# The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2008)

One of the things that has puzzled me about the 4e PR (and there are many) is the reference to Bo9S being one of the "preview books" of 4e and that WotC felt it "worked" due to its popularity.

The popularity claim rang hollow with me when I first read it.  Going only by my personal experience, I've seen the book only once in a bookstore while I've seen most of the other WotC books multiple times (presumably because they were purchased and restocked).  I don't know any D&D gamers who actually own it.

Obviously, I don't have access to sales figures, so the only "empirical data" I could find were Amazon.com sales figures.  In terms of book sales rankings, I found the following:

PHB 3.5 - #7,208
Complete Mage - #21,919
Complete Arcane - #22,369
Complete Adventurer - #22,369
Libris Mortis - #36,563
PHB II - 39,910
Complete Warrior - #43,101
ToB: Bo9S - #90,074!!!
Heroes of Horror - #99,074

While I can certainly see how one could argue the sales #s for Complete Mage as validation of the warlock (debatable but a case could be made), can they really make the case that Bo9S was truly popular?

Granted this is only one measurement and only WotC has the true numbers but it hardly seems like it was such a runaway success that it warranted being a prime source of 4e inspiration.

Anyway, I found it odd.  I was just curious if others had similar experiences/opinions or if Bo9S was some cult classic that just didn't appeal to me.


----------



## Voss (Jan 4, 2008)

Don't forget, those are Amazon's current sales rankings.  They don't cover the history of the book, so aren't very useful for this purpose, one way or the other.  

Also, its 'preview' nature isn't entirely tied to the popularity.  They were testing some mechanics, but whether they were 'successful' or not isn't mapped exactly to the sales of the book.    How the per encounter based manuevers compared to the core classes was probably just as, if not more, important.


----------



## FadedC (Jan 4, 2008)

I'd never really heard of it before I came here, though it does seem that people on these boards tend to like it. I will say though that early books tend to be more popular, and I would never expect a book like that to outsell some of the more important and earlier class books. By the time Bo9S came out I already had enough supplements and was no longer keeping up with new ones.


----------



## A'koss (Jan 4, 2008)

Keep in mind the following when looking at Amazon's sales rankings...

Sales Rank: 10,000+ Estimate between 1 - 10 copies being sold per week. 
Sales Rank: 1,000+ Estimate between 10 - 100 copies being sold per week. 

So the difference between a book with a 21,000 rank and 90,000 rank could mean a couple of books _per week_, making comparisons so far after it's release pretty much meaningless. 

The sales ranks for books with a sales rank of over 10,000 is calculated daily, under 10,000 hourly. Check back a week later and see where the rankings are then - they'll probably shift all over the place.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2008)

While I agree that while Amazon's numbers aren't the best source of data, it was the only public domain "empirical data" I know of.  If, in fact, the numbers are current sales rankings , which I believe to be the case, it does reinforce the conclusion that the Bo9S doesn't sell nearly as well as supplements that preceded it by years.

I know there's no right or wrong answer - at least none that anyone outside of WotC will have.  As I said, I just felt that the claim that the 4e-test material warranted inclusion in 4e b/c of how popular the book was didn't ring true.  I was just trying to gauge if the book sees wider use and has greater popularity than I think it does.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

Also, it's just a website.... big, but real life sales and global sales may be different.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the following when looking at Amazon's sales rankings...
> 
> Sales Rank: 10,000+ Estimate between 1 - 10 copies being sold per week.
> Sales Rank: 1,000+ Estimate between 10 - 100 copies being sold per week.
> ...




Good points and thanks for the info - I didn't know that.  As I said, Amazon's numbers were hardly an ideal metric.  Numbers aside, I'm still having trouble buying the purported popularity of the book, which is why I asked the question.  It was less a case of "Aha! I'm right" and more of a "maybe I'm not in left field on this one".


----------



## A'koss (Jan 4, 2008)

The bottom line is - I don't see how it is helpful at all in looking at Amazon's numbers _now_ for a book released in August *2006*. If WotC is saying the book sold great, this is certainly not the way one would go about disproving it.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 4, 2008)

All I know is the anecdotal evidence from my old college gaming club. Everyone there either loved it or hated it, but everyone knew about it, at least. I am pretty sure more people liked it than hated it, and my main gaming group pretty much built half of our characters around the book, including letting characters who were several years old respec into Bo9S characters.

At the very least, there is a significant fraction of the D&D population who absolutely love the book and what it has done for D&D, and most people feel more strongly about that book than Incarnum, Tome of Magic stuff, or the other late 3.5 class supplements.

But, WotC would know better than anyone whether the Bo9S was popular or not, and they claim that it was, so I will believe them.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

Maybe it sold well... for the quite shorter time it was out. 


The other books on the list are older...


----------



## Hammerhead (Jan 4, 2008)

I think WotC would know how well their books are doing. 

Bo9S does seem to have a polarizing effect on people (they either love it or hate it, at least in my experience) which is what you need for a great product.


----------



## Campbell (Jan 4, 2008)

I'd be hesitant to put too much stock in Amazon's Sales Rank. Historical sales influence the current rank. It is impressive that the Rules Compendium shot right to the top of D&D books though.

