ToB: What I don't like about Maneuver Progression

[zugschef]

The main problem with maneuvers is, that their progression seems to be totally random and it's rewarding to multiclass later rather than earlier resulting in a problem which has already been described in frank & k's tome:

Worse, while you can create some sort of abstract proof about potential long-term balance in either the
“buy now, pay later” or “save up for the awesome” models, in actual D&D games this simply does not work.
It can’t. While D&D is inherently open ended, each actual game has a beginning, a middle, and an end. And
while it would be convenient if every game began at 1st level and ended at 20th, we know that isn’t what
really happens. Campaigns begin at later levels (after the pay-offs have kicked in or setups have become
obsolete), and they end before Epic (before pay-offs or interest payments kick in). And this is normal. Any
set up in which a character is supposed to have less power at one part of his career and more in another
is unenforceable, there’s no possible guarantee that both the low power and the high power period will ever
actually happen in-game. In fact, in almost all cases it’s a pretty good bet that they won’t.

I really, really hate that part. I'd rather maneuver progression was more like spellcasting in that regard, so this was not a factor, and prestige classes, for instance, could just have a "+1 level in maneuver granting class" entrance.

[Tonymitsu]

Maybe it's just because I'm stupid, but I don't think I understand the question.

Any set up in which a character is supposed to have less power at one part of his career and more in another is unenforceable, there’s no possible guarantee that both the low power and the high power period will ever actually happen in-game. In fact, in almost all cases it’s a pretty good bet that they won’t.

So wait, are they complaining about that fact that people run one-shot games where everyone starts at the peak of their power?
Like it's a bad thing?

I like the adventure model where you start off a lowly mortal and gradually climb into the upper echelons just fine, but sometimes I also like starting off as an already established champion for a quick story where we save the world yet again.
Isn't it the hallmark of a truly great system that it can cater to both play styles simultaneously?


I'm also not quite sure I understand your point of view.
Do you mean it's more rewarding to multiclass to a martial adept class later in your career or to multiclass out of a martial adept class later in your career?

[Libertad]

Frank (or K) is specifically complaining about the idea that classes can be "balanced" by having one be underpowered at the lower levels, then overpowered at the later levels (and vice-versa).  This was how spellcasting classes were "balanced" against noncasting classes in 1st Edition.

Zugchef's problem is that the later you wait to multiclass into martial adept, the better your options will be for selecting maneuvers.  He wants the decision to multiclass into martial adept early be just as valid as multiclassing later.

[Prime32]

That can be solved just by letting PCs retrain their maneuvers when they gain a level.

[Tonymitsu]

Well that's a logical fallacy. 
If things aren't balanced at all levels, then they aren't balanced.
It's a scaling problem. You see internally within classes in video games a lot actually.

Also how early is early?

At a certain point what's the problem with just starting in the martial adept class?

[Bozwevial]

Frank (or K) is specifically complaining about the idea that classes can be "balanced" by having one be underpowered at the lower levels, then overpowered at the later levels (and vice-versa).  This was how spellcasting classes were "balanced" against noncasting classes in 1st Edition.

Zugchef's problem is that the later you wait to multiclass into martial adept, the better your options will be for selecting maneuvers.  He wants the decision to multiclass into martial adept early be just as valid as multiclassing later.

To a certain extent, that's already true. Multiclassing into martial adept is actually better than multiclassing into wizard, because if you multiclass into warblade you are getting better maneuvers the higher level you are, whereas multiclassing into wizard will get you 1st level spells no matter what level you are. So a fighter 1/warblade 1 and a fighter 1/wizard 1 are both getting things which are roughly appropriate for their level, but a fighter 10 gets much more mileage out of a warblade level than out of a wizard level.

Of course even martial adept levels don't give you things which are entirely level appropriate. They gradually get less and less useful (comparatively) the further along you go; X 4/warblade 1 gets 2nd level maneuvers when warblade 5 gets 3rd level maneuvers, but X 16/warblade 1 gets 4th level maneuvers when warblade 17 gets 9th level maneuvers. So even though you're not getting things which were meant for characters to whom an orc poses an actual threat, you're also not getting things meant for characters who go toe-to-toe with mariliths.

