DanGwancie
First Post
i Know it's not supposed to be defensive, but we don't have a typical meatshield on the party.
why would warblade get banned? they do LESS than what core spellcasters can do, but more than just boring fighter; Ban Warblade? ok, ban Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer too then and make it fair
The DM isn't familiar with it, and thus can't work around it, so banning its use means the DM simply doesn't have to deal with a whole new system.
This is the most common reason I see for banning ToB...and other sourcebooks, like MoI, ToM, and so forth.
Personally, I would (and do) ban ToB not because of balance, but simply because of substance. It's too complicated and confusing. I don't want to learn it. I don't want to deal with it. The flavor is awful. I don't see that it adds anything to the game.
A bunch of highly specific maneuvers and stances is exactly the direction I don't want to take my game. I want to roll a few dice quickly and get out. I'm much more about simplifying the complex classes than trying to add in things like this. If things are unbalanced, I'll just fix them.
If I wanted to give fighters nice things, I'd give them some actual nice things instead of punishing them with that book.
So the maneuver system is "complicated and confusing" but the Vancian spell system isn't? And bookloads of highly specific spells aren't a pain to deal with?
One of the reasons ToB tends to be lauded by many higher-op players is because it gives melee similar options to spellcasting and also unshackles fighters from having to do full attacks to actually do meaningful damage without doing some very specific optimization.
It is. If you'd read the whole post, including the part about simplifying complex classes rather than complicating simple ones, you'd understand my perspective. I don't like Vancian spellcasting. I did like the Warlock, and to a lesser extent some of the other developments and variants that made magic less Vancian.So the maneuver system is "complicated and confusing" but the Vancian spell system isn't? And bookloads of highly specific spells aren't a pain to deal with?
I agree with many of those assessments. I liked many 3.5 books. However, the later you go, the worse the products get overall. The first complete line was better than its predecessors. The second complete line, not so good. Partially because the quality of ideas dropped, but also because (and this is one of my issues with WotC), the value for the money dropped.I would argue that every Complete book was superior to its 3.0 counterpart. With the exception of certain products (the abysmal MMIV and MMV, the unnecessary environment series, Complete Champion, Complete Psionic, and maybe MoI), late 3.5 was the most exciting time for me as both a player and a DM. Tome of Battle, the PHB2, Unearthed Arcana, Complete Mage, the Magic Item Compendium are all standouts to my mind.
How would you know what is in the book if you refuse to learn it, or deal with it, find it complicated (its quite simple once you learn it) and confusing (not really); yet claim that the flavor is awful and it not adding anything to the game? ANY book that isn't core that you refuse to look in/use/deal with will of course NOT add any flavor or substance to a game because you ban it and don't look into it or sit down and, OH MY GOD, actually do some good DM work (yes, being a good DM is hard work, it is not ezmoade, if you want your players to have real fun)Personally, I would (and do) ban ToB not because of balance, but simply because of substance. It's too complicated and confusing. I don't want to learn it. I don't want to deal with it. The flavor is awful. I don't see that it adds anything to the game.