Song and Silence
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #35,463 in Books


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jan 4, 2008)

So, basically, the proof comes down to "people I know or watched in my local store didn't buy the book, ergo it's not popular."

WotC has no particular motivation to lie. If it didn't sell well, they'd just say, "we really think the mechanics work well in our in-house playtests," and that would be that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 4, 2008)

As Whizbang's post suggests, one of the most important lessons in a Statistics class is that personal experience is not evidence.

That said, I'm not the biggest fan of Bo9S, and I'm the only gamer in my group (@10 guys) who owns a copy.  I purchased it more out of wanting to complete the ruleset than any real love.


----------



## Horacio (Jan 4, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As Whizbang's post suggests, one of the most important lessons in a Statistics class is that personal experience is not evidence.




I thought that the most important lesson was that if you have a chicken and I have no chicken we both have half a chicken...

That said, I fully agree, personal experience shouldn't never be used as evidence or as base for a statistical theory. And Amazon data is almost unreliable, specially a year after release.



> That said, I'm not the biggest fan of Bo9S, and I'm the only gamer in my group (@10 guys) who owns a copy.  I purchased it more out of wanting to complete the ruleset than any real love.




And in my group we bought 4 of them 

I guess that WotC know their sales data. If they think that it sold well, I guess it DID sell well.


----------



## Waylander (Jan 4, 2008)

Isn't there also a clear difference between how well a book sold and what people thought of it?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jan 4, 2008)

If it wasn't for 4e coming I'd strongly be considering buying it, given what I've heard on here about it.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 4, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> WotC has no particular motivation to lie. If it didn't sell well, they'd just say, "we really think the mechanics work well in our in-house playtests," and that would be that.



Even more importantly, they're not going to put all their eggs in the 4e basket if it _didn't_. 

The following did not happen:

4e Designer 1: Hey guys, you know that book that tanked?
4e Designer 2 and 3: Yeah.
1: Let's base our entire class system around that.
2 & 3: BRILLIANT!

Bottom line, 4e has to sell books. And I don't think they're going to do that by filling it with a ruleset that won't sell. I'm willing to bet money that they have been looking at market research and had bean counters crawling all up in their business.


----------



## EditorBFG (Jan 4, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> PHB 3.5 - #7,208
> Complete Mage - #21,919
> Complete Arcane - #22,369
> Complete Adventurer - #22,369
> ...



Out of the books you list, ToB would have trouble competing-- whether it was brilliant or terrible-- simply because of what it is. It offers a whole new system and a new paradigm for looking at martial types. The other books offer magic items and feats (and in most cases prestige classes) that any out-of-the-PHB character can use as soon as you buy the book or any DM can use to spice up bad guys. If you wanted to compare ToB with like books, you'd want to cite sales figures for say, Expanded Psionics Handbook, or Tome of Magic, or maybe something like Ghostwalk, which bring much bigger changes to a D&D game, the way ToB does.

Also, Amazon figures don't reflect bookstore or hobby shop sales, so while I know these online numbers are all that you or I might be able to easily get our hands on, they don't really refute WotC's figures. If there is one thing I am absolutely certain WotC is on top of, it is tracking which of their products sell well and which don't.


----------



## glass (Jan 4, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> While I agree that while Amazon's numbers aren't the best source of data -snip-



_EDIT: Then be careful in basing conclusions on it!_ 


glass.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 4, 2008)

I am playing in 4 campaigns currently, 3 at the UGT and one other at a game store closer to home. Three of these currently have Bo9S characters in them. One of them has used a Bo9S BBEG.

There are there are eight players at the UGT, four of whom own the book, two others are married to book owners. In at least three campaigns being played at another FLGS I frequent, I have had to help DMs with players who were incorrectly applying the Bo9S rules. (That seems to be the biggest issue with the book. Not understanding it properly.)

So I don't know, seems pretty popular in Houston.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 4, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> WotC has no particular motivation to lie. If it didn't sell well, they'd just say, "we really think the mechanics work well in our in-house playtests," and that would be that.





Yeah, as I much as I would like it, I don't see Incarnum coming down the pike anytime soon for 4th Ed.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 4, 2008)

There is also another measure of popularity that is a factor - community response to the book.

Now I'm wondering how many people in the "I don't like it" group don't like the flavor of the book vs don't like the mechanics of the book?

I'm guessing WotC's observations and research show that lots of people really like the mechanics of the book - more than like the flavor of it for example.

Sales figures are not the be all and end all of market research after all.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Then don't accuse WotC of lying based on them!




I don't see anything wrong with questioning WotC's data. Please don't make the discussion personal.

Thanks!


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2008)

_Removed by admin._


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 4, 2008)

Sorry Piratecat.  Didn't read all the way down to see you had stepped in.  I apologize if I added gasoline to an already unnecessary fire.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> Sorry Piratecat.  Didn't read all the way down to see you had stepped in.  I apologize if I added gasoline to an already unnecessary fire.



Thanks for apologizing; I removed your post. The right thing to have done here was to report the offending post by clicking the tiny triangular "!" button in the bottom left of the post. That way mods can deal with it. Please DON'T do what you did, respond with rancor. That just leads to more problems!

You can also edit a post, of course, if you realize after-the-fact it's inappropriate. That's also a good thing to do if you accidentally post after a mod warning.