[merkwerdigeliebe]

I believe the reason for this is because they wanted initiators to be compatible with older content without much penalization. This is especially important because it's one of the last official books for 3.5. I really have no problem with it. While initiators become a very strong multiclass option later on, I've never felt like they were a bad option early on either. Without this kind of progression, you'd be stuck taking solely utility maneuvers in most multiclass situations.

If you were especially irritated by this, you could base it off of base attack bonus somehow. Or just say only certain classes qualify (specifically melee/non-caster types).

[Garryl]

I think the issue is (in part) that the order in which you do your multiclassing has a significant effect on your power. Warblade 4/Fighter 16 (2nd level maneuvers) is very different from Fighter 16/Warblade 4 (6th level maneuvers). Similarly, a build that delays its multiclassing into Warblade until later will be noticeably weaker than the ones that go into Warblade earlier up through level 16, all in the hope of having more power later on.

I really, really hate that part. I'd rather maneuver progression was more like spellcasting in that regard, so this was not a factor, and prestige classes, for instance, could just have a "+1 level in maneuver granting class" entrance.

They didn't go with +1 level in maneuver granting class because it's supposed to be feasible to enter ToB PrCs through the Martial Study/Stance feats, rather than having to come in from an initiator class to gain any benefit. One of the things that saddens me about Incarnum is that despite having an equivalent set of access feats available, all of the PrCs still need actual class levels for any real benefit.

[Unbeliever]

That can be solved just by letting PCs retrain their maneuvers when they gain a level.

+1

I've long railed against the same thing Frank and K rail against -- the idea of having a sort of intertemporal balance -- since, as I believe they note, you're actually imbalanced at all points.  In the early (weak) stages you're too weak and at the late (strong) stages, you're too strong.

The simple fix is the one Prime proposed, which everyone I know uses.  And, I agree with other posters that it's most likely a vestige of trying to graft ToB onto an already existent system.  Hell, I kind of like the idea of ToB's progression for spells and similar powers, as I think it might facilitate more multiclassing, with the net effect being weaker characters as there might be less Incantatrixes and Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil running around. 

[veekie]

Yeah, I'd say that this is in fact superior to spells progression, because it ensures that what you are gaining things that are relevant to your level, in quantities relevant to your level investment(as opposed to getting +1 spellcasting and then getting a full level worth of resources + class features, you get as much use out of them as you paid for with maneuvers).

With a spellcasting-like progression, your sole option is finding spells that buck the rule and prove useful at any level. Which defeats the purpose of having them be low/high level.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don't see the problem.

The penalty of waiting to enter at a later level is...waiting to enter.  Maneuvers are awesome, I want them now!

If you start at a really high level, it's "problematic" (not really, everyone just enters the adept classes later on and in the end "build order" doesn't much matter to backstory/fluff other than what your 1st level class was), but most people don't do that.

You either enter earlier and enjoy still-quite-awesome maneuvers like Mountain Hammer or WR Tactics for most of the game, or you sacrifice on that to get higher level options later.  *shrug*

People realize higher levels are supposed to be higher power than lower levels, right?  Spending a level in something at ECL 15 *should* bring me more than if I took that level at ECL 5, ideally.

This "problem" is fine, full retraining each level is absurd and not needed.  Maneuvers have plenty of other, genuine, problems to worry about, not this.  Things like repetitive spamming of super attacks, or how totally botched the maneuver/stance progressions of most of the classs are, or how you basically HAVE to cheese the maneuver swapping (to drop pre-req maneuvers once you get the one you want and end up in a situation where you have it but no longer meet the pre-reqs, which is just odd) mechanic to actually be able to afford an array of high level maneuvers across multiple disciplines, or technically needing the ability to move to use maneuvers and thus making things like IH Surge out of paralysis impossible by RAW.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

I'll echo what Veekie said: I'd rather casting classes multiclassed like martial adepts, not the other way around.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If spellcasting were on par w/ maneuvers power-wise, I'd agree.

But spellcasting is uber.

