How do you feel Tome of Battle has let you down?

[bhu]

Edit: Basically, bhu, this was a poor choice of thread title that invoked rather more discussion than suggestions for a revamp.

I should prolly revise that...

[YouLostMe]

At the end of it, you're still entirely happy with what ToB has brought to the table if you were before OR you're still looking at ToB as if it's the worst thing to ever happen...

Ah, I see. You think that the only options are "ToB is terrible" and "ToB is jesus incarnate". In order to help you understand my point (and the purpose of this thread), let me introduce you to a concept called the middle ground.

The idea behind the middle ground is that you accept compromises from greater than one position (crazy on the internet, I know. Bear with me). By making compromises from multiple positions, you can achieve what is hopefully a mutually-beneficial end state. So when talking about how [Subject here] has let you down, a good middle ground is to select individual downers and work to fixing them, instead of advocating for throwing out the entire book.

This way, people don't end up where they start. You don't have two polarized sides forced into "TOB IS TERRIBLE NEVER ADD TO IT" versus "TOB IS PERFECT NEVER ADD TO IT", and you can get thing like "X, Y, and Z are terrible in ToB. Additions should fix those things." That is the point of this thread, and its fairly well-evidenced by the fact that there is a list of selective let-downs which can be fixed.

The entire fact that one person opened this thread to gather suggestions to revamp an entire supplement system clearly shows that that person and everybody in here is pretty dam happy with all the stuff ToB delivered overall. This is really just a culmination of nitpicks and screw tightenings.

Yes! There need to be nitpicks and screw tightenings, because unpicked nits and untightened screws are let-downs, which is what this thread is talking about! I'm glad you came to see my side, though it's weird that you admit the point is valid while pretending it's not 2 paragraphs up...

Anyways, now that you've figured it out, we can go back to suggestions! I will reiterate that I think the "screws" of ToB saves should be "tightened" by standardizing them to 10 + 1/2 level + StatMod, instead of hurting the scaling with use of Maneuver level.

PS: I appreciate that you backed off the positions when you realized you couldn't defend them, like the tu quoque and DC bit. A lot of people just debate nonsense until my eyes bleed, and slipping things under the rug is a far better solution. I promise it didn't go unnoticed. 

EDIT: I don't think the name particularly needs to be changed, though I guess it's not that important. I don't think anyone but ketaro was actually confused as to the premise of this thread(?).

[ketaro]

It's like you couldn't see the overinflated exaggerations dripping from every word that really makes everything I say stand out in the most blatant of ways. Careful you don't go blind staring at the sun for too long 

But then much like my arguments, I like to run myself in circles. That's my middle ground. Arguing at both sides until I fall off the fence and land on the side I need to. *cough*

[YouLostMe]

I always try to take someone seriously. That way it doesn't matter if they mean it, they exaggerate, or they claim one and mean the other. I'm just glad you figured out what the thread's about and you see the point on scaling DCs, so hopefully we won't take up a page re-explaining next time something like this comes up.

[ketaro]

Well of course I like scaling DCs. Some of my favorite martial disciplines in the Touhou Battle Grimoire do it like that.
But I'm not gonna complain about it not being a thing in the actual book cause that's how the book is. I didn't write it. If I wanted something else I'll publish my own book and have a bunch of randoms whine and complain about it then

All I'm saying is it works. Not that it can or can't be better, just that it did what it needed to without going the extra mile.
Like being satisfied with a solid 75%. Nobody wouldn't be happier with an A+, but nobody wouldn't be glad to at least have passed with a C~

This metaphor is certainly labeling me as a solid C. Satisfactory.

[SorO_Lost]

Lots of maneuvers force saves, because there are lots of homebrew disciplines and saves are in there. But anyway, go back to the homebrew boards and read a few homebrew disciplines and you'll learn why the "tried and true" formula is actually terrible.

