I'm just curious to see what people think of the content from Tome of Battle. I've noticed a lot of negativity directed at the content, both in table-top games, and members on the board.
I've had a DM have one of the other players kill my Swordsage because he didn't like the class, I had another DM tell me I couldn't play one because he didn't want to have to keep up with my maneuvers and stances, and I've seen it said that the classes are game breaking, overpowered, and broken.
So I'm curious what everyone thinks and why they think it.

I have the book but I haven't been able to fully test the classes in any of my games. I once got to play a Battle-something (too lazy to get up and get my book) here at the Inn, for a short while, but I had to give up the maneauvers and stances, which was fine by me.

For that matter, I have never tried the maneauvers or the stances from the book, so I can't say one way or the other. Some people can just read the material and see a problem right then, while others need to test it in their games before forming an oppinion. I fit in the second group.

I had a sword sage attempt to play in a campaign with normal characters. Because of how they regain access to their maneuvers and such, they incredibly overshadowed the rest of the characters. Obviously, to maintain balance in the game and not have my other players killing the Swordsage I had to diplomatically remove her from the game. The player rolled up another character and life went on. The abilities they get, and the number of times they have access to them is incredibly unbalanced when compared to the core classes or even those in the Complete series of books despite how cool their abilities are (or maybe because of it). If I were running a campaign where each player were at that level, perhaps giving the core classes an extra level or so to balance out the abilities, then I likely wouldn't have any issues, but I can't say for sure.

The same DM that told me he didn't want to keep up with my abilities, which I thought was my responsibility not his, used to allow people to play spellcasters and just let them pull spells from the books on a random basis. No need to make your spells known list, no need to prepare, just point and shoot. I always thought it was kinda unfair bs that he would allow that but not a swordsage. I could almost understand if he didn't know the player of said spellcaster was doing this, but he knew and allowed it on multiple characters.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think its truly that broken when compared to other martial characters. Does a fighter have a limit on how often he can use his feats or does a rogue have a limit on how often she can sneak attack? No, and not only no, but they don't have to lose a turn/action in order to recover the ability to use said options. A martial adept (any class from ToB) has to more or less skip a turn in order to recover their maneuvers during an encounter. Yes, they regain them after an encounter, but I believe that is after a certain period of time. I personally don't see how a swordsage is any better than a rogue, just that the 'sage has more options than just sneak attack, and sneak attack damage can pile up quickly anyway, especially with the way it stacks from multiple sources.

I played with the ToB a *lot* before out group evolved to 4e.

If you take the time to really optimize a normal character I think you can achieve the same results as a ToB character. The ToB just makes it easier to achieve a high level of power.

That being said, dipping here or there into the ToB is something that any non-spellcasting character should really consider. It's a powerful book.

I agree, from what I have read and planned out over the past month or so, the options in this book are great for any martial character, not just for the classes presented in the book. I can kinda see it getting out of hand if a DM doesn't keep things under control, but seriously it isn't that bad.

If you ask me, the Warlock is much more broken than anything in ToB. And no that is not a WoW joke, have you ever actually seen a munchkin warlock in action at the gaming tables? I have, and it's sick, beyond sick. The last group I played in around a table had 3 different characters with levels in Warlock, all just to exploit some broken at will abilities the class could give them, like the ninja/warlock who used the miasmic cloud to get more chances for a sudden strike, or the cleric/warlock that was munchkined to the teeth. I must say though, the warlock/bard was a fun character, he was certifiably insane, and even tried to disguise his eldritch blast as an extension of his bardic abilities by singing a note every time he fired it off.

ToB allows martial characters to not be entirely dwarfed by mages in 3.5e. I rather like it, although admittedly it isn't my favorite in low to mid-power games. I'm not a huge munchkin/mixmax fan, which that books easily caters to. Just off the top of my head I can remember a certain stance/maneuver that triples charge damage while adding 35 (which is then tripled).

So it's kinda fun like that.

I allow it, but with the understanding that minmaxers often find themselves falling of random objects into large pits of death.

I like Tome of Battle, and I am one of the people who believes that the material does not break the game... or rather, does not break the game more than, say, a spellcaster does.

Let's face it... not all classes are created equal. The truth is the Druid, straight out of the box, is the most powerful class around with Wildshape being the most broken class feature.

The monk class, straight out of the box, is the weakest. While flurry is cool, the BAB of the class doesn't progress fast enough that even PHB2 noted that it can become a flurry of misses. The other class abilities are easily covered by relatively cheap magic items (i.e. a ring of feather fall is actually better than a 20th level monk's slow fall ability). Magically equipping the monk is ALWAYS an expensive ordeal. Finally, the poor martial artist suffers from MAD, required high stat scores in multiple attributes.

So, if I compare the Tome of Battle classes to the core monk, paladin, barbarian and fighter ... yes, they are more powerful (I still wouldn't use broken).

If I compare them to the core Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Psion, and Sorcerer... no, they are not more powerful. In fact, I'd argue that Druid, Wizard, Cleric, and Psion still come out on top.

Is it tricky to learn a whole new set of classes which give martial characters more flexibility in combat than "I hit it with my two-handed sword again" or "I charge again" or "I trip 'em again"? Yes, it is.

Is it annoying to have to look up information regarding manuevers and stances to see whatthey actually do? Yes! But no more annoying than keeping track of a wizard's spells or all the forms the Druid can wild shape into.

Is it possible to abuse the material in ToB? Yeppers! But I'd argue that it's WAY easier abuse Wildshape and Polymorph and Alter Self and Divine Metamagic.

Yeah, personally, I say it's about time the Martial Classes had their day.

