The real irony of the 'shopkeep for 20 years' problem.

[Psychic Robot]

Darn. The point is not to agree with the conclusions, but to cackle madly at the pure, unadulterated vitriol directed at the system itself.

[Cynic]

Do I need to make a a rant and rave at the different books/systems post now so you people can post your reviews?

Then I can cackle, so can P_R, with unadulterated vitriol if necessary.

I say this with a pretty please and a damn it on top!

[Bigode]

Amra: since I actually intend to use it (not unmodified, be sure), anything you could do on it would be actually useful. But I don't actually get why I couldn't just become a member of whatever it's in now. Thanks either way. (And yeah, I know about's Draco's review, but couldn't sift through the pages so far.)

[RandomCasualty2]

Did an excellent job proving how much shit ToB was.

I really liked ToB. It was definitely one of the better splatbooks for 3.5 and gave fighters a limited sort of versatility that they really needed.

[Bigode]

Did an excellent job proving how much shit ToB was.

I really liked ToB. It was definitely one of the better splatbooks for 3.5 and gave fighters a limited sort of versatility that they really needed.

Actually, I regard its contributions as solely "new effects" and "immediate actions that didn't break the game while being useful". Because everything else's riddled with bad editing at least. Maybe it was one of the best books - does the fact that it was one of the best by WotC mean much? Remember, you could have more versatility by playing a cleric or a rogue, depending on what you viewed the warrior as.

[RandomCasualty2]

Actually, I regard its contributions as solely "new effects" and "immediate actions that didn't break the game while being useful". Because everything else's riddled with bad editing at least. Maybe it was one of the best books - does the fact that it was one of the best by WotC mean much? Remember, you could have more versatility by playing a cleric or a rogue, depending on what you viewed the warrior as.

Yeah bad editing for sure and a lot of the mechanics were just screwy.

Still, the addition of fighter maneuvers was big. You'll never have as much cool stuff as a wizard, but at least now the warrior had some interesting things to play with in addition to feats. And it made the warrior archetype into more of a tank with the addition of high reflex saves for the warblade and moment of perfect mind for will saves. And that's pretty nice as far as deviating from the old rocket launcher tag aspects of the game.

The main flaw of the fighter was that he was a tank, but he lacked any resiliency, because almost everything was irresistible rocket launcher tag bullshit. ToB helps that a bit. There are still crap like forcecage that will fuck you up, but at the very least, it cuts down on the amount of magic items you'll need to compete, and you actually have a very good chance of making almost any saving throw.

After ToB, I started thinking, "the warrior is a tank again."

ToB had its flaws but it did more for the game than any other splatbook IMO, and it's something I'd consider pretty much an essential addition to any D&D game, assuming you're not using some massive fighter type rewrites like the Tomes.

[Amra]

Amra: since I actually intend to use it (not unmodified, be sure), anything you could do on it would be actually useful. But I don't actually get why I couldn't just become a member of whatever it's in now. Thanks either way. (And yeah, I know about's Draco's review, but couldn't sift through the pages so far.)

OK, well, sure I'll stick it here if it's going to be of some use. I'll cobble it together tomorrow/later today (board time notwithstanding, it's 20 past midnight for me and I've got an early appointment in the morning).

The only reason you can't become a member of what it's in now is because it's not a "public" server: the wiki is sat on a friend's Linux box in his spare room and I'm reluctant to ask him to create accounts right now. He quite rightly doesn't trust me with admin rights

I'm sorry (to J_E and Draco both) for misattributing the previous review; I couldn't find it when I searched these boards so couldn't check before I posted.

When I did mine, I'd started it before Draco began his big run-down and finished it afterwards, so bits of it will indeed be heavily informed (if not downright purloined) from his oeuvre. I do know that the last time *I* saw what had been posted here, nobody had covered all the disciplines, although memory fails me as to which hadn't been done.

Be warned though; I actually say nice things about some of the maneuvers, some of the time. I realise that might be a disappointment

[Draco_Argentum]

I didn't write any review. You guys are thinking of Dragon_Child.

[Amra]

And despite that lead, I STILL can't find it!

[Leress]

And despite that lead, I STILL can't find it!

Here you go

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=15 ... sc&start=0

[Amra]

You are a star. Well done - I won't even ask how you found it, because the answer would either embarrass me or indicate that you're prepared to work far too hard for your own good

EDIT: On re-reading Dragon_Child's review, I'm a little taken aback at just how different some of my interpretations of the maneuvers were. Some of the things he liked, I hated; and vice-versa, of course.

So yeah, it's probably worth posting my review after all if there are people still looking into the ToB; you'll get some contrasting opinions, which is often a Good Thing.

