|
|
Post by Ghostwheel on Jan 20, 2009 3:00:48 GMT -5
Since the original thread has been archived and the original post has been lost somewhere within, here it is in all its grandeur:
Originally posted by Subedei
Well, the whole point of the Tome of Battle type systems was to add a resource management aspect to melee combat in the interest of increasing depth of gameplay.
Everybody knows this, my point here is just that it's a good thing.
Trust me, I know fighters inside and out, I've made dozens and dozens of characters with fighter levels. I know how to make effective fighters through intelligent feat selection and how they play against a variety of opponents.
You need a very focused concept for your character from the beginning. Let's go with something popular and say you want to be a tripper. Tripping is a method of battlefield control and debuffing of opponents. Due to the nature of our role, we want to be able to control as large an area of the battlefield as possible, thus we want a reach weapon. An ideal weapon for the job is the spiked chain as it can trip, has reach, and can be used against adjacent opponents. If our DM will let us, it'd also be a good idea to play as a large sized race and take something like the Willing Deformity: Tall feat in order to further maximize this advantage. If not, we can settle for enlarge person. Now that our reach is so high, it'd probably be a good idea to take Combat Reflexes, and since we're strong, large, already have Combat Expertise, have a +2 bonus to disarm from our weapon, and will get a large bonus on the roll once we trip them, it's probably also a good idea to take Improved Disarm. Finally, since our range is like 30' or something, it might actually be a good idea to take Whirlwind Attack.
Well, we've just made a character that's pretty d**n good at tripping. In fact, he's so good you'd almost have to be an idiot NOT to trip everyone in range, every single round. And that's just the problem. While a warrior with no feats may have to consider whether or not tripping his enemy that round is the best move, the way the fighter class is designed encourages you to specialize in one thing, and doing that one thing 90% of the time.
So I have two questions for you. When you watch two martial artists sparring, or two characters in a movie fighting, how often do you see them using the same attack against each other, over and over and over and over throughout the entire thing. Second, do you think this is fun?
Let's talk about sparring for a moment. When I'm sparring sparring with someone, I'm constantly watching them, trying to figure out what they're going to do next so I can make it not work.
Maybe I'm sparring against someone I've never fought before. The first thing I'm going to do is look at their build. Let's say my opponent is thin, tall, a little taller than me. He's got a range advantage over me, which means playing defensive probably isn't a good idea. He looks lighter than me though, I might be able to overpower him at closer range. Next I look at his footwork and stance. He's real light on his feet, upright, closed, sideways posture, his hands are at chest level, he keeps his weight on the balls of his feet. Looks like a Tae Kwon Do fighter to me, but let's find out. I keep my hands up at my chin, shoulders squared forwards, feet forwards, a classic boxing stance. Just to convince him I'm a boxer, I'm going to throw a few half-assed jabs at him from well outside range. He doesn't try to counterattack my out of range attack, which tells me he's probably done contact sparring before (people who do "no touch" sparring tend to react to obviously outranged attacks since under their practice conditions, all attacks are out of range). Alright, so I need to actually probe him. I lunge forward abruptly into kicking range (but not into punching range) and make like I'm going to try and throw a jab, he takes the bait and attempts to intercept me with a front kick. I easily move back and deflect the kick downwards with my palm, since I kept my distance instead of actually moving into punching range, and I was expecting one of a handful of kicks that are useful in this situation, one of which being a front kick. As I move back he advances with a roundhouse kick and then a sidekick which I can avoid, since I was expecting it and already moving back. I'll run at a diagonal towards and past him about 20' since he's off balance after all that kicking and can't chase me. Now that we're facing each other again I'll return to a defensive posture. This time I'll use an L shaped back stance and keep my hands at chest height, palms open, body turned to the side. With your body turned to the side, he can only strike the side of my rib cage, my head, and my legs. My arms protect my rib cage passively, my weight is backwards, which makes it easy to duck kicks to the head, and my front leg is forwards, which makes it easier to deflect kicks to the legs for reasons I can't really explain here. One of my arms is outstretched in front of my side ribs, the other is at my stomach, palm up. This is a very solid defensive posture, but leaves the chest completely open to circular attacks. Taking the initiative again, I move into kicking range and throw a front kick at his chest, he moves back to avoid it, I advance again and deliver a side kick to his chest, he evades it and counterattacks with the textbook response to a side kick the round house kick. Again, because I expect him to do it, I'm able to respond to it. I don't initially know where's he's trying to kick me, but he's attacking the front of my body and my knees are bent, rendering my legs poor targets from that angle. If he attacks my head, I'm going to move my front arm up a few inches to block it, then strike the back of his ankle with a low spinning hook kick to trip him. He doesn't though, he attacks my chest, and I respond by moving my front arm to the side a few inches to block, while simultaneously extending the rear hand at my stomach and making a 'skooting' step forwards. His leg falls directly into my rear arm, and my front arm presses against his chest, I step in and push his torso down, while simultaneously sweeping his single supporting leg out from under him. Since I'm still holding his leg, and he's still disoriented from hitting the ground, I'll make a motion to kick him in the groin or something to indicate it's over.