Ayrn

The Warlock is, while not a bad class, is far from the most broken thing to ever broke. Hellfire warlocks with some questionable ability damage soak cheese are more broken, but still, straight cleric/druid/wizard/psion/a handful of others would clean them up.

I am Ayrn's hair.

I personally prefer not to crossclass too much unless I can justify the class change in the character's story. Whether it be a warmage from an academy that trains them to be more martially able to stand up front (levels in fighter). Or another of my characters, an archer who was obsessed with accuracy above all else, and ended up having sorcerous powers awaken in him, then becoming obsessed with the most accurate spell he knew, Magic Missle (Force Missle Mage)

Spellcasters are limited to the number of spells they can cast per day. The martial classes are not. They can use their abilities infinitely. Even if there is only 5 minutes between encounters it is technically a new encounter so they are totally refreshed.

Also, fighters can use their feats constantly, however, there are few feats that will do 4d6 fire damage when a target hits you as one of the counters in the desert wind style does. Particularly at 1st level. Sneak attacks can be used constantly, but only in a very limited number of situations, and they don't have a constant effect like the stances do, and by the time you can do 4d6 with a sneak attack you have swordsage abilities that can do almost twice that, and without the limit to what circumstance they can be used in.

Don't get me wrong I love the classes and the ability concepts. I've even tried adapting it to a monk class. However, it still tends to dominate the game because of how frequently they can use generally powerful abilities.

I can't speak intelligently about warlocks as I never really looked at them. So me comparing these two would be an exercise in ignorance.

One other thing, I don't like the concept of having to "optimize" a character. I play a character for the story. Yes I keep track of the mechanics and such, but I shouldn't have to nickle and dime every little bonus (even if it has nothing to do with my actual concept or personality for the character) solely to stay on par with the swordsage of the group.

Now, while I think that ToB is overpowered I'd have to say that how overpowered it is definitely depends on the DM's style. In a single encounter a mage can overtake a martial adept with no trouble.

While a well made martial adept can match a spellcaster for damage it lacks versatility. However since there is generally more than one encounter per day spellcasters eventually fall behind. Spellcasters have to conserve their spells, they can't just lob fireballs at any enemy they want (and that usually won't deal as much damage as a maneuver anyways). Spellcasters can cast the occasional well placed spell to deal relatively large damage, but most of the time they need to limit themselves to low level spells that can do as much damage as a fighter's normal attacks.

Now a warblade can deal more damage with his maneuvers relatively easily (but not necessarily at the same range) take as much damage as a barbarian and if he happens to run out of maneuvers he can just resort to regular fighting at a level equal to that of an average fighter (considering the stances). And it just so happens that if he uses a single normal attack all of his maneuvers are replenished.

As it has already been done I shall use warlocks as a basic guildline for at will abilities. Warlocks- deal mediocre damage, have limited melee ability, low hit die, flight, and practically no versatility spells. Marital adept- deal high damage, excellent melee ability, high hit die, flight at higher levels (for the swordsage), and practically no versatility spells. In my opinion martial adept's would be much more balanced if they had limited usages of their abilities so that they could be compared to spellcasters rather than warlocks.

Oh yes, expanding on the point that I started with: A warblade's usefulness largely depends on the DM's style. A DM who uses more puzzles or allows creative solutions to taking care of enemies would increase the usefulness of spellcasters. But in a simple dungeon hack scenario, martial adepts take the cake.

Well, let's look at one thing really carefully here... the book is not necessarily the broken thing. It's just like the old saying: Guns don't kill people, the people using the gun does.

Tome of Battle is an exceptional resource. Warblades, Swordsages and Crusaders are incredible fun to play. They add to an experience, just like another expansion class from the standard set of rules.

People say they're broken. Okay, I can see how. All of a sudden you've got a sword toting whack job who is throwing fire all over the place while jumping over his enemies dealing damage and attacking 20 times in a round. Sure, this may be extreme, but let's look at another topic here: munchkins.

The munchkin is able to take any class, and make it beautifully powerful. As has been stated before, not all classes are created equal... but neither are the players. If a player has a vast knowledge of the material, and has tons of experience, then they can make a monk (I'll use this because of the statement above) a tank, impenetrable to anything. After all, even though a warblade may get 20 attacks in a turn, it's no good if they can't hit. The character is not so much the book making it broken, but the player optimizing it to the point where it doesn't even seem like a real person, just a video game character who's playing on the easiest level after he's level 60.

As another example of an overly powered class, in my opinion, let's look at the eldritch knight. They get Good BAB, good Fort and Will saves, and they get bonus caster levels? That seems a little powerful. Throw in a twilight mithral breastplate, and you've got yourself an impenetrable warrior, who if he wants to can throw a fireball at you from 1000 feet, or dominate you to do his bidding, or enhance himself. There's far more capabilities for a wizard/fighter/eldritch knight then for a swordsage or warblade, or crusader.

So is Tome of Battle broken? I don't think so. I think that it's very much so dependent on the player to make a character who can destroy worlds, as oppose to the characters being predisposed to the action.

I have to agree with gboy there, any class can be broken if the player takes the time to bend and break it. Any number of feats, abilities, racials, etc can be manipulated to create the ultimate killing machine. Same goes for the martial adepts, they are only as broken as the munchkin playing them.

My swordsage always seemed to fall behind the other players in the game I played him in. Guess why.. I'll tell ya, because I didn't take a week to tweak, bend, and toy with the different options like everyone else did. I made that character overnight, and enjoyed him. He was by no means overpowered, broken, or outclassing any of the other PCs. Granted he got killed by another PC just because the DM was trying to run people off (too many players) and he didn't want to alienate any of his usual friends, but that is not the point!