Author Topic: How do you feel about Tome of Battle's maneuver and stance prerequisites?  (Read 7395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Most maneuvers and stances require knowing other maneuvers or stances from that discipline.

Thematically, these prerequisites enforce the notion of training to improve.  Practically, they prevent characters from getting otherwise level-appropriate abilities, or they use heroics or maneuver-granting items to offset some prerequisites.  Balance-wise, ToB's dip-friendly nature possibly made the authors more cautious about allowing just anyone to learn maneuver or stance X.  Conversely, the only requirements for learning spells are having the proper class level and permission from the DM.

I dislike the 'ability tax' the maneuver system imposes, but I don't want to overcompensate with 'balance' fixes.

I'm torn.
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

mBelchezere

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • Email
I have skimmed through the ToB once or twice and you are correct I didn't really find it fair what it cost to get some of those maneuvers or stances, which is why I decided that I would stick to the ToM. I like variety and versatility too much. However if your DM allows it try looking at some of the Pathfinder APG stances and such. They may be a lil better and yes they are applicable in any 3.5 DnD class.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
I have strongly considered dropping the prereqs from maneuvers and stances for the past few months, although, I haven't run a game in that time.  I figure I'd still limit them by Initiator Level, but not by number of maneuvers known in a given discipline.

I don't think that the prereq adds anything to the game, and it makes it a lot harder to build your character.  If you don't want to run the risk of locking yourself out of maneuver X when it's available (or at least delaying access), you have to plan your selected maneuvers over 20 levels.  That's bullshit.  I think removing the prereqs would improve the game without hurting it.  It would also make the DM's life a lot easier for making PCs that aren't 1st level.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
I have strongly considered dropping the prereqs from maneuvers and stances for the past few months, although, I haven't run a game in that time.  I figure I'd still limit them by Initiator Level, but not by number of maneuvers known in a given discipline.
I have done exactly this in the games I DM. Otherwise, building NPCs with martial adept levels is a fucking nightmare.  :banghead
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
You have to meet the prereqs for your highest level stance and highest level maneuver.  Everything else is fair game.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Hallack

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1344
I have strongly considered dropping the prereqs from maneuvers and stances for the past few months, although, I haven't run a game in that time.  I figure I'd still limit them by Initiator Level, but not by number of maneuvers known in a given discipline.

I've brooched this idea with some of my gaming group but so far there is  some resistance to the idea.  As long as Initiator Levels are met I do not think it would add overmuch to Initiator power.
Placeholder - T'tosc

Beltendu

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
You have to plan EVERYTHING about a 3.5e character from 1-20, so I don't find that argument particularly convincing ... :)  Granted, it would be nice if it weren't quite so necessary to plan everything out, but that'll probably be necessary to some degree no matter what ... :)

I've never played a character that dipped, unfortunately, so I haven't experienced the problem personally.  I have played a Swordsage/Mo9, and while I did have to plan my maneuvers and what I replaced when, it wasn't really any worse than planning out a Sorceror.  I'm also in the process of rebuilding my wife's current character from full Knight to Knight 4/Crusader 9, and it won't really hurt any worse there, since the Crusader levels are all at the end.  But I can see how dipping only a couple levels in the middle somewhere could be more difficult to figure out.  Particularly if you're trying to cherry pick amongst a lot of disciplines, rather than focusing on a particular one.

Honestly, I don't think it's that big a burden.  Yeah, it prevents you from cherry picking the very best maneuvers for every maneuver slot when you're dipping, but then, that provides an incentive to use the Martial Adept classes more heavily, since you'll get more slots AND have more chances to use the replacement mechanism.  My SS wasn't even super optimized (I'd completely missed the unarmed adaptation, so I'd blown some feats on unarmed goodies that I wouldn't have had to otherwise, and I probably could've dipped a level or two in the other MA classes to get my prereqs for Mo9 more easily) and he was easily one of the more powerful characters in the group. 

In a way, if you think about it, being able to cherry pick the very best spells (DM willing, anyway) is part of the reason the full casters kick so much ass.  Only part, of course, since there's plenty of lower level kick ass spells too.  But if you had to focus a little more to get the goodies rather than just going "Ding!  Hello caster level 17!  Bring on the universe-altering-goodness!", it might mitigate (a little) the metric asston of awesomeness that is the full core caster ... :)  Of course, as Hallack points out, it probably wouldn't add THAT much power to the initiators if you removed the "needs x maneuvers from this discipline" prereq, particularly since maneuvers aren't as powerful as spells of the same level.  But I still lean a bit towards leaving it in there.  I'm not MARRIED to it, so I'd certainly take advantage of that house rule if a DM presented it to me though ... :)

The restriction that I really DID chafe at when making my SS/Mo9 was the bit about replacing maneuvers.  Technically, you can't do that when you're in a prestige class unless the prestige class says so.  I would've LOVED being able to continue using the SS's replacement mechanic while taking Mo9 levels though.