Perhaps next time we go at it I try the same thing, but he's expecting it. He doesn't take my bait and kick to my chest, attacking my head instead. I block it and try to sweep him but he's dropped into a back stance which is difficult to sweep, keeps his balance. I'm now on the ground on my side since my leg was just stopped by his, and he kicks me in the head.
You see what's going on here? I predict how my opponent will attack, assume a stance that will render his attacks less effective, and mentally prepare counterattacks that I think will be effective based on my predictions. Same thing with my own attacks.
When I make a simulation of what I think is going to happen in my mind, I can prepare what I'm going to do ahead of time, thus when I do it I wont have to think about it. If I'm wrong, then I'll have to either go on instinct (less effective) or reevaluate the situation and come up with new plans(takes more time), usually I end up going on instinct WHILE I come up with a new plan. Now if my opponent's predictions were correct, he doesn't have to think about what he's doing and can probably knock me out while I'm vulnerably caught off guard.
So let's translate this to D&D! I'm finishing off an Orc when this friggin' huge bugbear shows up with a glaive and full plate armor. Now we have to deal with him AND the Orc wizard. On my turn I kill the Orc and use my remaining swift action to switch to a stances that gives me bonuses to bullrush, trip, disarm and overrun defenses. The Bugbear charges my friend, tripping and decapitating him with three swings of the huge weapon. Yikes! This guy has pounce or something. I could attack him now, or I could spend a round preparing maneuvers specifically to fight him. I'll use a full round action to recover and switch all of my maneuvers, selecting Countercharge, Emerald Razor, Dragon's Flame, Leaping Flame, Raging Mongoose, Mind Over Body, and Wolf Climbs the Mountain.
The bugbear charges me, but luckily I prepared countercharge, avoiding a possible one turn KO. Now it's my turn! He's 20' away from me and I don't want to move through his threatened space, so I'll use my 30' range Dragon's Flame against him for 6d6 damage. He retaliates with a charging, pouncing full attack, the first hit dealing 58 damage. But I've got a trick up my slave! I activate my Leaping Flame Counter, instantly teleporting adjacent to him. Since he's using a reach weapon, he can't target me with the rest of his full attack and I'm within range. Now it's my turn again. I initiate Wolf Climbs the mountain to move into his space without provoking an AoO, make a single attack at 5d6 damage, and benefit from cover as long as I stay there! Unfortunately, my attack misses. I activate my Raging Mongoose boost for two more attacks, but only one of them hits. On his turn he moves out of my square and another space beyond that, provoking two attacks of opportunity from me, both of which miss. He then proceeds to bring the flat of his weapon down on me, and my DM tells me to make a fortitude save. Mind Over Body allows me to make a Concentration check instead of a Fort save, which is great since my fort save is awful. I was really planning to use it against the Wizard, but this is also a pretty good time to do it. I roll a 9, but still success due to my excellent bonus! Now it's my turn again. I need to move adjacent to him again in order to attack, and when I do so he tries to trip me with the glaive, , luckily, with the bonus from my stance I manage to succeed, but am not in range to counter trip him. His AC is clearly quite high, but looking at him it's a pretty safe bet his touch AC is rather low. Emerald Razor allows me to make a single melee attack as a touch attack. I roll a 5 on my attack, but it still easily hits. But Uh oh, now I'm out of maneuvers! I can either try and finish him off without them, or I can spend a Full Round action to switch out and recover them all. Since I know more about him this time, if I choose to switch and recover I'll choose maneuvers that either only require a touch attack, or don't require an attack at all. And what about the wizard? I can only use one counter OR one boost each turn. Should I use a boost in an attempt to take the bug bear out right now? Should I save my swift action to keep his next attack from killing me if I don't finish him off? Should I save my swift action to counter the wizard in case he tries a Save or Die against me?
