Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords: Proto-Review

[JustKim]

You're trying to show how a rule can be abused and the spirit of the rules can be averted, initially under the premise that the ability in question had a wording that was too open-ended.

I'm not trying, I'm succeeding effortlessly. If you don't agree with the summon monster I thing, and you really can't while sticking to the letter of the rules, there are hundreds of ways to make a weak threat give you instant healing.

It was then demonstrated that the wording is fairly specific, to the point where a DM would have to be pretty slack to allow such a perverse interpretation of the rules. Apparently, you dismiss the role of the DM in averting such abuse.

I dismiss the role of the DM because the DM does not enter into what the book says and that is all we are discussing here. You make a mistake by assuming that my argument would ever be presented to a DM to rationalize this abuse (although it's certainly no bag of rats). I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

Can't really see what point you're trying to make. Most rules are open to exploitation.

See, I knew it. You did understand the point. You really had me fooled for a minute there, I thought that everyone who read my posts would only see the argument and completely ignore what I was not-so-subtly implying about the spirit of the rules. We have had a breakthrough here. I'm sorry I yelled at you.

No, I didn't miss it. I just found it rather amusing to claim to have "successfully nullified the spirit of the rules." I mean, honestly now. Do you really expect it to go differently than this.

What? No. I expected it to go like this.

JustKim: You guys are silly, it's still open to abuse.

EN Worlders: Wow Kim, you are totally right! You rock!!!!!​

But instead it seems to be going like this.

JustKim: You guys are silly, it's still open to abuse.

EN Worlders: No you can't.

JustKim: Yes you can, here are the rules to back it up.

EN Wordlers: A good DM would never allow this. You're a bad DM or player. Also, your mother.​

 

[I'm A Banana]

EN Worlders: Wow Kim, you are totally right! You rock!!!!!

Allow me to say it. I was laughing from the first post.

Wow, Kim, you are totally right! You rock!

 

[Kurotowa]

You're missing two essential points. First, many of us see rules abuse as a bad thing to be prevented, not a good thing to celebrated. You need to go to the WotC CO board for that. Second, as proud as you are of it, your reasoning is tissue thin and very easily ignored by any DM who doesn't want to see rules abusingly powerful PCs in their game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're missing two essential points. First, many of us see rules abuse as a bad thing to be prevented, not a good thing to celebrated. You need to go to the WotC CO board for that. Second, as proud as you are of it, your reasoning is tissue thin and very easily ignored by any DM who doesn't want to see rules abusingly powerful PCs in their game.

Don't be a playa hata. It's only a game.

 

[Kurotowa]

Don't be a playa hata. It's only a game.

I got no problems with playas as long as they play the game. But only if they play the game by the rules. Anyone can "win" if they break the rules or make up their own. It takes a real playa to get ahead by the same rules everyone else uses.

 

[JustKim]

I got no problems with playas as long as they play the game. But only if they play the game by the rules. Anyone can "win" if they break the rules or make up their own. It takes a real playa to get ahead by the same rules everyone else uses.

I do not understand this distinction you are making.
Bad players make up rules and good players use the same by-the-book rules as everyone else, this is what I'm getting here. I think a problem arises because at the same time you're dismissing a loophole in the rules because you say so. You are house ruling, that is, making up a rule.

It seems like you're calling yourself a bad player. I don't agree with that, Kurotowa. I think you're probably a very good player. Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[Kurotowa]

You say valid loophole in the rules, I say wishful thinking and willful misreading. Just because you want there to be a way to exploit the rules doesn't make it so.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do not understand this distinction you are making.
Bad players make up rules and good players use the same by-the-book rules as everyone else, this is what I'm getting here. I think a problem arises because at the same time you're dismissing a loophole in the rules because you say so. You are house ruling, that is, making up a rule.

It seems like you're calling yourself a bad player. I don't agree with that, Kurotowa. I think you're probably a very good player. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct

.....Aaah, there's a Futurama quote for every occasion.

 

[Andor]

Something I find interesting about these classes is that they are extremely dip friendly, and even more interestingly the later you dip the more powerful that dip becomes. For example a Rogue who dips into Swordsage at 9th level has an initiator level of 5 and can take up to level 3 manuvers and stances. Hello Shadow Hand goodness.

 

[NilesB]

I don't mind monks beefing up their melee abilities with either INA or SUS, it's just that the two feats pretty much do the same thing. It's like allowing Weapon Focus twice for the same weapon (and yeah, I know about Greater WF, but that only comes in at high levels).

Plus, I'd rather not have 8th level (where a monk's belt would be reasonable) monks doing 3d6 damage per attack.

Let's compare that Damage to a Warriors Shall we. Not a Barbarian in his rage, not a Fighter with his Feats, not an evil-smiting Paladin, But the humble NPC Class Warrior.

Your monk has spent 2 feats and 13 thousand gold on enhancing his damage, let us see what damage a Warrior with a similar level of dedication.

We will ignore strength bonuses for this demonstration, this slightly disadvantages the Warrior but it simplifies the comparison.

Let us choose for the 2 feats the Warrior will use to enhance his damage. How about Power attack? it has the additional Virtue of allowing us to equallize the Warrior and the Monk's attack bonuses. along the same line of inquiry we will also choose weapon focus greatsword.

Power attacking by 3 to copensate for weapon focus and his higher base attack bonus the warrior deals 2d6+6 damage averaging 2.5 above the monk.

But wait you claim, the monk can use flurry of blows to make 3 attacks to the warriors 2. Let us spend some of the warriors money.

9350 gold will purchase a +1 shocking greatsword, leaving 3650 gold unspent.
using this sword and increasing his power attack penalty to compensate for the monks flurry of blows penalty and his own enhancement bonus, the warrior now deals 3d6+11, a hair more than twice as much as the monk.

This is core only, it's not some secret twink build, and it's an NPC class for crying out loud! But it still beats the Monk.