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

[Nanshork]

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

That was a page ago.

Oh I'm aware, but it just kept going and going...

@YouLostMe: You should be aware that debating like that doesn't go over very well with this community.  We all know how to properly argue, and talking the way you do when you bring up logical fallacies or debating styles tends to make people ignore you.

[SorO_Lost]

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).

That would be good way to go, come to think of it that's how Divine Flame prevents some abuse; you need to spend an action (and sometimes another maneuver) to keep an effect going.

[YouLostMe]

Maneuvers that give buffs lasting more than 1 round wouldn't hurt, and would allow you to write cool abilities like strikes with offensive penalties but strong, multi-round buffs when you hit (in the vein of Stone Bones). In this way, the initiator "pays" for a buff by spending one action to attack and losing one of their readied maneuvers (since it's strictly inferior to attacking normally), so you can make the effect stronger than normal. But piecemeal maneuver recovery mechanics and high numbers of maneuvers readied can abuse that, so you'll probably need to accept the synergy or choose one over the other.

Maneuvers with multiple-round crowd control is testier. Action denial (i.e. slowed, staggered, stunned) longer than 1 round is probably a no-no unless it has some serious drawbacks for initiation/upkeep. Debuffs that stack (i.e. shaken, fatigued) are definitely not a good idea unless you explicitly prevent stacking. Other debuffs like deafened, dazzled, sickened probably aren't bad. But never underestimate the power of debuffs.

@YouLostMe: You should be aware that debating like that doesn't go over very well with this community.  We all know how to properly argue, and talking the way you do when you bring up logical fallacies or debating styles tends to make people ignore you.

Knowing how to properly argue and arguing properly aren't the same thing. If fellows like Soro understand that fallacies are bad, then they should be able to correct themselves when such things are pointed out. I appreciate the advice, but I'd rather be ignored by someone who refuses to talk honestly than let their dishonesty slip by.

[Raineh Daze]

@YouLostMe: You should be aware that debating like that doesn't go over very well with this community.  We all know how to properly argue, and talking the way you do when you bring up logical fallacies or debating styles tends to make people ignore you.

Knowing how to properly argue and arguing properly aren't the same thing. If fellows like Soro understand that fallacies are bad, then they should be able to correct themselves when such things are pointed out. I appreciate the advice, but I'd rather be ignored by someone who refuses to talk honestly than let their dishonesty slip by.

Starting an argument with or about SorO is masochistic. Better to ignore him when he gets too much.

[YouLostMe]

... good to know.

[Nanshork]

The people here who don't argue properly don't care about arguing properly, SorO is one of those.  There's nothing wrong with going about debates properly (it might sound like I'm talking down to you about your style but I'm not), just don't expect to change how anybody talks around here. 

[YouLostMe]

Thank you, seriously. I'll keep that in my posts. I got all waaargarbl on soro and kotaro, and I should make sure I don't unfairly carry that onto other posters.

[Nanshork]

Thank you, seriously. I'll keep that in my posts. I got all waaargarbl on soro and kotaro, and I should make sure I don't unfairly carry that onto other posters.

No worries.  I'll let you guys get back to Tome of Battle discussions now.

[bhu]

Clarification: The more than one round bit was about grapples that would encompass more than one round, such as holds/

[YouLostMe]

Could you give an example? I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about.

More things:

• I'd like to see more stances per class. This is more of a personal desire, because ToB is touted as similar to martial arts and we move in and out of stances all the damn time.
• To avoid the multiclassing problem, explicitly retrainable maneuvers (no using variant rules) would be awesome.
• I thought the maneuver recovery systems were pretty lackluster. Even the homebrew ones tend to be variants on "Attack roll + X action". Things like Bozweival's Gambler would be good inspiration.
• More opportunities for players to focus in on a single school. Lots of ToB classes use 3+ disciplines for their maneuvers, but there are a lot of opportunities for iconic characters focusing on a single discipline and players lose a fair bit of power when they can't cherrypick maneuvers.

[bhu]

Could you give an example? I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about.

As it stands now maneuvers are one and done.  Which leaves out constriction and such.  It also leaves out pressure point strike type stuff as hitting  a nerve cluster and causing someone pain and numbness usually lasts more than the 6 seconds of a round.