People whine and bitch about how bad caster multiclassing is, but I don't see it.  You make a Fighter 10 / Wiz 10 (which even in core, isn't the smartest way to evenly split it, that would be Fighter 5 / Wiz 5 / Eldritch Knight 10 or something), and you end up with someone, who power-wise....is between a Fighter 20 and Wiz 20 in power.  Halfway?  Probably not.  But that's because spellcasting is quadratic (as in the TVTrope) or exponential.  You have x coordinates 0-20 on a quadratic function, x =10 won't have a y value of of halway between x  = 0 and x = 20, either.

But it will definitely fall in between the two in power, and most likely about where you'd expect that halfway point on the quadratic funtion to fall.

So caster multiclassing is not broken in the slightest.  It is the power curve of spellcasting itself that is broken.

People are treating an effect like it's the cause.

[Concerned Ninja Citizen]

It's not spellcasting that's broken. It's unlimited list spellcasting.

Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necromancer are pretty well balanced with martial adepts. It's just the classes that can pick from all of the hundreds of spells printed in the game's history that break things.

Also, Fighter X/Wizard X will be more than half as good as Fighter 2X because Fighter sucks. WarbladeX/BeguilerX will fall much closer to the halfway point of power.

[FlaminCows]

People realize higher levels are supposed to be higher power than lower levels, right?  Spending a level in something at ECL 15 *should* bring me more than if I took that level at ECL 5, ideally.

Except that is not true for any other class. In fact, I'm not even sure where you are even getting this idea. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 2, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 19, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Sorcerer level at level 2, you get three first level spells and a familiar. If you take your first Sorcerer level at 19, you get three first level spells and a familiar. You're talking about some other game, as in D&D it is very clear that spending a level on something at ECL 15 does not bring one more than taking that level at ECL 5.

This "problem" is fine, full retraining each level is absurd and not needed. Maneuvers have plenty of other, genuine, problems to worry about, not this.

This problem is valid, as the frank & k quote points out. Multiclassing early should be equally valid to multiclassing later, and the person who decided that he "wants them now" should be just as good later on as the person who waited. As for there being other problems, that is meaningless: fixing one problem does not prevent you from fixing another.

People whine and bitch about how bad caster multiclassing is, but I don't see it.  You make a Fighter 10 / Wiz 10 (which even in core, isn't the smartest way to evenly split it, that would be Fighter 5 / Wiz 5 / Eldritch Knight 10 or something), and you end up with someone, who power-wise....is between a Fighter 20 and Wiz 20 in power.

Except that is not true in any way. Fighter is a poor example, but even for Fighter you are incorrect. A Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 isn't at a power level between a fighter and a wizard. He is at a power level below even the Fighter. He has the hit points and base attack bonus of a Rogue who has no skills and no Sneak Attack, and he gets only up to 5th levels spells at caster level 10, which at 20th level won't be worth jack. If he could, say, retrain his spells so that he could get some higher-level ones then what you say might be more valid. People whine and bitch about it because it really is a problem, and that you don't see it does not mean it is not there.

[SolEiji]

People realize higher levels are supposed to be higher power than lower levels, right?  Spending a level in something at ECL 15 *should* bring me more than if I took that level at ECL 5, ideally.

Except that is not true for any other class. In fact, I'm not even sure where you are even getting this idea. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 2, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 19, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Sorcerer level at level 2, you get three first level spells and a familiar. If you take your first Sorcerer level at 19, you get three first level spells and a familiar. You're talking about some other game, as in D&D it is very clear that spending a level on something at ECL 15 does not bring one more than taking that level at ECL 5.

I think he means if you're single classing and level, your level is worth more.  That is... you're leveling in wizard from 12th and become 13th and you gain 7th level spells, which is a higher power than your previous levels.  You've gained a level appropriate benefit, and at 13th level what's appropriate is apparently Statues, Prismatic Sprays, and Greater Teleports.  This makes sense, you're higher level, you get better stuff, and so Wizard 13th > Wizard 1st.

That doesn't carry over when you multiclass though.  What you obtain is not always level appropriate.  If the fighter took a level in wizard, he's getting the bonuses of Wizard 1st and not Wizard 13th, and is not level appropriate.  At 13th level, 1st level spells won't cut it.

