Only one thing bugs me about Monks...

[Dandu]

My dislike of ToB started from first read through the third- mechanics (yet another new set of mechanics, YAY!!!), power creep, etc.- and I had been looking forward to it's release.

I can understand the reluctance to learn another set of mechanics, but power creep? Compared to, say, Druids?

 

[Wyvernhand]

Crusaders are a divine themed melee class (they receive their maneuvers granted in a "spark of divine inspiration".

Also, the power creep arguement of ToB falls apart REALLY quickly. Power creep implies that total power level is increasing by a noticable degree. Spellcasting in core is the most powerful thing in the game. Adding extra books gives a slight boost to spellcasters (there are some pretty big offenders like Celerity, Incantatrix, etc) because spells in the PHB are already some of the best, most powerful spells printed. Adding more books (including ToB) increases non-spellcaster's power by a MUCH larger delta though. Outside of a handful of decent tricks, non-spellcasters are pretty much lame ducks next to a core spellcasting. ToB helps close the gap. Thus, its not so much as a power creep, but a decent attempt at closing a power gap. If your end goal is "balance", you'd actually be best off banning 90% of the PHB (except feats and skills, and maybe the Bard) and playing with the later published classes like Warblade, Dragonfire Adept, Totemist, Factotum, and Binder. Those classes are all VERY well balanced against each other.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Crusaders are a divine themed melee class (they receive their maneuvers granted in a "spark of divine inspiration".

Here's me, not caring.

Also, the power creep arguement of ToB falls apart REALLY quickly.

No it doesn't- if the issue is power creep, you address it directly: modify or eliminate the overpowered elements of the game while simultaneously modifying underpowered elements.

ToB was oblique in it's approach, adding new classes and an entirely new set of mechanics that work only to boost the efficacy of martial PCs in that book, as opposed to bouying up all martial PCs.

In addition, I have never once on these boards complained about the power imbalance between caster and non-caster in D&D. (I don't complain about power imbalance in RIFTS, either.). To me, it's almost a non-issue. I saw zero need for the ToB classes.

Thus to me, the suggestion that I play a swordsage instead of a monk is irritating, to say the least. I have no interest in the swordsage when I want to play a monk.

 

[steeldragons]

It seems that the powers of the monk were meant to enhance a devotion to philosophy or divinity that, to put it simply, did not rely on "magic" for it's abilities. I can't say I mind that or disagree. Esp. since post-2e, magic-using classes got completely out of hand, IMHO.

That said, it would be a simple thing to homebrew a spell-casting monk if you wanted. Some religious order that has focused on martial skill and transcending bodily and mental perfect but has not abandoned the use of magic.

Say, just off the top of my head, spellcasting ability kicks in at 3rd level and increases every other level. (Monk 3 casts as a Cleric 1. Monk 5 casts as Cleric 2, Mk 7th/Cl 3rd, etc...) Wisdom bonuses would, obviously be applicable.

What clerical spells are available would be a matter of fluff for you to figure out depending on the fluff/beliefs/doctrine surrounding your spell-casting order.

Have fun and happy kung-fu-casting.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

No it doesn't- if the issue is power creep, you address it directly: modify or eliminate the overpowered elements of the game while simultaneously modifying underpowered elements.

ToB was oblique in it's approach, adding new classes and an entirely new set of mechanics that work only to boost the efficacy of martial PCs in that book, as opposed to bouying up all martial PCs.

To be fair, addressing the caster/noncaster power disparity by fixing existing material instead of releasing ToB would require two things WotC would never even consider: (1) taking the route that didn't involve making another book for people to buy, and (B) admitting they were wrong.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be fair, addressing the caster/noncaster power disparity by fixing existing material instead of releasing ToB would require two things WotC would never even consider: (1) taking the route that didn't involve making another book for people to buy, and (B) admitting they were wrong.

I don't really agree: they've edited/revised polymorph rules, they could do likewise with other rules...and could have done it with PHB3 (for 3.5) or a Revised Rules Compendium or the like.

 

[Nifft]

To be fair, addressing the caster/noncaster power disparity by fixing existing material instead of releasing ToB would require two things WotC would never even consider: (1) taking the route that didn't involve making another book for people to buy, and (B) admitting they were wrong.

Nah. They did consider it, they did implement it, and they sold the solution under the name "4e". If you want balanced Fighter vs. Cleric mechanics, the game you want is 4e.

That's because there is nothing that can save the 3.x Fighter. You can release new classes which don't suck -- like the ToB classes -- and let them replace the Fighter, but they can't fix the Fighter, because nothing can.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Nah. They did consider it, they did implement it, and they sold the solution under the name "4e". If you want balanced Fighter vs. Cleric mechanics, the game you want is 4e.

That's because there is nothing that can save the 3.x Fighter. You can release new classes which don't suck -- like the ToB classes -- and let them replace the Fighter, but they can't fix the Fighter, because nothing can.

Cheers, -- N

This is me, disagreeing with every point.

Again, not that concerned about balance; not a big fan of 4Ed (in part because of it's slavish adherence to balance); disagree that 3.X mechanical "flaws" were fundamentally unfixable.

And this isn't the thread for that debate.

 

[Nifft]

My dislike of ToB started from first read through the third- mechanics (...), power creep, etc.

Again, not that concerned about balance;

You know that you were the one who brought it up, right?

If you aren't concerned about balance, then there's no such thing as "power creep".

-- N

 

[Starbuck_II]

I don't really agree: they've edited/revised polymorph rules, they could do likewise with other rules...and could have done it with PHB3 (for 3.5) or a Revised Rules Compendium or the like.

No, no they didn't.
They modified Wildshape not Polymorph (making wild shape alternate form).

They introduced new polymorph spells, but they never changed polymorph. The rules say the new poly spell rules do not affect the old poly ones.