[wotmaniac]

Could you give an example? I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about.

As it stands now maneuvers are one and done.  Which leaves out constriction and such.

This looks like a job for Stances.

It also leaves out pressure point strike type stuff as hitting  a nerve cluster and causing someone pain and numbness usually lasts more than the 6 seconds of a round.

Some duration debuffs would be nice.

[Unbeliever]

@YouLostMe: You should be aware that debating like that doesn't go over very well with this community.  We all know how to properly argue, and talking the way you do when you bring up logical fallacies or debating styles tends to make people ignore you.

Knowing how to properly argue and arguing properly aren't the same thing. If fellows like Soro understand that fallacies are bad, then they should be able to correct themselves when such things are pointed out. I appreciate the advice, but I'd rather be ignored by someone who refuses to talk honestly than let their dishonesty slip by.

Linking to logical fallacies, which then requires me to click on the link and then try and parse how you are applying it to the particular statements at hand, is among the smuggest things I've seen on these here internets.  Frankly, the above quoted text is in a similar register. 

It was a very effective means of getting me to pay no attention to any substance contained in the post.  Your mileage may vary as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

[SorO_Lost]

And with that we need to talk about how cool the ToB is to smooth that burn.

Didjaknow Lightning Throw let's you live out your Thor fantasies and requires a lot of head-tilt logic to figure out how it interacts other rules (harpoons!).

[YouLostMe]

Linking to logical fallacies, which then requires me to click on the link and then try and parse how you are applying it to the particular statements at hand, is among the smuggest things I've seen on these here internets.  Frankly, the above quoted text is in a similar register. 

It was a very effective means of getting me to pay no attention to any substance contained in the post.  Your mileage may vary as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

I'm sorry you find it difficult to assign context to links, but that's how I link everything, including restaurant recommendations, homebrew, and funny pictures. If you think it comes across smug, then perhaps that's a fault of the text's inability to allow for voice.

I also sympathize with you, because I also find it hard to parse content if its paired up with something that aggravates me, like when Soro pretended he had the damndest clue what my age was or when he made the "lol GiTP so dumb" generalization. My problem is that I feel the desire to respond to it, so while you ignored Soro's crazy raving and ketaro grandfather-clausing in ToB mechanics, I just had to step up and fight back. I understand your reaction, but I hope you understand mine.

If you'd like, I'll try and remember to explain my links in full when I post something here specifically for you to see.

On-Topic: I think stuff involving grappling, constriction, and whatnot would be more elegantly covered by stances. Debuffs are trickier, but I wrote about them above.

[ketaro]

(click to show/hide)

Hehehe, I love how much YouLostMe's posts all come off as the most arrogant stuff to read ever tho 
It's like he can't help but look down on everybody.

It was also awesome how he tried to shutdown Oslecamo's points with some "don't bow to authority" bs fallacy link that straight up also explained itself as to not be used to dismiss experts. Because Os is pretty much an expert in regards to homebrew which was the point he was talking about. That's fairly universally agreed upon around with an enormous amount of evidence just lying around to back it up.

 
You're really doing well for yourself here good sir!

Could you give an example? I'm having trouble visualizing what you're talking about.

As it stands now maneuvers are one and done.  Which leaves out constriction and such.  It also leaves out pressure point strike type stuff as hitting  a nerve cluster and causing someone pain and numbness usually lasts more than the 6 seconds of a round.

Debuffs with a duration based on ranks in the associated discipline's key skill tend to work fairly well from my experience with homebrew disciplines that have them.

Conditions, like being grappled and constriction, do seem trickier to me though to figure out a good method for. I mean, cause opposed rolls every round is already a thing for the normal versions of stuff like that, but not allowing a check every round to break free of some sort of submission hold is just unfair. And making the victim just have to beat the static save of the maneuver on his turn is just incredibly easy because Save DCs are always turrible. Especially if you're using a normal grapple check or something versus that DC, then they'll never fail barring size penalties. It could be a save that forces the victim to use their worst save though, but then breaking a grapple with like a Will save is odd. Eh, I guess actually if a grappling kind of discipline was done, all the maneuvers that put you into some sort of grappling or similar condition could probably have a means of forcing a "save between either Fort or Reflex, whichever is worse" kind of deal. Usually one of those two isn't too great to give those kind of maneuvers a bit more reliability.