Now if the BUGBEAR had Tome of Battle levels as well, then I'm sure you can imagine how much more interesting and dramatic this battle could get as I don't know which maneuvers he knows, which he has prepared, or which stance he's in. And he can change them too. In a way it's kind of like playing cards.
But what if I was a Fighter instead of a Swordsage? Well, I'm pretty high level and I've managed to squeeze in enough feats to be good at both tripping and charging. Since my range is higher than Orc range, and my trip bonuses are higher than Orc trip bonuses, and I'm all set up to slaughter anything I trip, I can just trip the poor Orcs every round until they die. Now the Bugbear comes in, he's huge! I probably can't trip him, so I'll charge him instead. I charge him on round one, I charge him on round two, I charge him on round three, and when I charge him on round four he dies! Awesome, now should I charge or trip the wizard? Oh! I think I'll charge him and THEN trip him! How creative!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghostwheel on Mar 30, 2009 11:49:31 GMT -5
Some quotes for those of you who don't want to sift through the whole thread:
When I see a warblade initiate Mithral Tornado, he does not glow, his hair does not turn blonde, he does not scream MITHRAL TORNADO! at the top of his lungs, and fire doesn't shoot out of his arse. He swings his weapon in a tight, very quick arc that swiftly strikes those about him, or perhaps some other similar mundane (perhaps extraordinary, but mundane nevertheless) description custom-tailored to the character.
When I see a fighter use Whirlwind Attack, he does not glow, his hair does not turn blonde, he does not scream WHIRLWIND ATTACK! at the top of his lungs, and fire doesn't shoot out of his arse. He swings his weapon in a tight, very quick arc that swiftly strikes those about him, or perhaps some other similar mundane (perhaps extraordinary, but mundane nevertheless) description custom-tailored to the character.
The ONLY spell-esque effects in the entire book are all swordsage-only (you know, the swordsage, aka the "Blade Wizard"?), and they're not that exotic when you take a look at what the monk can already do, especially post-PHB2. They're also entirely in Desert Wind and Shadow Hand*. That leaves seven out of nine disciplines all but completely mundane!
Diamond Mind is somewhat roguelike, but far more swashbuckler-y and samurai-esque.
Iron Heart is essentially fighter bonus feats.
Setting Sun is aikido, judo, and other passive martial arts that they have tried, and arguably failed, to replicate in the monk since Oriental Adventures.
Stone Dragon is all about physical toughness and powerful single strikes, essentially "The Dwarf" if you think about it.
Tiger Claw is what you'd expect on a barbarian or a ranger, and is just plain awesome to boot.
White Raven? That's what the marshal should have been from the get-go. (There are some broken effects in here if you listen to the way that CustServ rules, though, so beware or use common sense.)
The ONLY thing these have in common with spells is that you as the player will probably track them with index cards, and they're printed in a similar format in the book itself. That's hardly a basis for comparison now, is it?
Regardless, I think you are missing the point of his comparison. The ToB classes ARE like spellcasters, in the sense that they use one-time (magical or extraordinary) effects during an encounter. Thats what spellcasters (and spells) have done forever, so it is not in any way wrong to compare the ToB classes (and maneuvers) to them.