Thanks. Drop me an email with any questions.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 4, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> The following did not happen:
> 
> 4e Designer 1: Hey guys, you know that book that tanked?
> 4e Designer 2 and 3: Yeah.
> ...




Stranger things have happened in the wacky world of game development.

I will cite Cyberpunk 3.0 as an example.  Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. is considered a classic among RPGs, and people were clamoring for a new edition.  R. Talsorian, the developing company, decided to base the rules in the new edition upon the highly controversial Fuzion rules system, a system that I am confident in saying pretty much tanked (even though I liked it).  The company also made some pretty radical changes to the setting.

Cyberpunk 3.0 has not been well received....


----------



## Maggan (Jan 4, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> One of the things that has puzzled me about the 4e PR (and there are many) is the reference to Bo9S being one of the "preview books" of 4e and that WotC felt it "worked" due to its popularity.




While I am of the mind that if WotC says that Bo9S is popular, then it probably is, since there is really no reason for them to say so if it isn't ... I would like to add that sales numbers alone do not prove popularity.

WotC might also be judging the popularity by surveys, reviews and fan reaction online and at cons or whatnot. Also, the might use playtesting as one indication of popularity, ie, if many playtesters liked Bo9S a lot, then that's a data point to consider.

So remember that WotC sits with all the info on the above, and probably has plenty of data on which to make the statement "Bo9S is popular", and sales is but one part (a large part probably) of that equation.

/M


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 4, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Bottom line, 4e has to sell books. And I don't think they're going to do that by filling it with a ruleset that won't sell.



No, but you could quite well have the architects of those mechanics, who happen to be heavily involved in 4E, arguing that they didn't sell as well as they could have because they were add-ons to a system, rather than a foundation.  Whether Bo9S restored balance or distorted it would depend heavily on the style of campaign, the foes faced, and the other splatbooks allowed.  I found that by allowing most of CWar and CAdv, and disallowing most of CArc and CDiv, the Brb/Ftr in my game was actually the most powerful PC at mid-high levels.  Had I allowed the Spell Compendium, the casters probably would have taken over.

As to mechanics being an add-on rather than a foundation... The hellreaver PrC in FCII had per-encounter mechanics; without guidance on when an encounter begins and ends (which there will be in 4E), some DMs would find this oddity difficult to handle.  And without a "token" system being a regular part of the game, some players might not be as skilled at tracking the holy fury points as they should be.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2008)

Maggan said:
			
		

> ...if many playtesters liked Bo9S a lot, then that's a data point to consider.




Yeah, that's another thing to keep in mind.  When I first heard about the Book of Nine Swords, I had no interest in buying it.  It sounded like some kind of quasi-East Asian setting book, and I tend to prefer a more European flavor in my games; plus I'm a caster player from away back.  I've always been bored by D&D melee classes.

However, one of the other guys in my gaming group is more into Asian-flavored stuff, plus he loves playing melee warriors, so he picked it up and convinced me to take a look at it.  I tried out a swordsage and was instantly hooked.  I soon bought my own copy and have been a martial adept enthusiast ever since; but if I hadn't had that guy in my group, I never would have bothered with it.

All of which is to say that the success of a supplement like the Bo9S is not determined purely by content.  The way the supplement is marketed is also a major factor.  If I were WotC, I'd be looking less at raw sales data and more at customer satisfaction ratings among the people who've tried the book.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 4, 2008)

I can personally attest to Bo9S popularity. Almost every gamer in my group owns a copy (thats 6 copies among us!!) and we have 3 ongoing campaigns. All three campaigns feature characters made from the book.

It is widely regarded by most of us as the BEST 3rd edition product outside of the core rules that WotC has ever released.


----------



## Ragnar69 (Jan 4, 2008)

While I like the concept of the book, it is (like psionics) a tacked-on sub-system and so of no interest to me. But built into 4e right from the start, it will be awesome.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 4, 2008)

Horacio said:
			
		

> I thought that the most important lesson was that if you have a chicken and I have no chicken we both have half a chicken...




Strange.  I learned that in my Philosophy 201 class, the Utilitarian chapter.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's another thing to keep in mind.  When I first heard about the Book of Nine Swords, I had no interest in buying it.  It sounded like some kind of quasi-East Asian setting book, and I tend to prefer a more European flavor in my games; plus I'm a caster player from away back.  I've always been bored by D&D melee classes.




Generally my initial reaction, other than I prefer skill-monkeys.

I picked up Bo9S on the cheap and on a whim.  Turns out that, other than two of the nine "schools" of martial study, it works really well in a Medieval-flavored game.


----------



## sirwmholder (Jan 4, 2008)

Horacio said:
			
		

> I thought that the most important lesson was that if you have a chicken and I have no chicken we both have half a chicken...






			
				Mercule said:
			
		

> Strange.  I learned that in my Philosophy 201 class, the Utilitarian chapter.




You seem to be laboring under the conclusion that he intends to share his chicken... or you intend to take half of it.... by force if necessary... roll initiative.

Back on point, I'm in the camp that enjoys Bo9S mechanics over the flavor.  The fluff wasn't bad just I like to create my own to better suit my campaigns... though I really liked the Legacy Weapons that were included to represent each of the swords... since 4e is moving away from Christmas tree effects do you think Legacy Weapons will disappear or come to the forefront?