In the context of ToB, they applied a patch by giving you half progression, so you would at least pick up maneuvers as if you were, say, Warblade 7th instead of Warblade 1st.  It's not as good as the benefits of Warblade 13th, but the loss isn't so dramatic and makes multiclassing a viable option.

[StreamOfTheSky]

People realize higher levels are supposed to be higher power than lower levels, right?  Spending a level in something at ECL 15 *should* bring me more than if I took that level at ECL 5, ideally.

Except that is not true for any other class. In fact, I'm not even sure where you are even getting this idea. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 2, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Barbarian level at level 19, you get Fast Movement and Rage. If you take your first Sorcerer level at level 2, you get three first level spells and a familiar. If you take your first Sorcerer level at 19, you get three first level spells and a familiar. You're talking about some other game, as in D&D it is very clear that spending a level on something at ECL 15 does not bring one more than taking that level at ECL 5.

Yes.  I was saying that is how it should be.  As in, that's not how it generally is.  I like how ToB handled it, and wish all noncaster classes worked like that.  Spellcasting as it currently exists cannot, because it grows in power so damn much with level.
When a wizard goes to level 13 and gets 7th level spells, they're a big step up from 6th level ones.  A much bigger increase than he felt when going from wiz 2 to 3.  When (in my ideal, not actually real world) the martal character takes a level in some martial class at level 13, it does more for him than it woul have at level 3.  That is how ToB works, and it's awesome!

This "problem" is fine, full retraining each level is absurd and not needed. Maneuvers have plenty of other, genuine, problems to worry about, not this.

This problem is valid, as the frank & k quote points out. Multiclassing early should be equally valid to multiclassing later, and the person who decided that he "wants them now" should be just as good later on as the person who waited. As for there being other problems, that is meaningless: fixing one problem does not prevent you from fixing another.

No, they should not be just as valid.  The person that waited deserves a stronger boon.  Higher levels should have more intrinsic value than lower levels.  If you just want the goodies now, you can go suck it when I get more out of it at higher level.  God, it's like trying to explain the virtue of saving up money in the bank vs. spending it all...

People whine and bitch about how bad caster multiclassing is, but I don't see it.  You make a Fighter 10 / Wiz 10 (which even in core, isn't the smartest way to evenly split it, that would be Fighter 5 / Wiz 5 / Eldritch Knight 10 or something), and you end up with someone, who power-wise....is between a Fighter 20 and Wiz 20 in power.

Except that is not true in any way. Fighter is a poor example, but even for Fighter you are incorrect. A Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 isn't at a power level between a fighter and a wizard. He is at a power level below even the Fighter. He has the hit points and base attack bonus of a Rogue who has no skills and no Sneak Attack, and he gets only up to 5th levels spells at caster level 10, which at 20th level won't be worth jack. If he could, say, retrain his spells so that he could get some higher-level ones then what you say might be more valid. People whine and bitch about it because it really is a problem, and that you don't see it does not mean it is not there.

Are you kidding me?!  A Fighter 20 is better than a Fighter 10 / Wiz 10, or even possibly better?  You cannot be serious!  Even the abosolute best Fighter hotfixes WotC put out, Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim, cease giving out new boons by levels 6 and 9 (or is it 10?) respectively.  1st and 2nd level spellcasting alone is worth more than the entire last 10 levels of Fighter!  5th level spells aren't worth jack?  Teleport, Polymorph, Greater Invis, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Fly....  Can't compete with an extra 5 BAB, 30 hit points, and 3 bonus feats....
I don't even really need to make a case if this is the counter-argument.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, am I understanding this correctly?  While as I accept and am ok with quadratic wizards and like that ToB makes martials a bit more quadratic as well, the opposition would prefer to nerf spellcasting to make it linear and thus also make ToB progression linear to match everything else?

Or they just want ToB stuff to be stuck in the same shitty linear paradigm as all other martials without touching the caster side?

Or they "want their 6th level maneuvers at ECL 5, gosh darn it!"?

