Tome of Battle: Hated?

[Eldmor]

So people don't have a good opinion of Tome of Battle. I'm interested to see why this book is on so many people's do-not-use list. Reasons?

[Pyramidhead]

though i have never read it myself but my experience with my players who have read/used it is that it is far too easy to exploit into OPness. now i doubt all of it is this but i have yet to see a player who used it not make a anime fightan magic character who shoots fire from his hands and lightning out his ass and none of it is magic so it overcomes all SR/antimagic field and cant be resisted blah blah and has no explination on how this crap happens (i know "magic comes from where then?" but magic at least has casting and components and theory junk like that). it probably isnt as bad as i see it but all i see is the players who exploit the shit out of it and it makes me feel as if its just some broken as hell splatbook that should have never touched 3.5e and just waited for 4e

[kenada]

Spell resistance is worthless, so I wouldn’t hold that maneuvers ignore it against ToB.

Edit: To elaborate, Greater Spell Penetration combined with Assay Spell Resistance gives the caster a +14 to caster level checks to overcome SR. With ASR on a wand*, you pretty much never have to worry about SR. A level 20 wizard, for example, automatically overcomes any SR ≤ 35.

--
* The casting time of ASR is a swift action. Per the Rules Compendium (p. 85), “Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores…”, so one could cast ASR from the wand and then cast a spell on the target.

[Pyramidhead]

I will agree that SR is useless for pc's, but several monsters have SR disproportional to their CR, making them more vulnerable to phys dmg or SR ignoring spells, SR being used against a player is only hindering them if they didn't take into account that it might be used against them, to which is just poor planning. But 3.5e involves a lot of preplanning as a game, then there is ToB which to my knowledge (never actually read it so if i'm wrong plz let me know) the maneuvers are all per encounter and refresh each time, you can even refresh them in combat i think (by wasting a turn for it? y/n?) and several maneuvers seem to have magic effects but are not magic or anything other that it just happens. one that comes to mind (idk what its called) throws an adjacent target in player's choice direction for x amount of distance (player chooses) and deals xd6 amount of dmg to everything in the squares it passes through and keeps going till it reaches the end of its trajectory. when i asked said player how this thrown person/monster goes "through" other monsters as it flies through the air i'm told "cuz the book says so". hopefully this was just this player and not really the book or even if its just this ability, cuz things liek this just make me 

i guess its just cuz i believe in some physics but idk

[Eldmor]

Some of the stuff is in fact magic and is negated in by Anti-Magic Field / Spell Resistance. These maneuvers are only in Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, though.

How do I know them?
Desert Wind: Flashiness is power.
Devoted Spirit: Faith is power.
Diamond Mind: Knowledge is power.
Iron Heart: Spirit is power.
Setting Sun: Your power is my power.
Shadow Hand: Darkness is power.
Stone Dragon: Strength is power.
Tiger Claw: Savagery is power.
White Raven: Leadership is power.

More easily OP means not having to purposely optimize a character. You shouldn't have to theorycraft to be as viable as the druid / clericzilla / Batman wizard. And trust me, nothing from ToB:Bo9S is as broken as those 3 things. In addition, those 3 things are core. Plus it gives something for melee to do besides flank or full attack. It was also a wonderful example of reverse-engineering, and making a class-wide mechanic that is balanced.

All 3 classes have different recharge mechanics. The most 'maneuver-based' class has the worst mechanic while the most 'fighter-based' class has the best mechanic.

That throwing maneuver is from Setting Sun and is one of their best. It doesn't need to make sense in physics, the Rule of Cool supersedes. How many kung-fu movies have you seen where the main character takes hold of a mook then throws them into a group of his buddies, all falling to the floor incapacitated?

[Pyramidhead]

if they actually fall down that makes more sense, the guy explaining it to me made it sound like u could throw a dude at a giant and he would just go straight through, which is what confused me, but urs makes sense them that its like bowling where they fall down like pins. as for the power switch up from high lvl casters being nutzor to being melee fighting more like Captain Falcon, i think it would be most interesting that if Tome of Battle will be allowed then make the only books allowed for classes are Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic, completely switching around the center of power but still making it where the classes dont just supercede eachother. Its not a punishment for people who like to play casters, but it does force them away most of the save or die effects and usual styles of caster play.

btw thanks for summary of the ToB... fightan styles? i think thats what these are.
whats a batman wizard?

[Eldmor]

This thread will explain is much better then I can. It boils down to a Wizard using save or suck/lose/die spells along with things that give extreme utility.
The Batman Wizard Guide

Yes, those are a list of fighting styles. Certain classes have access to only certain ones.

Tome of Magic had good intentions and tried something new, but fell short on mechanics. I will admit that the fluff in the book is very high quality. Binding vestiges just sounds awesome.

