Talk:Tome of Battle
From D&D Wiki
Isn't this kind of broken? I know this is kind of weird to ask about an official publication, but the question must be raised. Is ToB broken, if it is, what should be done about it, and whose place is it to do whatever that may be? Consider that many DMs are reluctant to allow it (As Flession pointed out Jan 31, 2009, "You just need to find a DM that will actually allow Tome of Battle. It is quite the twinked book, you know." Reference here), and let the evidence speak for itself. I thing ToB has some great ideas, but most of them are either overpowered in the context of D&D as a whole, or can be applied in ways clearly other than what was intended. Sure, it's handy for optimization; I won't contest that. Sure, it may be playable, as long as the PCs don't know what they're doing and the DM knows his stuff. But with experienced PCs who know how to twist the rules, is ToB usable at all?
It has beautiful, brilliant ideas, but is it broken in terms of mechanics? Silverkin 23:32, 20 February 2011 (MST)
- As you can see, there are many playstyles in D&D. Tome of Battle probably wouldn't fit in a low-powered game such as monk- or fighter-level, but it fits well at games that go with rogue-level as their intended range of power, and would be severely underpowered in wizard-level games. Hope that helps! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 03:15 2011-02-21. Please sign your posts!
- As best as I can tell, the ToB was a concept meant to close the power gap between (primary) casters and the other PHB classes at mid to high levels. So compared to the barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, and rogue classes, the ToB classes are going to seem overpowered, but not if you compare the ToB classes to the rest of the PHB ones. —Sledged (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2011 (MST)