A) 16% of the 206 Maneuvers have a Save, this includes things like Bonecrusher where Saving doesn't alter the damage, you're wrong to use words like "a lot" or "most" and that's all there is to it.
B) Homebrew is not in any feasible way a supporting point. For example; here's my new White Raven Boost: Next ally's Strike doesn't allow a Save. #homebrewisntapoint.

The tried and true formula is designed to produce 25%/60% successful PC Save rates without optimization and certain creatures are given higher rated abilities that typically allow additional bonuses or immunity and monsters have a 65% Fort, 35% Ref, & 50% Will (yeah your real resistance is +24/18/21 for bonuses) for successful Save chances in the standard model. When you get into optimization the normal Save DCs are trivial, hence you huge misconception, because instead of +5 from items you can buy +18. And instead of picking up a +6 Enhancement to an ability score to help raise a Save you can spend even less and better bonuses. Like one of my favorite Grafts Strong Leg replaces a 55,000 gold Manual of Bodily Health for 8k. For 12k you can pick up +4 unnamed to Dexterity (and strength) too which is cheaper than a +4 enhancement item and stacks with it. And that's not even counting buffs provided by actual Spells. Optimization has broken the formula (duh, that's the purpose of it) but you're forgetting optimization can also optimize the Save DCs. For example, what is the potential DC of Tiger Claw in the hands of a JPM? I'll give you a clue, if he started as a 14 Str Human it can be at least as high as 69 for a 1st level Maneuver.

[YouLostMe]

A) 16% of the 206 Maneuvers have a Save, this includes things like Bonecrusher where Saving doesn't alter the damage, you're wrong to use words like "a lot" or "most" and that's all there is to it.
B) Homebrew is not in any feasible way a supporting point. For example; here's my new White Raven Boost: Next ally's Strike doesn't allow a Save. #homebrewisntapoint.

So you're saying that on this site that fosters tons of homebrew, regarding a subsystem that is the subject to the most non-redux homebrew support, in a discussion prompted by the author specifically to inform their decisions for when they create more homebrew, you actually think homebrew isn't a useful metric because you could intentionally make some terrible additions that play terribly with the system even though they're still eclipsed by the content at large? Wat wat wat?

The tried and true formula is designed to produce 25%/60% successful PC Save rates without optimization and certain creatures are given higher rated abilities that typically allow additional bonuses or immunity and monsters have a 65% Fort, 35% Ref, & 50% Will (yeah your real resistance is +24/18/21 for bonuses) for successful Save chances in the standard model. When you get into optimization the normal Save DCs are trivial, hence you huge misconception, because instead of +5 from items you can buy +18. And instead of picking up a +6 Enhancement to an ability score to help raise a Save you can spend even less and better bonuses. Like one of my favorite Grafts Strong Leg replaces a 55,000 gold Manual of Bodily Health for 8k. For 12k you can pick up +4 unnamed to Dexterity (and strength) too which is cheaper than a +4 enhancement item and stacks with it. And that's not even counting buffs provided by actual Spells. Optimization has broken the formula (duh, that's the purpose of it) but you're forgetting optimization can also optimize the Save DCs. For example, what is the potential DC of Tiger Claw in the hands of a JPM? I'll give you a clue, if he started as a 14 Str Human it can be at least as high as 69 for a 1st level Maneuver.

The "tried and true" formula creates level-appropriate DC values for your highest-level abilities for most of your D&D career. However, its values seriously fall off because maneuver levels don't increase while enemy saves do. So at level 11, your level-appropriate level 6 maneuver has a DC of 16+StatMod, while your totally inappropriate level 1 maneuver has a DC of 11+StatMod. That's bad, and even if you can jack the former maneuver's DC up to impressive levels, you're still getting screwed for using the latter. Having level-appropriate numbers is not a particularly high bar to rise to, and thus was a let-down when ToB didn't do it.

And yes, with incredibly abuse, people can break the game over their knee and make it bleed. I literally don't even care.

[bhu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soBYeKyUIPU  Behold my calming influence 

[SorO_Lost]

you actually think homebrew isn't a useful metric because you could intentionally make some terrible additions that play terribly with the system even though they're still eclipsed by the content at large? Wat wat wat?

