DanGwancie
First Post
i Know it's not supposed to be defensive, but we don't have a typical meatshield on the party.
D&D 3E/3.5 Help with Fighter- DND 3.5 -
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
ToB has two big reasons to be banned that sometimes go hand in hand:
1. 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.
2. There is a "mundanes can't get nice things" mentality where the people have a set idea of what fighter-types are supposed to be like, and since ToB breaks that, it's viewed as overpowered. Yes, it's a double standard, but good luck trying to convince people it's not really a problem if they weren't really open to contemplating being wrong in the first place.
I suppose one of the things certain kinds of players think is really powerful is getting to roll a lot of dice, especially for damage. ToB happens to have a fair few maneuvers that use decent d6 chunks, so that's another strike against it.
Last edited:
This is the most common reason I see for banning ToB...and other sourcebooks, like MoI, ToM, and so forth.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
And it's one of the more reasonable ones, provided the DM is being honest about it. Let's face it, D&D 3.X has such a large library of materials that keeping track of things can definitely be overwhelming.
Ahnehnois
First Post
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.
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.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
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.
how is vancian complicated (But yes I do agree that the books and books of spells is overwhelming but not so complicated just overwhelming)? anyone familiar with D&D is familiar with vancian that is the difference between vancian and other more complicated systems vancian is familiar others are not... Also i love melee dudes I actually think that melee dudes have more potential than most give them...
Ahnehnois
First Post
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.
On the other hand, I do like the fighter, moreso its Pathfinderized version than the original, but it remains, in my mind, the closest thing to what the ideal d20 class would look like (i.e. very generic, predictable rhythyms as to when abilities are coming, very open-ended abilities that let things happen in the game more than on the page). I'd absolutely like to see casters move in that direction, and absolutely do not like to see bookloads of highly specific powers for even more characters.
And, in any case, it's important that players have a choice between meaningfully different character types. If fighters aren't getting it done, the solution is to fix the fighter (which there are many good approaches to, and which I have worked at extensively) rather than replacing it with a quasi-spellcasting warblade.
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 liked Complete Mage; but only after 4e came out and it became available for half price. Same with PHBII. It has some good ideas and some bad ones, but half of the book is basically fluff. At half price, it becomes worthwhile. The later books had so many sample characters, so much fluff, and cost more per page on top of it. Same with 4e. Conversely, UA has tons of substantive content for the money, and I bought it when it was new even though it was open. Same with MIC (though this was not open).
I don't mind that they experimented with new ideas, but many of those ideas were poorly implemented or playtested (MoI, ToM, etc.)
Nezkrul
First Post
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)
Similar Threads
