly any of us ever took ranger/paladin type PrC's anyways so it wasn't a loss for our group but we never actually implemented it.
NONE of the core melee classes really had to worry about resource management besides hit points, their resources were their weapons and armor. They could keep swinging day in and day out until they dropped. ToB is no different, it is the status quo, just with flashy abilities that typically had more utility and could come into play more often than the mass of feats a fighter had built up over their career.
So excuse me if I feel I have thoroughly explored that book, debated it, and talked about it, perhaps ten times more than YOU are arguing it.The fact that you cannot encounter a group of players that haven't created several house rules surrounding that book attests to this point. Many, don't even realize they've done so.
You may have, but due to you "calling out" that the barbarian didn't destroy a vampire in a game - that I saw with my own eyes, leads me to believe that you are not playing the same game as we are. Yours is probably a lot more restrictive, that being said, OF COURSE ToB will seem more powerful. Take your sandbox of core 3.x, add in ToB only and the other melee classes will seem dull by comparison - completely true, I won't argue that. PFRPG closes the gap by a large amount.
I'm not going to get into an internet pissing contest with you, I don't know you from a hole in the wall and you can say anything you want on the internet (as many do) with whatever whatever claims you like to make it sound more believable. As we have been able to use the book in all our games with no restrictions since it was published would lead me not believe your claim that you have spent more time doing anything regarding the book 10 times more than I have...
SO:
Uh...huh...
-and-
Highly, doubt.
The fact that you cannot encounter a group of players that haven't created several house rules surrounding that book attests to this point. Many, don't even realize they've done so.
People make tweaks to everything in game, those same people who have house ruled the book have in all likelihood house ruled dozens if not hundreds more rules that didn't *need* to be changed but were changed because they wanted them to be. Also realize that most house rules are made in a restrictive manner, if you are restricting the core rules more than they already are, OF COURSE ToB will seem more powerful (for a second time).
The only thing that house ruling the book means is, you don't like the rules. Just like when you house rule the core rules, you don't like those either. House ruling rarely is a balance issue (the occasional things that slip through the cracks of playtesting), it is more a preference. If you have spend all this time debating rules of the game or working on game design I would have expected you to know this. Not to say house rules are bad, but the vast majority of the time it is "this is how I want the game to be," not "this is an actual fix to create balance in the existing system."
|
|
Tell you what, when you can explain to me why Iron Heart surge ends an antimagic field, ends a mass spell for all the victims if you preform it, and does so as a maneuver you can get at 5th level, I'll be more inclined to think the book is balanced.
Wizards customer service reported that Ironheart surge can end any effect you are under, no questions. This means exactly that, and in the response they even specifically name anti-magic field as one of the things you can destroy.
Tell me why a 3rd level maneuver should beat a spell that Disjunction has a CHANCE of destroying.
Don't believe me?
Taken from here
Q: Dear Sage,
What exactly can or can’t iron heart surge (Tome of Battle p68) remove?
--Franco
A: Instantaneous effects can’t be removed by iron heart surge. However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, may be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage, ability burn, or ability drain. (Because ability burn can't be healed magically or psionically, it would be safe to assume that it can't be healed through maneuvers either.)Iron heart surge doesn’t replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you.
Tell you what, when you can explain to me why Iron Heart surge ends an antimagic field, ends a mass spell for all the victims if you preform it, and does so as a maneuver you can get at 5th level, I'll be more inclined to think the book is balanced.
Wizards customer service reported that Ironheart surge can end any effect you are under, no questions. This means exactly that, and in the response they even specifically name anti-magic field as one of the things you can destroy.
Tell me why a 3rd level maneuver should beat a spell that Disjunction has a CHANCE of destroying.
Don't believe me?
Taken from here
Q: Dear Sage,
What exactly can or can’t iron heart surge (Tome of Battle p68) remove?
--Franco
A: Instantaneous effects can’t be removed by iron heart surge. However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, may be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage, ability burn, or ability drain. (Because ability burn can't be healed magically or psionically, it would be safe to assume that it can't be healed through maneuvers either.)Iron heart surge doesn’t replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you.
The ability was meant to end status affects, even though it was poorly written, and if both of us were to write customer service about the issue if 3.5 was still supported I am sure we would get different answers. It has happened more than once. Using customer service is about as valid as asking some random stranger walking the street.
You forgot to add this from the top of the page.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
If you have a question that hasn't been answered here, you can ask Customer Service. These people can ask the writers of the Tome of Battle (Richard Baker, Matt Sernett, and Frank Brunner) or provide questions on their own. This means that, in most cases, Customer Service will provide you with the correct answer to whatever questions you may have. If you ask Customer Service a question regarding the Tome of Battle, please provide the question and answer here, so that we can document it. (Please keep in mind that you must register separately to Customer Service in order to ask questions.
It seems to me like they are already admitting some of the answers will be wrong.
It is perfectly reasonable to say it does not affect antimagic fields, since I am sure WotC did not go down a list of every possible condition or affect that could be negated. Yeah, I know you should not have to edit their books for them, but it is what it is.
PS: Iron Heart Surge also has a range of personal, meaning it cant be used on anyone else(page 68 ToB)