Could? Again your terminology is bad, I'm not saying Homebrew could be OP, I'm saying it often is. Good homebrew requires knowledge of D&D it's self, just like good optimization requires knowledge of D&D.

And sometimes noobins like your self, aka this entire generation, just want their easy button handed to them on top of a cakepie. Like you'll never convince anyone that an 11th level Wizard should live off his 1st level Spells but damn it your Martial Adapt needs some DC 35 frigging 1st level Strikes this instant or you'll stop playing. It's no fair someone else has higher DCs than you right?

And really it's not fair, but instead of addressing the real problem at the tabletop you're pressing a problem-adding shortcut on to everyone else because you think it works for you.

[Nick]

(click to show/hide)

I'd like to have seen discipline called "Drunken Boxing".  The key skill would have been bluff.

Maneuvers would focus around feinting, tripping, charging in squiggly lines, and using improvised weapons.

I was thinking something like "attack with improvised weapon deals Xd6 damage, breaks on impact" perhaps.

Associated weapons would be the net, quarterstaff, unarmed strike, shield, flail, spiked chain, whip, and tankards.


The lack of this discipline saddened me deeply.  The PrC (drunken master) just wasn't enough...once this splatbook came out anyway

Er... Well I actually liked the flavor of the book.  I've been dying for that kind of oriental, exotic feel for ages.  And, if you're upset about the maneuvers not favoring ranged weapons, then ask the DM if you can let it work for non-melee stuff anyway.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that so very few classes and splatbooks seem to be made super duper properly?  I'm beginning to wonder how possible an accurate "play-test" is....

[YouLostMe]

Could? Again your terminology is bad, I'm not saying Homebrew could be OP, I'm saying it often is. Good homebrew requires knowledge of D&D it's self, just like good optimization requires knowledge of D&D.

And sometimes noobins like your self, aka this entire generation, just want their easy button handed to them on top of a cakepie. Like you'll never convince anyone that an 11th level Wizard should live off his 1st level Spells but damn it your Martial Adapt needs some DC 35 frigging 1st level Strikes this instant or you'll stop playing. It's no fair someone else has higher DCs than you right?

And really it's not fair, but instead of addressing the real problem at the tabletop you're pressing a problem-adding shortcut on to everyone else because you think it works for you.

Ah, so when you said I shouldn't count save-forcing maneuvers, you didn't mean it was because you could think of bad maneuvers that removed saves, it was because you think nearly all (wat) of those maneuvers are worse than standard WotC fare (wat wat) and therefore no one will want to use them (wat) or they'll follow your declaration because you tell them not to (wat wat wat)? I don't think that even needs a refute.

And then there's this weird "get off my lawn!" rant that pretends 10 + 1/2 + variable StatMod = 35 even at level 11, and wizards = martial adepts ALWAYS ALL THE TIME and spells = maneuvers, and then accuses me of weird things I never said... I mean, I understand that it's human nature to double down on your position when pressed, but when your position is stupid you just double that amount of stupid.

It certainly isn't fair to misrepresent someone's position and then attack the nonsense strawman, but instead of addressing the problem at hand you're pretending an easy fix is a terrible solution that should never be used (even though it has been used multiple places) just because you think it doesn't work for you.

EDIT: Sorry, Bhu. I think this will end soon. I plan on engaging soro until he writes a legitimate 0% content post, or figures out how saves work. I think the former is going to happen within a page, considering his last... uh, tactic.

[oslecamo]

A) 16% of the 206 Maneuvers have a Save, this includes things like Bonecrusher where Saving doesn't alter the damage, you're wrong to use words like "a lot" or "most" and that's all there is to it.
B) Homebrew is not in any feasible way a supporting point. For example; here's my new White Raven Boost: Next ally's Strike doesn't allow a Save. #homebrewisntapoint.