Time has probably changed my views on a few things, but if I take the time out to re-read and edit I'll never get it posted; it's going to be hard enough to format the damn thing without giving myself extra work! I'll just take the punishment for the shit that was Just Plain Wrong as and when I get it. 8)

[Bigode]

Thanks, Amra and Leress.

RC: which's longer, ToB or Races of War (not sure about all the Tomes together, but I don't remember much of importance for actual warriors outta RoW)? And don't even comment on which's better-designed.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC: which's longer, ToB or Races of War (not sure about all the Tomes together, but I don't remember much of importance for actual warriors outta RoW)? And don't even comment on which's better-designed.

Well, I'm not really sure. You'd have to strip out most of the crap from ToB, and there is a lot of crap chapters. Really the only ones that you actually care about are the classes, the feats, the maneuvers and the PrCs. The other filler shit can go.

Even still, I'd figure RoW is going to be shorter, because it was written with a more condensed format, and not the bloated manuever/spell headers.

Now if you're using the tomes you probably don't need ToB, but in your average game, where the DM may well think that the Tomes are crazy overpowered, you've got a better chance of slipping in ToB simply because it's official. And IMO ToB is going to help your game quite a bit.

[Cynic]

Thanks, Amra and Leress.

RC: which's longer, ToB or Races of War (not sure about all the Tomes together, but I don't remember much of importance for actual warriors outta RoW)? And don't even comment on which's better-designed.

TOB is obviously more well designed!

I kid! And with that

[virgil]

Ah, ToB, that thing which is considered crazy overpowered by some of the DMs I have around here and thus never allowed.

[Amra]

It absolutely is crazy overpowered at low levels if you read it strictly and literally; and all because of one (admittedly enormous) cockup. The problem is that although there is an initiator level requirement before you can take a given maneuver as part of a class progression, that requirement need not be met when you take a maneuver using the Martial Study feat.

Not only is that what it says in the book, but CustServ actually confirmed that such was the design intention.

Yeah, CustServ. They're so great.

You can squeeze the cheese with ToB same as any other splatbook, but the resulting blend of rochefort and camembert is far less game-destroying - even going all-out to break it - than most of the crazy shit casters can pull.

I guess there are still DM's around who simply don't want any significant power handed out without magic being associated with it *sigh*

[Koumei]

But wouldn't you still need to meet other requirements, such as "already know a level 1-3 maneuver"? Most of them require lower level ones first, so unless that is also skipped when you take the feat, you still aren't starting the game with "Whirlwind Throw" or whatever.

[Amra]

That doesn't actually help much; I've seen it in play and it's ugly. The prerequisites for maneuvers:

1) Are all over the place. There are seriously 9th-level (i.e. character level 18) maneuvers with no prerequisites and there are 3rd-level maneuvers that require you to have three others from the same discipline. It's actually the case in some discplines (Setting Sun springs to mind) that the higher-level maneuvers in the same thematic chain have fewer prerequisites than their lower-level counterparts.

2) Have no level-based variables. They say things like "Must know two other Tiger Claw maneuvers" but are never more specific than that.

So a 1st-level Warblade seriously can pick up the 8th-level Lightning Throw from the Iron Heart discipline and do normal melee damage PLUS 12d6 to all creatures in a 30ft line with no attack roll, Reflex save for half.

At the level a character was supposed to get it, this is not only not unbalancing, but is in fact deeply underwhelming. 15 levels early, it's nothing short of horrendous.

This sort of stuff was actually missed by Dragon_Child and Lago first time around; quite understandably, because the book is written so impenetrably. The mechanics are so bad in places that - I kid you not - the Divine Crusader can never actually qualify for the highest-level stance that only Divine Crusaders can qualify for. Really.

EDIT: Stoopid smileez

[Roy]

You are aware how the system actually works before remarking on it, correct? Because to take an 8th level maneuver, you need an IL of 15. Your IL is = to the number of levels in the relevant martial adept + half your levels in anything else. Ergo, you must be at least level 15. It was missed by them because they actually understood the system they were reviewing.

[Amra]

I am extremely aware of how the system works. You only need an initiator level of 15 to get an 8th-level maneuver if you're gaining that maneuver as part of your progression in a martial adept class.

The Martial Study feat does not work the same way.

From my exchange with CustServ almost exactly a year ago (included not because I think CustServ's word carries any particular weight, but because it saves me elaborating the points in new words):

****

Another day, another Tome of Battle question... I realise that I'm setting the scene in a bit of a long-winded way, but I'd appreciate it if you could bear with me because I've been wrestling with this for a while and it's really not as obvious as it might look at first glance!