I just wouldn't want an actual grapple check to ever be something available for the victim because size penalties are stupid big numbers in both directions. Of course then shenans like pixies grappling tarrasques could happen and then you just need a single clause in the discipline stating some sort of "these only work on creatures no more than 1 (or 2) size categories bigger or smaller than you" thing.

I really would be interested in a grappling kind of martial discipline 

[Nanshork]

Here, I found one for you.

[ketaro]

Here, I found one for you.

Oh snap it's actually a thing.

Time to finally live my dream of playing a cartoonish Luchador in D&D 

Like, you don't even know how utterly thrilled I am at seeing it. Bonus points with it actually being decent 

[YouLostMe]

Hehehe, I love how much YouLostMe's posts all come off as the most arrogant stuff to read ever tho 
It's like he can't help but look down on everybody.

It was also awesome how he tried to shutdown Oslecamo's points with some "don't bow to authority" bs fallacy link that straight up also explained itself as to not be used to dismiss experts. Because Os is pretty much an expert in regards to homebrew which was the point he was talking about. That's fairly universally agreed upon around with an enormous amount of evidence just lying around to back it up.

 
You're really doing well for yourself here good sir!

I find it interesting that when I say I wasn't smug and ask for it not to be interpreted that way, literally the first thing you do is say that I'm doing the thing I just said I wasn't doing. Are you sure it's me looking down on you?

And remember, if you have trouble with what our argument was about you can just ask! You don't need to throw around accusations and then wait for me to fill in the blanks for you. But because I want to help, I will demonstrate for you why my use of appeal to authority was valid.

Primarily, the authority in question needs to be recognized. Of all the people here, oslecamo is the one I know the best (second to Bhu), I know of him specifically because I've heard people talk about his lack of understanding of how D&D should work. When I came here, I knew nothing about ToBhou, but I knew about his monster classes because people said he made/allowed bad ones, and I knew about his Ra's al Ghul guide because people said it was the worst DMing guide they've read. So really, all I have to go on right now is that oslecamo has made some stuff I've never heard of and some other stuff that I've only heard bad things about. So like... universally agreed upon? What?

But even if he was a valid authority as you believe he is, there is a bit of quoted text (in the exact sentence you were just talking about!) that makes the choice still correct. I will provide it for convenience.

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts [...] unless one has [...] access to empirical evidence.

Now I have empirical evidence. In his appeal-to-authority post, oslecamo was quoting me saying that his board has lots of homebrew (it does), that Bhu was using this thread to generate ideas for his homebrew (he is), and that ToB is subject to the most non-redux homebrew support out of any other subsytem (it is). There is evidence of those things.

I'm glad you brought up that point, because I didn't think to make my position clear that clear and I'm sure someone may have had the exact same reaction.

[ketaro]

That's what happens when you just drop links to stupid things and act as if they're the end all be all to the referenced point; explanations omitted. But then if you were to explain them, it defeats your purpose of dropping the cheesy links

And yeah you did say you're not being smug, but the way it's all flowing makes it damn hard to read your posts as anything but. That's the whole "come off as being" that I said. I didn't straight up call you a smug and arrogant bum now did I? *thumbsup*

A guide to DMing sounds like a stupid thing to make cause figuring out how to DM is just finding what works for you and your group. A written guide for it pretty much just sounds like a half dozen walls of text that on the very last sentence become a TL;DR summary of just that

If the monster classes are discovered as not working when played, it'd be wonderful if people could, yanno, explain how it didn't work and offer up how it might better work rather than bashing on stuff that probably hasn't been playtested properly. Lots of things sound great in theory, not as much of those things are as great when taken to practice~

Aaaah, man, why'd you have to go and keep calling my name after I'd left this conversation ~.~
Much like a favorite wish-granting demon, ketaro can't help but come when called.....

Edit: Before you get into it at me again, I'd like to mention that I think I'm just talking now rather than actually arguing anything we're mentioning. I apologize for that, I am a pretty damn annoying person like that