Rebel7284

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
If you don't want to run the risk of locking yourself out of maneuver X when it's available (or at least delaying access), you have to plan your selected maneuvers over 20 levels.

I don't see a problem here.  For prepared casters, you need to make choices just as complicated daily.  Doing it once per martial initiator career doesn't seem like a problem.  Prerequisites bother me a lot less than the fact that you're limited to a first level stance at first level.  That seems like a random typo considering how the rest of the system works.
Negative level on a chicken would make it a wight the next day.  Chicken the other wight meat. -borg286

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Why not cut the prerequisites in half?  Like requiring 2 Tiger Claw manuvers instead of 4 for Feral Death Blow.  That way it frees up your options if you want a particular maneuver, but it sticks to the theme that you need some prior training before gaining mastery (except in Stone Dragon, but that's an oddball discipline anyway)
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
I have strongly considered dropping the prereqs from maneuvers and stances for the past few months, although, I haven't run a game in that time.  I figure I'd still limit them by Initiator Level, but not by number of maneuvers known in a given discipline.

I've brooched this idea with some of my gaming group but so far there is  some resistance to the idea.  As long as Initiator Levels are met I do not think it would add overmuch to Initiator power.
It adds almost nothing, and simplifies things tremendously. I can't imagine actually enforcing it, if you plan on using martial adept NPCs like at all. Spellcasters don't have spells known prereqs, so why should martial adepts? How would you feel about forcing the Sorcerer to take every Summon Monster spell in order, in order to gain SM 9 as a spell known when he hits 18th level? It's a stupid idea, right? How the hell is this any less stupid? I am seriously amazed at people who are actually against dropping them...
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

Rebel7284

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
In a way, if you think about it, being able to cherry pick the very best spells (DM willing, anyway) is part of the reason the full casters kick so much ass.  Only part, of course, since there's plenty of lower level kick ass spells too.  But if you had to focus a little more to get the goodies rather than just going "Ding!  Hello caster level 17!  Bring on the universe-altering-goodness!", it might mitigate (a little) the metric asston of awesomeness that is the full core caster ... :) 

Actually, I think that might be the most elegant way I have ever seen of balancing the power of full casters.

Perhaps giving Spell level-1 in prerequisites from the same school.  So your normal conjurer that suddenly wants to take contingency better have 5 other evocation spells before he can master such a complex evocation technique!
Negative level on a chicken would make it a wight the next day.  Chicken the other wight meat. -borg286

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
In a way, if you think about it, being able to cherry pick the very best spells (DM willing, anyway) is part of the reason the full casters kick so much ass.  Only part, of course, since there's plenty of lower level kick ass spells too.  But if you had to focus a little more to get the goodies rather than just going "Ding!  Hello caster level 17!  Bring on the universe-altering-goodness!", it might mitigate (a little) the metric asston of awesomeness that is the full core caster ... :) 

Actually, I think that might be the most elegant way I have ever seen of balancing the power of full casters.

Perhaps giving Spell level-1 in prerequisites from the same school.  So your normal conjurer that suddenly wants to take contingency better have 5 other evocation spells before he can master such a complex evocation technique!
Only problem there is that you lock a Sorcerer into just a couple of schools if they want 9th level spells.  They have a hard enough time being versatile.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

Rebel7284

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Only problem there is that you lock a Sorcerer into just a couple of schools if they want 9th level spells.  They have a hard enough time being versatile.

Yes, I considered the fact that it drops sorcerers from high tier 2 to tier 3.  I'm not sure this is a problem, even being limited to conjuration and transmutation spells is a LOT of power.  Giving sorcerers more spells known of course pushes them up in power again.

This doesn't affect clerics or druids though.  :-\
Negative level on a chicken would make it a wight the next day.  Chicken the other wight meat. -borg286

Beltendu

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
In a way, if you think about it, being able to cherry pick the very best spells (DM willing, anyway) is part of the reason the full casters kick so much ass.  Only part, of course, since there's plenty of lower level kick ass spells too.  But if you had to focus a little more to get the goodies rather than just going "Ding!  Hello caster level 17!  Bring on the universe-altering-goodness!", it might mitigate (a little) the metric asston of awesomeness that is the full core caster ... :) 

Actually, I think that might be the most elegant way I have ever seen of balancing the power of full casters.

Perhaps giving Spell level-1 in prerequisites from the same school.  So your normal conjurer that suddenly wants to take contingency better have 5 other evocation spells before he can master such a complex evocation technique!
Only problem there is that you lock a Sorcerer into just a couple of schools if they want 9th level spells.  They have a hard enough time being versatile.

