Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[pawsplay]

I see Eberron as being subject to almost every adventure fiction influence apart from japanime.

*cough* Castle in the Sky *cough*

 

[Nepenthe]

That's quite a bit different than someone going "kiai!"

I thought that Kiai (or ki shouts or whatever) were a feat from one of the other splatbooks. The maneuver you are referring to (Strike of Perfect Clarity) certainly doesn't have any referrences to Ki (unless you consider concentration to be a purely Eastern concept). If you want to criticize the book for something, please just focus on its failings (it does have them, quite a few of them, IMHO) instead of, well, adding stuff that isn't there

and chopping a a frickin' adamantine wall in frickin' half with a battle axe looted off a dead derro. I'd at least like to see more than one chop.

Ok, so you think it's ok to chop down an adamantine wall in ten seconds, as long as you hit it more than once in that time frame as opposed to just concentrating and giving it a really big whack (which is what Strike of Perfect Clarity does)...

I am familiar with wire fu... not only am I well versed in crouching tigers, hidden dragons, and flying knives, but I used to watch an hour of Kung Theater every Sunday as a kid, I've read substantial amounts of martial arts history and myth, and I've read stories about Krsna killing people by throwing a chariot wheel. I'm actually quite a kung fu afficiando.

However, that is not what I'm looking for from my D&D. The system does not support the style well without substantial modification... right off the bat, the relationship between BAB and naked defenses is backwards from the wuxia genre. When I started playing, I was engrossed by Elmore's art, by the history of the crusades, by various species of polearms, and so forth. Although formidable, and even superheroic, such as Conan's strength, Beowulf's bravery, Grey Mouser's agility, and Lancelot's prowess... such characters stretch but do not break the laws of reality. They are individuals of flesh and bone.

When a warrior balances on the end of a blade of grass and kicks someone's head off, that's not agility, that's enlightenment.

Ok, I don't get that part at all (but English is my third language, so it could just be my failings). I suppose it would make perfect sense if ToB was a book of Street Fighteresque fireballs or something (weren't those already in PHB II as monk feats, too?). I have a hard time connecting any of what you said to the abilities of the warblade or crusader classes, at any rate.

The D&D monk is not a wuxia character. He is closest to the protagonist of Kung Fu (starring David Carradine), a character with formidable skills who occasionally finds himself outgunned in terms of sheer firepower. Most of the monk's abilities are visually believable. At higher levels, they acquire a few miraculous abilities, mainly related to fighting monsters. The more esoteric abilities of very high level monks are those of many martial arts legends... not necessarily wuxia, with its wire-flying combat. A D&D monk is not likely to perform any physical feats beyond what an Erol Flynn character or Batman is capable of. The monk is capable of feats of mind over matter, but is no match even for a cinematic Jedi, much less Beatrix from Kill Bill.

So your point is that the monk is D&D but ToB isn't?

You're saying that Quivering Palm, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Soul and Abundant Step all fit perfectly into Sword and Sorcery D&D, but parrying your opponent's blow so that it hits his adjacent ally, swinging your weapon in a wide arc so that it hits two enemies or dropping a single condition affecting you are all balancing-on-a-blade-of-grass-wuxia?

I have seen a lot of good arguments against ToB (and like I said before, I don't think its entirely without problems), but I am just scratching my head right now.

/N

 

[pawsplay]

You're saying that Quivering Palm, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Soul and Abundant Step all fit perfectly into Sword and Sorcery D&D, but parrying your opponent's blow so that it hits his adjacent ally, swinging your weapon in a wide arc so that it hits two enemies or dropping a single condition affecting you are all balancing-on-a-blade-of-grass-wuxia?

/N

Using those examples is a straw man argument, as I have placed no objections to any of the maneuvers you have given as examples. Two of the three are already represented as feats.

Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.

It does not feel right to me.

 

[Thaedrus]

Why is all this unbeleivable, but fireballs and teleport perfectly understandable? D&D has tons of unbeleivable stuff, why can't warriors have any? If it doesn't make you happy, don't use it, but stating that it does't belong in D&D is stupid. Escapism is the name of the game in fantasy, especially RPGs. I for one like it, and find it very fun. I think that it is the best addition to D&D in 3E.

 

[Doug McCrae]

*cough* Castle in the Sky *cough*

But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles, or Gatchaman-type superheroes, or bumbling idiots being pursued by a bevy of beautiful women, or schoolgirls with pink hair and magic powers.

The leader of the Church of the Silver Flame is kind of a magical girl admittedly.

 

[DreadArchon]

Cutting walls of adamatine in half with a single stroke, jumping twenty feet straight into the air, shrugging off axe blows and then healing the damage when you counter attack, throwing your sword in such a fashion that it returns to you, and so forth are what I'm talking about.

It does not feel right to me.

"Feel right?" How do you justify something that vague from the standpoint of a mechanically functional game system? I had a DM who removed AC from the game and just made enemies hit or be hit "when it feels like they should," to the point where my mage with 25 AC got hit with several consecutive attacks made at +3--without threatening a crit--because "big monsters shouldn't miss a mage." It's an absurd basis for game rules.

A human who can step into a cat's shadow and teleport herself 400 feet away is acceptable, and a man who throws a flaming sword made of metal that can cut time doesn't become unreasonable until that sword is enchanted so as to fly back to him after he throws it? Living out in the wilderness and not being able to read is sufficient justification for being able to fall from orbit and not get seriously injured, and flying by force of will is just fine, but jumping less than two stories straight up is all wrong?

Yeah, there's a reason I refuse to play in games with DM's who go by "what feels right."

 

[WizarDru]

But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles, or Gatchaman-type superheroes, or bumbling idiots being pursued by a bevy of beautiful women, or schoolgirls with pink hair and magic powers.

Riiiight.

 

[Nifft]

Why is all this unbeleivable, but fireballs and teleport perfectly understandable?

Because I've been throwing fireballs around since I was twelve, that's why! Familiar = natural. Same reason Wizards can't cast cure spells, when you get right down to it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

But there's no mecha, or pokemons, or naughty tentacles

Er... golems, Paladins & Conjurers, and a guy named Evard would tend to disagree.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nepenthe]

Using those examples is a straw man argument, as I have placed no objections to any of the maneuvers you have given as examples. Two of the three are already represented as feats.

Well, I didn't feel like paraphrasing the flavour of all the Iron Heart maneuvers (even though I probably should have included some of the ones you were opposing to - not that I still can figure out which they are, apart from the Iron Heart capstone ability). But going on from what you're saying, it seems like a handful of powers "that don't seem right to you" just automatically nix the whole book.

I'm not going to argue this further with you, as I see you are convinced in your position. I am merely wondering if this conviction was born before you ever laid your eyes on the book, or only after.

"Feel right?" How do you justify something that vague from the standpoint of a mechanically functional game system?

Or that the flavour feels right in one book but not in the other?

Cheers,

/N

EDIT: I had a few mistakes, fixed.