[Libertad]

No, they should not be just as valid.  The person that waited deserves a stronger boon.  Higher levels should have more intrinsic value than lower levels.  If you just want the goodies now, you can go suck it when I get more out of it at higher level.  God, it's like trying to explain the virtue of saving up money in the bank vs. spending it all...

But when making characters beginning at high level, one doesn't need to wait at all.

[FlaminCows]

No, they should not be just as valid.  The person that waited deserves a stronger boon.  Higher levels should have more intrinsic value than lower levels.  If you just want the goodies now, you can go suck it when I get more out of it at higher level.  God, it's like trying to explain the virtue of saving up money in the bank vs. spending it all...

"Deserves"? "You can go suck it when I get more"? Do you have any idea what that sounds like? I want you to read the following sentences. You might have heard them before:

"Wizards should be more powerful than fighters. After all, they made the sacrifice by having it hard in early levels, so they deserve more power later on, they've earned it. Hey, you've got to reward skilled players: that's why we need crappy feats and classes, the game should reward me for my hard work learning the ins and outs of the rules. If you get a worse character by picking what is fun, then suck it up, I'm better than you."

Sound familiar yet? The point is that no, you should not be rewarded for building a more boring character during the early part of the game. That is the stupidest thing on Earth to be rewarded for. Even your analogy is ridiculous if you compare it to the rules, as choosing a level is not "spending it all", it is making an investment. The virtues of saving up money in the bank are nothing compared to the virtues of using it by investing in your business.

As to your little spell diatribe, this is getting a bit off topic, so I'll keep it in the spoilers:

(click to show/hide)

Are you kidding me?!  A Fighter 20 is better than a Fighter 10 / Wiz 10, or even possibly better?  You cannot be serious!  Even the abosolute best Fighter hotfixes WotC put out, Dungeoncrasher and Zhentarim, cease giving out new boons by levels 6 and 9 (or is it 10?) respectively.  1st and 2nd level spellcasting alone is worth more than the entire last 10 levels of Fighter!  5th level spells aren't worth jack?  Teleport, Polymorph, Greater Invis, Glitterdust, Alter Self, Fly....  Can't compete with an extra 5 BAB, 30 hit points, and 3 bonus feats....
I don't even really need to make a case if this is the counter-argument.

You seem to not understand the meaning of "level appropriate".

Polymorph: You lose 5hd, but it is totally worth it: the best form you can turn into is a young gold dragon, which is fantastic! ...and it only costs 23000 gp in the form of a Ring of Dragonform, which will last six times as long. That's about 3% of your WBL, less than half of the cost of a +5 bonus.

Alter Self: You get to go from a 20hd warrior to a 5hd one-hit-kill. Congrats.

Glitterdust: Yay, you manage to make a grand total of zero creatures blind with your DC 14 spell. Waste of an action.

Fly: Better to use magic items, mounts, or party members who can cast spells worth a damn than a 10-minute, slow speed, easily-dispellable spell at CL10.

Greater Invisibility: At CR20, True Seeing is typical.

Teleport: Great, you have a way of fleeing from the fights you keep losing.

In addition, you suffer from increased MAD, arcane spell failure (unless you discard armour, in which case you suffer from a low AC), and not being good at anything you're doing.

Yes, Fighters suck. A lot. However, multiclassing spellcasters also sucks pretty bad. Neither of those facts is a good thing, and we would all rather it not be so, although as stated it isn't what this thread is about.

So, am I understanding this correctly?  While as I accept and am ok with quadratic wizards and like that ToB makes martials a bit more quadratic as well, the opposition would prefer to nerf spellcasting to make it linear and thus also make ToB progression linear to match everything else?

Or they just want ToB stuff to be stuck in the same shitty linear paradigm as all other martials without touching the caster side?

Or they "want their 6th level maneuvers at ECL 5, gosh darn it!"?

You aren't understanding correctly, as it is none of those. Nobody in this thread is talking about nerfing spellcasters, or nerfing martials, or getting 6th level manoeuvres at ecl 5. As already stated, they want the decision to multiclass into martial adept early be just as valid as multiclassing later. Which, so far, only you oppose. Apparently because people who choose to not have fun should be rewarded for that choice.