So you're saying that on this site that fosters tons of homebrew, regarding a subsystem that is the subject to the most non-redux homebrew support, in a discussion prompted by the author specifically to inform their decisions for when they create more homebrew, you actually think homebrew isn't a useful metric because you could intentionally make some terrible additions that play terribly with the system even though they're still eclipsed by the content at large? Wat wat wat?

First, you're claiming that all the homebrewers making custom disciplines that are used in games and got good reviews are idiots. I wonder how you could even dream that's a good point for your post.

Second, you're ignoring the basic point that making the minimum save high is bad for the game. Very bad. Because the opposition can also use them, and if any enemy mook can suddenly grab high DC save-or-dies with just a feat (martial study), the PCs are gonna suffer. For the record, a balor, classic CR 20 enemy, has their highest ability DCs at 27, aka everybody in the party should easily have more than 50% odds of making them, except for its Death throes that is slightly higher at 30, but only triggers when it is dying, and you don't automatically kill/disable you if you fail anyway.

Third, the Save homebrew maneuvers often have extra effects even if the target makes the save, so they're far from useless even if your enemy is making them every turn.

Come back when you've designed at least a dozen homerew disciplines of your own that people are actually willing to use and DMs willing to accept, then we'll talk.

TL:DR-Low level offensive abilities that everyone and their mother can grab should have low saves, otherwise the players are gonna suffer.

[YouLostMe]

First, you're claiming that all the homebrewers making custom disciplines that are used in games and got good reviews are idiots. I wonder how you could even dream that's a good point for your post.

Interestingly enough, I didn't say that, so I find it kind of weird that you think I did... but I'd prefer if we could move on to things I actually said.

Second, you're ignoring the basic point that making the minimum save high is bad for the game. Very bad. Because the opposition can also use them, and if any enemy mook can suddenly grab high DC save-or-dies with just a feat (martial study), the PCs are gonna suffer. For the record, a balor, classic CR 20 enemy, has their highest ability DCs at 27, aka everybody in the party should easily have more than 50% odds of making them, except for its Death throes that is slightly higher at 30, but only triggers when it is dying, and you don't automatically kill/disable you if you fail anyway.

I invite you to read what you quoted. Soro and I were talking about Soro's criticism of the scaling DC, which were "A) There aren't enough saves for this to be important, B) Homebrew won't be used because raisins". If you'd like to bring up a separate point, it would be better organizationally not to wrap it up as a refute to a point it's not even related to.

That aside, it's easy to see the counterpoint to this statement, because the opposition could already use martial study. If an enemy really wanted to use maneuvers but the scaling didn't work well, they could just pick up an ability that didn't force a save and be more effective. It's not like Weapon Focus (Longsword) is actually useful. The problem of using martial study doesn't actually get worse even if save scaled at 1/2 HD, but even if it still bothers you can just base the scaling off IL and now the DC for a balor is 27 at the very best and he's definitely better off using dancing mongoose over dazing strike because it lets him rip through an enemy faster.

Third, the Save homebrew maneuvers often have extra effects even if the target makes the save, so they're far from useless even if your enemy is making them every turn.

This doesn't actually refute the fact that homebrew maneuvers which force saves exist in large quantities (and that the power of those maneuvers is diminished relative to opposition as characters grow in level), but at least you're responding to the quoted portion again. If you have a follow-up to this that demonstrates your point, I am all ears.

Come back when you've designed at least a dozen homerew disciplines of your own that people are actually willing to use and DMs willing to accept, then we'll talk.

Here you go!

TL;DR - low-level abilities with powerful offensive options (that everyone and their mother can get) are already available and outshine their save-forcing counterparts by far, so while decent DCs barely hurt players because they minorly compound on the already-existing problem, players will benefit greatly because their range of realistic low-level maneuver options increases.

[SorO_Lost]

Well that's an interesting turn of events. First it was a link to a website, where the very knowledge of is fairly ominous in a bad way, about how complaining isn't a point as he complains DCs need to be higher because: homebrew. Now it's about don't ignore experts directed at Ols. Then he ends with lower level abilities (sic not just strikes) outshine higher level save-forcing abilities, decent DCs barely hurt players, and players benefit greatly when using realistic maneuvers. And before he has said he will never stop arguing.