But really, the entire basis of your argument that ToB classes are not comparable to spellcasters is flavor. Which, as we know on the Wizards boards is not an argument at all. ;)The people who complain they're spellcasters with swords are making flavor arguments most of the time as well.
As for the mechanical element, did you ever bother to look at feats? A maneuver is essentially a feat that happens to have a 1/encounter limit on it, unless you recover it. Most of what they do can be encompassed in many ways with feats, likening them as follows:
1) Initiator level requirement: Skill rank or character level requirement.
2) Class restriction: Class level requirement or similar (i.e. Requiring BAB+12 pretty much means "no wizards allowed")
3) Maneuver requirement: What "tier" the feat's in (Cleave's a tier 2 feat, for instance)
Nearly every maneuver is static, as well -- the rare maneuver that scales is about as frequent as a feat that scales as well. Oh, and the most spell-like of all the disciplines, Desert Wind, is also the least scaling of them all, with the exception of the Burning Blade boosts (ooh, wow, you have a flaming sword for a round. Nothing that a Produce Flame or Personal Weapon Augmentation effect couldn't already do).
(Quote)
Spellcasters use expendable resources to produce one time effects.
Warrior's use physical attacks consistently throughout the day. (with swords)
Rogue-types use skills to get by, whether in combat or not.
ToB classes use expendable resources through physical attacks. Hence, spellcasters with swords.
(Endquote)
I don't mean to be hostile, I apologize if my last one came across as such.
However, ToB maneuvers aren't expendable any more than a breath weapon is, or Sneak Attack (once you get one off, chances are the monster moves and is no longer eligable for a sneak attack without some effort on your part, sort of like if you strike a monster you need some effort to use that strike again -- or you could always just move up and use another strike or a full attack).
ToB classes use expendable resources through physical attacks. Hence, spellcasters with swords.
So, what you really mean by "spellcasting" is "Vancian".
Maneuvers are "spells" in the same way that the Stunning Fist feat is a "spell", the barbarian's rage is a "spell", the monk's quivering palm is a "spell", the paladin's smite evil is a "spell", and the rogue's defensive roll is a "spell".
Actually, all those examples are even more like "spells" than martial maneuvers in that maneuvers can be refreshed at will. So, really, martial maneuvers are only semi-Vancian.
Hey, I have no problem with acknowledging martial maneuvers are "spells" ---- as long as we're being intellectually honest here and acknowledge all the other Vancian abilities in the game as "spells", too. Since, apparently, the defining characteristic of a "spell" here is any and all expendable class resources, not whether its magical or supernatural or anything like that.
Otherwise, we're just playing favorites here.
ToB classes are harder to mess up. It's easy as **** for a newbie to mess up a fighter and be useless.
(Note: Yes, a thousand times yes. Much better for beginners, since you can be decent without having to dumpster-dive through a half-dozen books.)
(Quote) Spellcasters use expendable resources to produce one time effects.
Warrior's use physical attacks consistently throughout the day. (with swords)
Rogue-types use skills to get by, whether in combat or not.
ToB classes use expendable resources through physical attacks. Hence, spellcasters with swords.(Endquote)
But, that's just it. Martial maneuvers are not really "expendable" nor are they "one time effects".
Thanks to the Adaptive Style feat (which is pretty much taken by all swordsages), any martial adept can refresh all his maneuvers with one full-round action. Hypothetically speaking, there is no limit to how many times a martial adept can use his maneuvers in a day or even in a single encounter.
That is why martial maneuvers are only "semi-Vancian" in nature.
This is in contrast to the Stunning Fist feat, the barbarian's rage, the paladin's smite evil, the rogue's defensive roll, and a dozen other class abilities. These are expendable resources and truly are Vancian in nature (there is no way to "refresh" any of them).
Calling martial maneuvers "spells" without applying the same rubric to rage or smite evil or defensive roll or quivering palm is nothing short of a double standard.