The Martial Study feat description states: "Select any maneuver from this discipline for which you meet the prerequisite." The text goes on to describe how, if you don't have any martial adept levels, you *use* the maneuver with an initiator level equal to one-half your character level. However, the feat as written seems to suggest that you are not limited to selecting maneuvers based on your initiator level.

On page 39, under "Selecting Martial Maneuvers", the text states that "Your level in a martial adept class determines the highest-level maneuver you can select." However, a character with no martial adept levels of course does not have a level in a martial adept class! This paragraph clearly refers to gaining maneuvers through class levels, not the Martial Study feat.

In the preceding "MULTICLASS CHARACTERS" section under "INITIATOR LEVEL", you are directed to Table 3-1 (p.39) when determining which maneuvers you can select, but this is specifically - and I quote - "If you are a multiclass martial adept and you learn a new maneuver BY ATTAINING A NEW LEVEL IN A MARTIAL ADEPT CLASS [...]" (emphasis mine), which strongly implies that it's not the same if you learn a new maneuver via the Martial Study feat.

Finally, on page 44, the LEVEL heading for Maneuver and Stance Descriptions states:

"This entry gives the martial adept class or classes that have access to this maneuver: crusader, swordsage, or warblade. The line also gives the maneuver's level within that class. You can learn any maneuver you like by choosing the Martial Study feat, regardless of class. However, you must still meet the prerequisite of the maneuver."

So, when you learn a maneuver via the Martial Study feat it can apparently be "any maneuver you like". There is no suggestion that initiator level OR character level plays a part when selecting maneuvers with this feat.

My question, therefore is this: when a character selects the Martial Study feat, what is the highest level maneuver they can learn?

For instance, let us assume that a 10th-level Fighter takes the feat. Is he:
a) limited to a 5th-level maneuver because he is a 10th-level character,

b) limited to a 3rd-level maneuver because his initiator level is 5th, or

c) as the rules clearly seem to suggest, not limited as to which level of maneuver he takes, provided he can meet the prerequisites?

I believe the rules to back up option c), and have a theory that characters can only take the Martial Study feat three times in order to prevent them qualifying for 9th-level maneuvers too early! Thanks in advance for your kind attention.

And, for what it's worth, the response:

Amra,

Thank you for writing. Your option C is the correct choice. There is no level requirement for characters who take the Martial Study feat, as indicated on page 44. You should take your initiator level into account when choosing maneuvers as they may be more or less effective depending upon your initiator level.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

Good Gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you.

Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire</a>.

Rob
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST

So, yeah, you could say that I did a little bit of reading before leaping to the aforementioned conclusion.

[Roy]

And it is extremely well established CustServ has no idea what the fuck they are talking about.

[Antumbra]

Bleh - I'd love to see a "Best of CustServ" compilation thread...

I'm reminded of Frank's Hungry Jack.

###

I remember ToB being fairly good for the Items that grant Maneuvers and for Iron Heart Surge.
Other than that I've always been too preoccupied with the Chameleon PrC* to really look at it - though the last five levels of a Chameleon build are rather interesting as you could literally take almost anything you qualify for at random and still be of win - Survivor, Ruathar, Monk - as I'm sure you all know. So AFB a high level dip of Warblade or Swordsage would add nice toys (but other than Iron Heart Surge I can't think of what else I'd want OtToMH).

Except that one of those vampires has the Endure Sunlight feat, and he also knows Iron Heart Surge. With a roar of effort, he drives the sun from the sky.

* Specialization is for insects, after all.

[Surgo]

How'd this gem go unnoticed?

But if you just let players fast-forward to whatever level they want to, then what's the friggin' problem in the first place? I probably wouldn't settle on a lame 'my character runs a business for the next few years and practices swinging his sword in the backyard' personally--I'd be more of a 'for the next 6 years, I wrestle with the nude nymphs of Clearwater forest, pillow-talking and practicing their sexy magical martial artist style'. But to each their own.

Yeah, that's what I'm planning on doing at my upcoming college game. I'm sick of the XP bullshit. Laying it out at the start that we'll take a level that we think is pretty sweet and stick with it for a while (serial heroism with items that we keep from Book of Gears) and if it ever comes up, we'll say "time for a training montage!"

[Koumei]

Roy: That's true, but you still happen to be wrong in this instance. It's not so much a case of CustServ verifying it, not a case of how things should work, it's a matter of "The rules as written allow this crazy shit".

So perhaps, before assuming someone is wrong and telling them to read the rules, you should in fact read the rules yourself, or ask for an explanation as to how things work in such a manner.

[JonSetanta]

Ah, ToB, that thing which is considered crazy overpowered by some of the DMs I have around here and thus never allowed.

Yes that much is true. It's very, very powerful....

... in the mind of any pessimist that never tried it.