I am sorry Bhu, but it seems your thread has been killed.

[YouLostMe]

Well that's an interesting turn of events. First it was a link to a website, where the very knowledge of is fairly ominous in a bad way, about how complaining isn't a point as he complains DCs need to be higher because: homebrew. Now it's about don't ignore experts directed at Ols. Then he ends with lower level abilities (sic not just strikes) outshine higher level save-forcing abilities, decent DCs barely hurt players, and players benefit greatly when using realistic maneuvers. And before he has said he will never stop arguing.

I am sorry Bhu, but it seems your thread has been killed.

This is interesting as well. You begin by telling me that I said things which I never actually said, then pretended I wanted things I never wanted, and then when I finally seem to have blocked the last your over-generalizations, personal attacks, and flippant dismissal of anything you don't like, you drop the pretense of even engaging in a discussion and repeat a poorly-abridged summary of my point as though your delightfully un-subtle incredulity were actually grounds for any kind of criticism.

I'm sorry you that you want to kill this thread so badly. I really wish I could help you break whatever mentality is leading to it.

[Nanshork]

In my experience, as soon as someone starts talking about logical fallacies the thread has stopped being useful.

[YouLostMe]

From personal experience, I find that's because logical fallacies are actually very strong argumentative tactics if you don't diagnose them, and they overpower other attempts at discourse. Even when you call somebody out for being disingenuous, you can't refill the void they caused when they stomped on all the other reasonable arguments.

For example, check out Soro's "get off my lawn!" post about how the younger generation wants shortcuts or whatever. It was in response to my post just above, which covered three topics (seriously abridged):
A) Use of homebrew should usually be considered standard in a discussion preceding the creation of more homebrew.
B) Level-appropriate saves are important regardless of whether the inflicted effect is level-appropriate.
C) Cheesy optimization shouldn't be the norm.

Now instead of responding to A, B, or C, he found the opportunity to discredit me (and thus the argument) by telling me my age and experience despite not knowing it, generalizing that everyone of that age/experience had bad ideas, and implying my argument wasn't important because of who he thought I was. That's almost a textbook example of several fallacies, but it felt very strong. And when that "argument" was knocked out because it was wholly inapplicable, his options were to either to fall back on what felt like a weaker argument, or double down on his original position and say something even crazier. You can see which one he chose.

That's standard human behavior, and it can lead to many pages of thread-crapping, so you see it everywhere on the internet. Normal discussions are a whole lot faster because once two legitimate arguments are brought forth, one either trumps the other or you turn to further discussion and move on.

[bhu]

I am sorry Bhu, but it seems your thread has been killed.

Tain't dead till I say so. 

And I is a patient kitty.

New topic for discussion: Maneuvers that last more than 1 round.  Yea or nay

[SorO_Lost]

In my experience, as soon as someone starts talking about logical fallacies the thread has stopped being useful.

That was a page ago.

Tain't dead till I say so. 
And I is a patient kitty.
New topic for discussion: Maneuvers that last more than 1 round.  Yea or nay

Shenanigans, no kitties are patient.

Maneuvers already last longer than a Round, see Stances.
*cough* I mean it's a bad idea. With recovery mechanics it's already possible reuse Maneuvers every round such as an action granter or a PrC'ed Crusader. You start putting durations on things and people will attempt to stack them however it's possible (such as multiple allies/enemies for buffs/debuffs).

[Raineh Daze]

Maneuvers already last longer than a Round, see Stances.
*cough* I mean it's a bad idea. With recovery mechanics it's already possible reuse Maneuvers every round such as an action granter or a PrC'ed Crusader. You start putting durations on things and people will attempt to stack them however it's possible (such as multiple allies/enemies for buffs/debuffs).

I like the way they occasionally show up in ToBhou--they can last longer than a round... but you're going to be burning an action on the things constantly (and in the LCM stuff, the effects tend to dwindle).