Umm, that may be off topic...
William Holder


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 4, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Generally my initial reaction, other than I prefer skill-monkeys.
> 
> I picked up Bo9S on the cheap and on a whim.  Turns out that, other than two of the nine "schools" of martial study, it works really well in a Medieval-flavored game.




I presume you're talking about the Desert Wind and Setting Sun styles?  Those do seem to be the most "non-western" of the set, true.  

I found the most fun style, at least from a pure RP perspective, was Shadow Hand, simply due to the Child of Shadow stance.  I mean really, if you're going to go for a (more than) slightly creepy fellow, why not have that stance active _all the time_ even when strolling thru town? 

Can't wait to see some of the stuff we'll be getting for Fighters, Rogues & other melee sorts in 4th Ed.  If I can recreate my Warblade or (to a lesser extent) my Swordsage, I'll be a happy camper.

'Course, my Warblade would require a Bariaur race to be developed, but that's a whole different thing altogether....


----------



## Mercule (Jan 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> I presume you're talking about the Desert Wind and Setting Sun styles?  Those do seem to be the most "non-western" of the set, true.




Actually, I meant Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.  Those are the two that are most likely to have supernatural effects -- both in terms of the mechanical designation and the flavor.  Setting Sun didn't wow me, but it didn't bother me, either.  There is nothing inherently non-Western about unarmed combat.  Setting Sun works just fine for that.  Diamond Mind and Iron Heart are the two I most liked.  White Raven is fine, but more what I expect the warlord to do, rather than the fighter.

Edit:  I just realized what one of the "anime influences" is that I don't like.  I don't like styles/maneuvers with animal names.  White Raven, Feral Tiger (or whatever it was), Golden Wyvern, Lightning Panther, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, that sort of stuff.

Not that that is relevant to much, but I found it an interesting epiphany in light of some of the other discussions currently going on.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 4, 2008)

You know, personal interest of the designers (and developers) could also be driving what they do. It has absolutely positively been the case with every past edition, and most products that have come out over the years.

But maybe not this time. 

I know that on the boards, I have heard refs. to a lot more things other then Bo9S. The Warlock, PHB II classes, and Eberon classes and races seem to get mentioned a lot more.  But of course, that is not good data.


----------



## Will (Jan 4, 2008)

Well, I liked the idea of Bo9S, but I hated the implementation. That could be a response they are working from...

But as for 'oh, sales figures aren't high because Bo9S came out a while ago,' I'd point out that a lot of the books that did better also came out a while ago, and in a few cases came out earlier. I mean, Complete Warrior?

Then you get into splitting hairs. 'Oh, well, Complete Warrior is regarded as more core' etc etc.

The point remains that there doesn't seem to be a lot of non-anecdotal evidence that Bo9S is popular.

As for 'why would WotC lie,' they may not be lying; their view of popularity may be based on a number of assumptions or interpretations of reactions. These assumptions and inerpretations may be wrong.

Or mine may be... only time will tell.

Personally, my hope is that they use Bo9S as a starting point and look to make something a little ... smoother. My problem with the system is that the system seemed 'fiddly;' I'd prefer options with a lot fewer hoops of 'well, first you do this, then you activate that, then after one minute you can...'

But maybe what I want is contradictory.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 4, 2008)

Given the heated reaction to WotC's tactic of denying that they were even working on a fourth edition, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the OP's refusing to take their assertions of the book's sales at face value. In short, there's not a lot of evidence on either side other than pro and con anecdotes and assertions from a source that has pretty strong economic motivation to put the best spin possible on 4e.

In fact, it's generally a good principle to question an authority's pronouncements, independent of your belief in the authority's veracity.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 4, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> Personally, my hope is that they use Bo9S as a starting point and look to make something a little ... smoother. My problem with the system is that the system seemed 'fiddly;' I'd prefer options with a lot fewer hoops of 'well, first you do this, then you activate that, then after one minute you can...'
> 
> But maybe what I want is contradictory.



They addressed this aspect in the R&C. In Bo9S, they experimented with various "refresh mini games" for powers, but they seemed to have decided that it didn't convince them and wasn't really needed. So you might get what you want.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 4, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Actually, I meant Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.  Those are the two that are most likely to have supernatural effects -- both in terms of the mechanical designation and the flavor.  Setting Sun didn't wow me, but it didn't bother me, either.  There is nothing inherently non-Western about unarmed combat.  Setting Sun works just fine for that.  Diamond Mind and Iron Heart are the two I most liked.  White Raven is fine, but more what I expect the warlord to do, rather than the fighter.




Some of the throw attacks in Setting Sun were what struck me as particularly "non-western," though I don't really view that as a bad thing.  I think a lot of the feel ends up from a combination of the flavor and how the flavor gets played.  My Swordsage, for example, used both Desert Wind and Shadow Hand -- but with a complete lack of flamboyance.  They actually made pretty interesting flavor for a character who was a relentless and ruthless enemy of undead and those who would traffic with them.