(Quote)Well, Maneuvers, unlike everything you listed, also have nine ranks of increasing power, and seperate "schools", so they're closer to the spellcasting than your other listed examples, but still it's a good point.(Endquote)
The only purpose a maneuver's level has is to delay what level you learn it at and to set the DC. It's not like you can use 9th level maneuvers less often than 1st level maneuvers or anything -- you just have to wait 17 levels to get 9th level ones. Thus, you can liken it to a base attack or skill rank prerequisite on a feat.
As for the class lists, you can liken those to class feature requirements (i.e. Devoted Spirit might be considered related to feats that require Smite Evil). They serve functionally the same role.
Finally, as for maneuver prereqs, liken that to feat tiers. Great Cleave requires Cleave which requires Power Attack -- 'Great Cleave' could be said to require two Fighter School maneuvers. (Bad example, but it illustrates what I mean: Spending slots on feats is similar to spending slots on maneuvers.)
In the vein of all the interesting "but you can just describe it with your imagination!" posts, I offer you this counterexample.
Go and read Sword and Fist -- yes, the 3.0 fighter splatbook. There's an example there of a dramatic swashbuckling duel between competent warriors there, complete with interludes here and there describing the mechanics of said duel -- things like mentioning that jumping on that table gave one duelist +1 to attack rolls against the other, who countered by kicking out the table from under him (if I recall correctly; it's been a while since I read that).
Read those interludes. All those dramatic A-HA! moments... fundamentally are "I make another attack roll" and "He missed my AC, so I say I parry it". Maybe with a +1 or +2 to attack rolls in there, and the occasional suboptimal choice in the name of having a fun time (i.e. instead of recovering a disarmed weapon, grab a whiskey bottle and let him have it in the face... with a whopping penalty on the nonproficient attack roll with an improvised weapon that does piddly damage compared to that +2 rapier that's at your feet).
Mechanically. BORING.
Not much incentive to try something awesome, now, is it? I could try jumping over someone, stabbing them in midair, and slashing them on the way down (very Prince of Persia, now that I think about it), but pre-ToB, all that would be is a regular attack roll, MAYBE with a +1 for higher ground, but PROBABLY at a penalty for the unusual nature of the attack and a pretty high chance of me failing my Jump check and landing on my arse. Try something exciting? No thanks, I'll just stand there and full attack again, describing it away to make it more interesting than "oops, I missed again".
Post-ToB, we've got the mechanics to make those awesome stunts actually mechanically feasable and rewarding. What's more, they were done in a way that mathematically isn't overpowered compared to what's already out there -- it just gives us the option of being awesome in melee. We can BACK UP that flashy description with mechanics that show we mean business. For instance, disarming (from that fight) is a terribly suboptimal idea, since it sacrifices all of your attacks for the POSSIBILITY of costing your opponent his weapon for a round, which you *might* get an AoO on while he recovers it (since the whiskey bottle is a bad idea). And even after that, if the dice aren't in your favor, you might end up losing your weapon! However, it's a staple of every single swashbuckling movie. ...Naturally, the swashbuckling one of the three martial adepts (the warblade) has a maneuver that disarms the opponent in such a way that isn't mechanically subpar (Disarming Strike -- a poor maneuver but a far cry ahead of regular disarming) and similar maneuvers that also deny your opponent the use of his weapon (Exorcism of Steel comes to mind). Furthermore, the parry (as we see it in the movies we all have seen, as compared to how it was used historically) is often flashy, last-minute, and obviously successful -- far more active than "he didn't hit my AC". Compare this to Wall of Blades. There's no contest -- the latter is both much more fun AND a better match for how we see parrying in a fantasy sense.
So, describe away. I'll be back here actually having fun within the rules instead of delivering an eighty-word soliloquey about my weapons every time I roll a single d20 for yet another boring attack roll.
(Quote)Functions like spells too but that is neither here nor there as people will scream that they are EX and therefor mundane.(Endquote)
Martial maneuvers are just like spells, except that....
Initiating them does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
They are not subject to spell resistance.
They work just fine in an antimagic field.
With the exception of a few, they can only be initiated at melee range.