[PowerOfTheIstari]

The tome of battle is a double edged sword. It is very good at making the traditional fighter more involved in the game, and a good deal stronger as well. If everyone is picking from this book, or optimizing their character to a point, then everything is fine and dandy. The problem arises when you have a player that likes fluff, and wants to be a Ranger because it sounds cool, and another player that wants to use "weaboo fightin magic", as i have heard it called. The one character may be in it for the story, but will feel a bit useless in battle. Therefore, for the dm's out there be cautious on allowing this book, the characters need to be on a level playing field for everyone to be happy and for the party to work well together.

[Pyramidhead]

so tome of battle is antifluff? that seems a little harsh imo but it would make sense i guess, are these classes given low skill progression or something? cuz that was one of my favorite things about rogues and such was how many skills they got, leading me to believe in a more "a fight avoided is better than a fight won" mindset with almost anything i played, unless i was a paladin. is tome of battle all just monk-esque characters or are there other things as well? either way if the tome of battle characters all seem to eschew fluff i dont want them in my campaigns, imo they sound boring if they dont have background but it is probably the player who comes up with that, and it seems players who choose tome of battle only want to play for the combat encounters, so is there anything these classes can do besides combat?

and btw i've played a binder and yes, they are made of awesome and crazy

[Eldmor]

The Tome of Battle classes are far from anti-fluff:

The Crusader is a warrior that receives divine sparks of power during battle to deal out hurt. (This is reflected in their recovery mechanic.) Of particular note are Crusaders of Heironeous and Hextor, in constant involvement with their holy battle. (Note that there's no Cleric/Paladin rules attached to this, thank the gods. /pun)
Swordsages are world-traveling people that know the most about The Sublime Way. (The IG reference to using ToB stuff.) They collect random baubles and trinkets in hopes of accruing more knowledge with the blade. They also have a sense of drive and individual purpose; they strive for reason.
Then there are Warblades. They are traveling glory-hounds that want to be the best at what they do, fight using The Sublime Way. Some are more modest about their goals, most often elven Warblades, while others duel adventurers at the drop of a hat, dwarf and hobgoblin Warblades. In any respect, they also put their mind into battle, admitting that it is as important as strength or speed in battle. (Exactly what it sounds like. Bonuses for having high Intelligence.)

A Ranger won't be getting any use out of this book, there is no school for ranged weaponry. Although there is a remarkably well written homebrew: The Falling Star Discipline. Also implies some great fluff that has been written for the school; a method that watches afar not being known to but the bookiest of scholars.

As far as skill progression goes, Swordsages get a good amount while Crusaders and Warblades have less to play with.

As far as fluff goes, the Tome of Battle can be integrated by just reflavoring things. It's a bit harder to do, but it can still work. In a magipunk game where the gods sit back and watch the fun? A Crusader is instead a Mageknight, someone infused with raw magic that gives them great power in battle.

[Measure Zero]

I like what the ToB tries to do, and I have no issue with each individual rule.  What I dislike about it is that it makes each character activate around three different powers each turn.  I found that in practice, this slowed down the game to Exalted levels.

[Pyramidhead]

ok now that the classes are cleared up for me i'm starting to like this more. I think the real problem I had was just the way the player was using them, I'm pretty sure he was multiclassing either 2 or all 3 of these classes in such a way it seemed to me that he was exploiting some open end rules or something. I read the homebrew but I will have to decide against that, imo the real charm of ToB is that it is a melee glorifier, making the best of monkish and duelist classes i think. Making one of these for bows, especially considering the range on bows with the powers given with the disc just doesnt sit right with me. I understand that some people really like the ranger class, or just bows in general and they think just cuz its 'ranger' means its the 'bow-user' class. If someone really wants to be a bow using nutter (legolas anyone?) i would suggest a fighter taking the ranged feats, they are all fighter feats so you can get them for your bonus feats, and you get them quicker than a ranger, don't do this of course if you want the pet and the tracking and favored enemy and whatnot, but if you just want to pewpew with your bow one could be very successful as a fighter, despite as much hate fighter class recieves.

[kenada]

I will agree that SR is useless for pc's, but several monsters have SR disproportional to their CR, making them more vulnerable to phys dmg or SR ignoring spells, SR being used against a player is only hindering them if they didn't take into account that it might be used against them, to which is just poor planning.

Are there many monsters that are more than 20SR above their CR?

[bossadelic]

the fluff of tome of battle is awful. i hate it when things want a more "mystical" feel they automatically go the animu route, stealing chinese and japanese crap like they are the only eastern concepts available. I liked it when i first read it, because it was different, but upon further review, i have decided that it hides behind cool-sounding names and the click power mechanic to hide general uncreativeness. it fails by not really explaining where the power comes from, just dressing it up. earlier alternative magic systems such as psionics and incarnum (incarnum would be awesome if it werent for the fairly crap power level) were much more successful.

[Pyramidhead]

i liked psionics, except all my players who chose to play one always seemed to go kinetisist (blegh, psionic evokers) but i really like psychoportation. I want to read more about incarnum, i only heard vague descriptions of it before but as far as I know it reminds me of the "blue magic" kind of thing from the FF franchise.