I'm hoping that some of the Paragon Paths might allow for interesting choices along several of the directions that were available in Bo9S -- and I'm REALLY hopeful that I'll be able to rebuild the Warblade I'd mentioned, who, in fact, used Iron Heart and Diamond Mind (though looking back at him, White Raven might have been better than Diamond Mind, due to his absolute LOVE of charging).  There are lots of great concepts in the book for sure, and I hope the best of 'em get fine-tuned, balanced and reborn anew in 4th Ed.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 4, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> In fact, it's generally a good principle to question an authority's pronouncements, independent of your belief in the authority's veracity.




On this, if nothing else, we agree.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> Given the heated reaction to WotC's tactic of denying that they were even working on a fourth edition...




They never denied any such thing.  This is a rumor that's been bruited about for a while, but as far as I know, nobody has yet produced any actual examples of WotC saying they weren't working on 4E.


----------



## Satori (Jan 4, 2008)

ToB:B9S had such wonderful, inclusive flavor that I honestly think they could split up the different schools per class.

In fact, this is one thing that bugged me about the book.  It really allowed the three Martial Adept classes to fill any role they wanted by choosing the appropriate school to specialize in.

It didn't seem fair that a Martial Adept could act like a Rogue/Assassin with Shadow Hand techniques, a Monk by using Setting Sun, a Dwarven Defender by choosing Stone Dragon, a Bard by choosing White Raven, etc...

Instead, I like the idea of certain classes getting access to these types of "School" techniques right off the bat without having to dip into a "Splat Book".

i.e. All Rogues get abilities like Shadow Hand techniques, All Monks get Setting Sun throws/counters, all Dual Wielding Rangers get Tiger Claw abilities, all Bards/Warlords get White Raven inspirations, etc...

In a way, this "spreads the love", and lets each class perform their chosen niche while performing the "cool" and entertaining abilities that Bo9S offers.  

i.e. I'm a trap springer/lock picker that can shadow jump, I'm a dual wielding nature warrior that can rend like a gorilla, I'm an unarmed brawler that can counter your own attacks before you land them, I'm a heavily armored tank that can adopt the toughness of adamantium, I'm a charismatic entertainer that can inspire my friends to heroic acts of valor, etc...

For those that liked the Swordsages adaptability, I suppose this is where the cross-class "Feat" swapping comes in.  You could be a primary "Savage Nature Warrior" who takes a few Rogue abilities to Shadow Jump, you could be a "Heavily Armored Tank" that can also inspire his friends just a bit, or an "Unarmed Brawler" that can rend like a wild animal.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> They never denied any such thing.  This is a rumor that's been bruited about for a while, but as far as I know, nobody has yet produced any actual examples of WotC saying they weren't working on 4E.




I vaguely remember them denying that a 4e would come out in 2007. It won't, so no lie.

I personally have no recollection of them denying that they were working on a 4e.


----------



## Qualidar (Jan 4, 2008)

My own experience: I ran a one-shot with Bo9Swords characters and the most consistant comment I heard both times I ran it was: "I'd love to regularly play with that system". YMMV, of course.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 4, 2008)

I really, really don't believe WotC would base the whole entire powers system for 4e on a poorly received book.  I just can't believe they would be that foolish.  They must have sales figures, survey results, informal comments, etc. to support their belief that Bo9S-style powers are the way to go.


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 4, 2008)

I have bought it out of habit back when I was still buying WOTC. 

I have not even felt the curiosity to crack the cover open.


----------



## Felix (Jan 4, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> In fact, it's generally a good principle to question an authority's pronouncements, independent of your belief in the authority's veracity.



Ayup.

Check. Your. Sources.

Regardless of what standard of "popularity" you're using for the Book of 9 Swords, and regardless of the truth value of if it was "popular" or not, there is no incentive for WotC to call the book anything but "popular".

As I was reading this thread I thought to myself, "Self, I remember thumbing through the book and being underwhelmed and uninterested by it. I also remember lots of buzz on the boards about particulars that folks didn't like, and agreeing with them. But in this thread WotC said it was popular, and it seems they'll be basing 4e on some of its ideas and mechanics, so maybe I was wrong about the Book of 9 Swords."

I had this thought as a person who doesn't expect to buy 4e, and who wasn't enamored by the Bo9S. I'm not saying that somewhere there creeps a marketing exec giggling and twirling his mustache because he's doing this on purpose; I'm just saying that if WotC is trying to shake things up a bit and revive the game's popularity by offering a different game with shiny new mechanics, then "popular" is one of the words I'd use as a marketer to describe the beta testing. It suggests that while the new game is different, some of the fundaments were well received by folks who loved the game that you, yes _you_, loved: and you'll love it too!

So there's no reason to call the book anything but popular. It follows the adage: When In Doubt, Declare Success!

A response to this, of course, would be that there is little incentive for WotC to base a new edition on something unpopular. If WotC wanted to stay with the same old formula for D&D, you'd be right. But something tells me that WotC is taking a risk here: something tells me they're not basing a new edition on something that was popular, but rather basing it on something that _will be_ popular, even if it grew from something that wasn't. The relationship between roses and compost heaps comes to mind. 

So whatever the Bo9S was, WotC thinks (hopes? prays?) 4e will be popular. Maybe it was a popular book. Maybe it's a marketer's gimmick. Maybe because 4e *will be popular*, a previous expression of its game design philosophy _should also_ have been popular: and so it necessarily was. 