You have to know a set number of maneuvers within a school to learn the more powerful maneuvers in that school.
Only a handful actually have supernatural or spell-like effects.
So, yeah, if you ignore those half dozen or so differences between spells and maneuvers (which most players call "the rules"), then they're practically the same.
Or, y'know, not. :rolleyes:
Note: And you need to hit with many of them, and you have to get around defenses such as concealment, AC, illusions, superior mobility (only a few maneuvers work as part of a charge), difficult terrain, and more...
(Quote)I dunno man... most of the Desert Wind style looks like spells to me. Summoning fire elementals, shooting out cones and rays of flame, making area effect fire attacks like fireball... ect. (Endquote)
Not all of the abilities from ToB are EX, some are SU (and rightly so, gezz)Did we ever deny that Desert Wind and Shadow Hand had some fundamentally supernatural effects in them? No, we never did.
We *did* note that only the swordsage -- which has Spellcraft as a class skill, can sense magic, and is known as the "blade wizard" -- has access to either of those schools. Furthermore, the nature of those flame attacks are fundamentally melee in origin -- go and play God of War and you'll see what I mean (no one's denying that Kratos is a warrior, despite calling flame plumes from the ground or using Inferno Blast -- I mean, Lance of the Furies).
Go and look at the other seven schools before saying the whole system is magical.I still don't understand WHY people get offended at a comparasion between this stuff and spells/spellcasting.Because the people who do such a comparison ONLY look at Desert Wind. They don't even mention Shadow Hand, which is ostensibly more magical than Desert Wind even at lower levels. This suggests that the people making that comparison started reading the maneuvers alphabetically, didn't have the patience to get through Desert Wind, and promptly decided to judge the book on that one school.
If they could make a comparison showing how Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon or White Raven could be magical, I would take them more seriously. (There are a few magic-esque Devoted Spirit maneuvers, I'll grant you, but they're all tied inextricably with melee combat in the same way Smite Evil is supernatural.)All balance arguments aside (for, as I said before, people have a hard time coming to agrements on this one) I'm still just currious why some poeple get ****** at the comparasion between the Sublime way and magic... for me, the whole books narative seemed to suggest this comparasion.Because numerically, they still fall far behind any caster type, and they come out on par with warrior-types (at low-mid levels; at high levels it's the sublime adepts) unless they try.
We don't get annoyed at the balance comparisons between the Tome of Battle and magic, because that's a one-sided position. We get annoyed at balance discussions where people say that the nine swords characters are overpowered when it can be mathematically demonstrated that they are not.
(Quote)Maneuvers don't work exactly like magic, and aren't necessarily magical in terms of in game feel or theme. A maneuver user need not ever feel like a mage within the game. However, if you were to put maneuvers next to feats and magic, and ask yourself "mechanically, which of these two are maneuvers most similar to", you'd end up putting them with magic, making the comparison between maneuvers and spells natural, especially given the two schools that actually are inherently supernatural in nature, and the one additional school which should be.(Endquote)
Okay, let's put this assertion to the test....
MANEUVERS: ARE THEY "SPELLS" OR "FEATS"??
Not subject to spell resistance. Feat.
Do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Feat.
Has thematic prerequisites within a "chain" of increasing power. Feat.
Are arranged into nine levels. Spell.
Work fine in an antimagic field. Feat.
Over 95% require physical melee attacks to initiate. Feat.
Over 85% are considered mundane abilities. Feat.
Over 85% do not scale with level. Feat.
You can actually learn them through feats. Feat.
Well, you're one for nine. I guess that's a win in some minds.
(Quote)I tried it. I still own the book. I still look it over now and then. I still discuss it with my friends. I just don't like it. That not closed minded.(Endquote)
Actually, without presenting your reasons, it is. And if you do present your reasons and you ignore debate on those reasons that potentially threaten your position, it still is. The definition of closed-minded refers to the inability to accept that your position might be wrong, so you do not accept any worldview that challenges your own (this is the generic "you", not Aggrenox). Or, as they say in the vernacular, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!".
The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.
|
|