This really depends on what tier of power you prefer to shoot for.  I see a lot of people suggesting 2-3 as a good balance area, and there was a thread here recently about tearing apart the core casters and making them more like the Warmage/Beguiler/Dread Necro (in concept, Warmage obviously still needs work).  When you combine various kinds of world altering power with the ability to get your hands on most, if not all of them, you end up with the Tier 1 classes ... :)  Now obviously you'd want to tweak the prereq numbers, but it could be a good way to get your more focused full casters without having to build completely new classes for each spell school ... :)  (ignoring the power of individual spells as well).

And Phaedrus, it's not necessarily stupid.  Just because casters, widely understood to be the most overpowered entities in the 3.5 universe, don't have a similar prereq is not an argument against the prereq for initiators ... :)  The additional complexity is a decent argument, though that's going to vary from person to person (I don't mind the complexity, personally).  And it's not like you can't build initiators with access to a wide range of maneuvers anyway.  I pulled off an SS/Mo9 with high level access to all 9 disciplines, and there was a build in the ToB for Dummies (I think) that did the whole "true master of 9" thing to get the 9th level maneuver in all 9 disciplines.  

Of course, I'm pumping out a lot of words when I'm really not THAT married to the idea.  I like it more for its flavor implications than any balancing effect it has.  I'd use the adjustment if it were offered, but I wouldn't go out of my way to ask my DM for it, either... :)

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Going over the strikes, I got the conclusion that the prereqs are to prevent the more exotic techniques from being simply taken by anyone with Martial Study/Stance instead of an actual martial initiator. There is actually very little chance of a proper initiator having difficulty with any of the prereqs.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Beltendu

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Well, there is the point that the initiator level requirement prevents you from getting the higher level maneuvers.  You can't get 9th ones unless you take at least 14 levels of a single initiator class (or initiator class + initiator prestige classes).  You can lose four initiator class levels for every level lower of maneuver you care about.  So yeah, you can get pretty high with half or less of your build as initiator levels, but not quite all the way.  At half and above, you're not really dipping any more ... :)

Maat_Mons

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
I always figured the intention of the prerequisites was to create more differences between members of the same class, like disciplines for psions, domains for clerics, mantles for ardents, and specialization for wizards. 

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
And Phaedrus, it's not necessarily stupid.  Just because casters, widely understood to be the most overpowered entities in the 3.5 universe, don't have a similar prereq is not an argument against the prereq for initiators ... :)
Yes it is, if you allow said casters to exist in the same game. And dropping these prepreqs doesn't actually noticeably add to the power of martial adepts, anyway. So this is a non-argument.
Quote
The additional complexity is a decent argument, though that's going to vary from person to person (I don't mind the complexity, personally)
Adding unnecessary complexity is stupid in any system, gaming or otherwise. Ever heard of Ockam's Razor? Now I realize that this is a game, and some people like fiddling with things to crank the most out of it, and so do I to an extent. But having to just jump through a bunch of completely meaningless hoops just to reach what should be a straight-forward goal (build a character with maneuver X) is not my idea of fun...
Quote
And it's not like you can't build initiators with access to a wide range of maneuvers anyway.  I pulled off an SS/Mo9 with high level access to all 9 disciplines, and there was a build in the ToB for Dummies (I think) that did the whole "true master of 9" thing to get the 9th level maneuver in all 9 disciplines.  
Yes, and it took you how long? Do you want to do that for an NPC that's going to live for exactly 1 encounter? I don't.
I always figured the intention of the prerequisites was to create more differences between members of the same class, like disciplines for psions, domains for clerics, mantles for ardents, and specialization for wizards. 
If all choices for a maneuver of level X were equally useful, then that should happen naturally anyway. They should have focused on that, rather than adding something stupid to shoehorn people into picking useless crap.
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]


RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
If you don't want to run the risk of locking yourself out of maneuver X when it's available (or at least delaying access), you have to plan your selected maneuvers over 20 levels.

I don't see a problem here.  For prepared casters, you need to make choices just as complicated daily.  Doing it once per martial initiator career doesn't seem like a problem.  Prerequisites bother me a lot less than the fact that you're limited to a first level stance at first level.  That seems like a random typo considering how the rest of the system works.
Well, I don't like prepared casters and what they do to the game either, but that's a different issue.

If you're a DM, you're rolling up a lot of NPCs, likely at levels to match the PCs.  The longer the game goes on, the more work you have.

Seriously.  Nothing is hurt at all by dropping the prereqs.  What's the worst thing that could happen to the game if someone rolls up a martial adept and fills their maneuvers known with the highest level maneuvers available?  They get level-appropriate powers?  I thought that was a good thing.  As Phaedrus said, casters don't need to meet special prereqs.  Why add this extra restriction to a weaker set of classes when it only subtracts from the game experience?
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]