*shrug*

Meh. I wouldn't put too much store in WotC calling one of its products "popular"; coming from their lips the word is meaningless.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

I was reluctant to buy Bo9S. I heard a lot of positive buzz about it at conventions, but I wasn't looking for an alternate system to graft onto the rules. Furthermore, I kept hearing about how it gave fighters _spells_. I think even WotC may have made this statement at one time or another. Is it on the back of the book? I'm at work now and don't have my books with me.  

I bought the book after the 4e announcement to read a _significant preview_ of 4e. I was surprised that the martial powers in the book (for the most part) resembled maneuvers, rather than spells. After building a few characters with the book, I fell in love. [Please don't tell my wife    - okay, she already knows.   ]

No one else in my group has bought the book (AFAIK), because we are waiting for the 4e to come out and aren't buying 3e rulebooks anymore. Nonetheless, our one copy is seeing quite a bit of use in the time remaining.

IMO, this was an example of bad marketing. All the positive comments I'd heard (and there were quite a few at the FLGS and conventions) couldn't overcome the _fighters have spells _ line that I'd heard. Sometimes I think that is the problem with the marketing of the upcoming edition. The designers, or someone posting scoops (like the first poster about R&C), will make a statement that isn't supported by actual preview materials, but that misleading statement will get stuck in the ENWorld noosphere and provide a major sticking point for those who react negatively to it.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2008)

I don't know who William Senn is over at the Paizo boards, but he wrote:
"Tome of Battle is one of the most popular books WotC has ever published. It's more popular by sales figures than most of the Complete series combined."

I think WOTC knows what they are doing when they indicate that Tome of Battle sold well.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 4, 2008)

There's also the possibility that Bo9S is one of those books that gets bought far more frequently in person than over the 'net, after someone's picked it up and thumbed thru it at ye olde FLGS.  It's really a difficult book to judge based solely on an Amazon description/excerpt.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Even more importantly, they're not going to put all their eggs in the 4e basket if it _didn't_.
> 
> The following did not happen:
> 
> ...




Not to mention that _Book of Nine Swords_ didn't come about like that in the slightest. Those who own _Races and Classes_ can confirm this, but here's the timeline:

Early 2005: Design work begins on 4e.
Summer 2005: Design Work on Orcus I.
September 2005: Design team delivers a document than includes eight classes for the first _Player's Handbook_ or other early supplements, powers for all the classes, monsters and rules.
October 2005 thru February 2006: Development team tears apart Orcus 1 and rebuilds it.

At the same time, the WotC team is also designing _Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords_. At this point, there was a discussion about like this between some WotC designers. For the sake of discussion let's call them "Rich" and "Mike."

Rich: "So I've been working on this 'powers for fighters' project for 3e. It's kinda funny, but that's pretty similar to what we've come up with for Orcus I."
Mike: "Yeah. Maybe if we reverse engineer the Orcus stuff, we can see how it works in actual play."
Rich: "It'll be pretty hard to make them the mechanics work for 3e, but we might learn something. Let's get on that."

You'll notice that the development credit on _Book of Nine Swords_ reads Mike Mearls (Lead). And the publication was August 2006.

So, they didn't base 4e on _Nine Swords_. Rather, the mechanics for _Nine Swords_ were reverse engineered from early stage 4e development. Just like, no doubt, that the mechanics (including force powers) in SWSE were probably influenced by the state of 4e development at that point.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 4, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> They never denied any such thing.  This is a rumor that's been bruited about for a while, but as far as I know, nobody has yet produced any actual examples of WotC saying they weren't working on 4E.




The quote that gets bandied about is half a sentence. A conversation roughly like this supposedly took place at a convention.

Question: I hear that WotC is planning to make 4th Edition D&D more dependent on miniatures.
WotC Spokesman: We are not working on a new edition that depends on miniatures.

Someone gets on the internet and reports that a WotC rep said "We are not working on a new edition." Thus are rumors born.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 4, 2008)

Stormtalon said:
			
		

> Some of the throw attacks in Setting Sun were what struck me as particularly "non-western," though I don't really view that as a bad thing.




I could see that.  As I said, it didn't really draw my attention much.  I guess I chalked it up to a combination of Pankrenton (sp?) and not to over-the-top.



> I think a lot of the feel ends up from a combination of the flavor and how the flavor gets played.




Agreed.  In that way, if nothing else, Bo9S shows how the D&D game can be made to effectively serve a broader audience without alienating fans of the existing genres.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 4, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't know who William Senn is over at the Paizo boards, but he wrote:
> "Tome of Battle is one of the most popular books WotC has ever published. It's more popular by sales figures than most of the Complete series combined."



He doesn't have any official capacity or knowledge that I can ferret out. I'd take his statement with the traditional grain of salt.


----------



## kennew142 (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The quote that gets bandied about is half a sentence. A conversation roughly like this supposedly took place at a convention.
> 
> Question: I hear that WotC is planning to make 4th Edition D&D more dependent on miniatures.
> WotC Spokesman: We are not working on a new edition that depends on miniatures.
> ...




Thanks for looking up the info. This is one of the posts I remember. I'm pretty sure that there was also one denying that there would be a 4e in 2007, but I can't find any reference to it.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2008)

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is I recall a lot of people who really liked the idea, but didn't feel it was done real well or fit 3X all that well.  My experience in 3X was that it was wildly overpowered.  However, I still thought the concept was great.  

I think the acceptance of the approach for 4E will be somewhere greater than the usage of Bo9S in 3X.  Regardless of what that usage may have been.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> One thing that needs to be kept in mind is I recall a lot of people who really liked the idea, but didn't feel it was done real well or fit 3X all that well.  My experience in 3X was that it was wildly overpowered.  However, I still thought the concept was great.
> 
> I think the acceptance of the approach for 4E will be somewhere greater than the usage of Bo9S in 3X.  Regardless of what that usage may have been.



It was stronger than Fighter stuff as base.. But no more than any spellcaster CoDzilla or Wizard, really.

Sucess and popularity are not necessarly the same, also...


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So, they didn't base 4e on _Nine Swords_. Rather, the mechanics for _Nine Swords_ were reverse engineered from early stage 4e development. Just like, no doubt, that the mechanics (including force powers) in SWSE were probably influenced by the state of 4e development at that point.



Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.  

Just because I happen to think the round pegs didn't fit the square 3X holes well enough, doesn't mean my ultimately negative opinion of Bo9S reflects a lack of eagerness to try it in 4E.


----------



## glass (Jan 4, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Edit:  I just realized what one of the "anime influences" is that I don't like.  I don't like styles/maneuvers with animal names.  White Raven, Feral Tiger (or whatever it was), Golden Wyvern, Lightning Panther, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, that sort of stuff.



Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is Anime now? 


glass.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> It was stronger than Fighter stuff as base.. But no more than any spellcaster CoDzilla or Wizard, really.



That wasn't my personal experience.  I found it to be nearly the best of both worlds in one package.  Not quite the full punch of a mage, but more than enough staying power to make the mage cry foul. 

Anyway, no need to redo that debate here.  I found it highly broken.  Please just note my single comment and move along.  



> Sucess and popularity are not necessarly the same, also...



shrug

Not necessarily uncorrelated either.


----------



## glass (Jan 4, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> I was reluctant to buy Bo9S. I heard a lot of positive buzz about it at conventions, but I wasn't looking for an alternate system to graft onto the rules. Furthermore, I kept hearing about how it gave fighters _spells_. I think even WotC may have made this statement at one time or another. Is it on the back of the book? I'm at work now and don't have my books with me.



IDNHMBIFOM either, but I don't remember anything about spells but the chapter that described the manoeuvres is called 'Blade Magic' (inaccurately IMO).


glass.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnSnow, you definately cracked the nut on this one. (But I read that damn R&C, why didn't I make the link?). Scott "Le" Rouse also noted that Bo9S was a "play-test" of 4th ed. 

And the difference matters. They have every incentive to say Bo9S was good&popular, given how much they had invested in 4th ed up to that point, and how much that approach--every one gets powers--is (still) central to the new edition. 

But, in their defence, they have also said that they made a lot of changes since. 

So it will be Bo9S, but funner, faster, and easier to play. 

(Ok, last part not in their def.)


----------



## Seule (Jan 4, 2008)

I find that Bo9S is a hard sell to people who play 3.5, simply because it changes so much about the basic class balance assumptions. It is indeed not a perfect fit for 3.5 games (or 3.0) although it's not bad, it works best if all martial types use it, as do all NPC martial types. It really is designed to replace a good chunk of the rules.
This makes it hard to integrate for most people.
What I find is that most people who actually spend the time to read and understand it come out with some combination of "I like it", "I like the mechanics but not the flavour", "Cool idea but not well implemented", or "Gimme now".
This speaks well to taking the same basic idea and integrating it directly into the next edition, with tweaks based on the playtesting that's happened.
For the record I play a Warblade (up to 5th level now) in a campaign alongside a Spirit Shaman, a Swashbuckler, an Ardent, and a Scout. Because my character's class somewhat overpowers the swashbuckler and the scout (who is an archer), I focus on the White Raven maneuvers, to make everyone else better. So far it's working pretty well, and is a great deal of fun for me, picking maneuvers and using them both.

  --Seule


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 4, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> I really, really don't believe WotC would base the whole entire powers system for 4e on a poorly received book.  I just can't believe they would be that foolish.



You obviously have never worked for the government.  You wouldn't believe the kind of foolish things people do.  (Even educated people.  That's why us contractors are there, to actually get stuff done in government.)


----------



## bgaesop (Jan 4, 2008)

Seule said:
			
		

> "I like the mechanics but not the flavour"



This sums it up pretty well for me, though I'm not certain how much I like the mechanics given that I stopped reading the book because the flavour grated on me so much. I absolutely loathe the idea of fighters being "melee spellcasters" and since no one I knew owned the book I saw no reason to give it more than a cursory glance in the store.


----------



## Seule (Jan 4, 2008)

bgaesop said:
			
		

> This sums it up pretty well for me, though I'm not certain how much I like the mechanics given that I stopped reading the book because the flavour grated on me so much. I absolutely loathe the idea of fighters being "melee spellcasters" and since no one I knew owned the book I saw no reason to give it more than a cursory glance in the store.




Cut Swordsages and the Swordsage-only maneuvers from the book, and you have a wonderful melee fighter and paladin replacement, that scale well against spellcasters and are fun to play at all levels. You also don't have melee spellcasting, other than some Crusader powers that allow healing and the like. What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".

  --Seule


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 4, 2008)

It seems the general consensus on Tome of Battle is "love the mechanics, hate the flavor," a position which I happen to share.

I'm not particularly keen on the flavor of ToB, either, but only two schools could even be argued to have a cheesy anime feel to them (Desert Wind and Shadow Hand), and even those, with adjustments to flavor text, could be perfect fits for Paladins and Rangers (Desert Wind) and Rogues (Shadow Hand). The PHBII Swordmage might have some Desert Wind-esque powers.

I think the term "blade magic" used in the book made a lot of people judge it prematurely. Definitely not the best choice in terminology.


			
				Seule said:
			
		

> Cut Swordsages and the Swordsage-only maneuvers from the book, and you have a wonderful melee fighter and paladin replacement, that scale well against spellcasters and are fun to play at all levels. You also don't have melee spellcasting, other than some Crusader powers that allow healing and the like. What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".
> 
> --Seule



Heck, a Setting Sun-focused Swordsage was a far better Monk than the real 3.5 Monk could ever hope to be.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 4, 2008)

In a wiorld with high enough magic, why no peoples with both might and magic skills wouldn't have tried mixing the two? It sounds to me logical a warrior-mage would like pratical 'blade magic'.... ENhancing his fighting with applied magic...


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 4, 2008)

Seule said:
			
		

> rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".
> 
> --Seule




I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this.  Could this be a strawfighter?


----------



## IanB (Jan 4, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this.  Could this be a strawfighter?




I've seen literally dozens of them played this way. ...since 1982.    But 3E/3.5E didn't really change things much. B9S has made the melee character much more interesting, I love it in my game.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 4, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> I've seen literally dozens of them played this way. ...since 1982.    But 3E/3.5E didn't really change things much. B9S has made the melee character much more interesting, I love it in my game.




Heh.  Fighters never had too many options in the older editions, but they have quite a bit more in 3.5 than they ever had again.  I'm sure 4e will give them oodles of more things to do in combat.  I just hate to hear that fighters had no options other than full attack or single attack.  It's more of that 3.5 is badwrongfun nonsense.

That being said, I have no problems whatsoever with adding more powers to fighter-types, even magical ones.


----------



## Voss (Jan 4, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this.  Could this be a strawfighter?




I've never seen one not played like this.  If they weren't swinging a weapon (or shooting a bow, or for a period in 1e, throwing darts) they were dead/held/paralyzed.

The combat rules in all editions of D&D have discouraged creative action in combat, especially the fighter.  Disarming and whatnot might look or sound cool, but if a fighter type isn't stabbing it in the hit points, he isn't really helping


----------



## BryonD (Jan 4, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> It seems the general consensus on Tome of Battle is "love the mechanics, hate the flavor," a position which I happen to share.



I saw a lot of exactly the opposite.  "Like/love the flavor, very serious concerns about the mechanics".  I'm not going to argue which is right, but I'll dispute the consensus claim.  However, if it really was coming from both ends then WotC should be that much more careful, because that is where you end up trying to please everyone and find everyone dislikes the changes made to please the other guy more than they like the changes made to please them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 4, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I've never seen one not played like this.  If they weren't swinging a weapon (or shooting a bow, or for a period in 1e, throwing darts) they were dead/held/paralyzed.
> 
> The combat rules in all editions of D&D have discouraged creative action in combat, especially the fighter.  Disarming and whatnot might look or sound cool, but if a fighter type isn't stabbing it in the hit points, he isn't really helping




Aside from stabbing in the hit points, fighter options mostly consist of:

*Tripping:* Good in theory, but the hefty size modifiers combined with opposed Strength checks make this all but useless against Large and Huge foes.  Most of the nastier opponents, where tripping would be most useful, fall into this size range.
*Grappling:* Same as tripping.
*Bull Rushing:* Same as tripping.
*Sundering:* Only works against opponents who use equipment, which most monsters do not; plus it destroys potential loot.
*Disarming:* Only works against opponents who use weapons, and size modifiers apply.

Basically, fighters can learn several cool tricks for taking on other fighters, but they're unreliable for taking on monsters.  Since D&D is built around player versus monster combat, this does not pan out very well.


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 4, 2008)

In other words, fighters have a fair number of combat options, some of them which may not work in every situation.  Being a good fighter requires some tactical thinking.

I don't see a problem with this.


----------



## IanB (Jan 4, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In other words, fighters have a fair number of combat options, some of them which may not work in every situation.  Being a good fighter requires some tactical thinking.
> 
> I don't see a problem with this.




I would say it is more like they have a *few* combat options, most of which lose their usefulness at high levels, and also require feats to make them usable.

Feats that could otherwise be spent on improving their core ability of 'full attack, full attack, move and single attack, full attack.'


----------



## Stormtalon (Jan 4, 2008)

More that they're useful very early on in a fighter's career, when he's battling humanoids and other such enemies but which quickly fade into borderline uselessness the larger and more monstrous the enemies become in higher levels.  Once fighting things even a tad bit larger than an ogre, the "full attack, full attack" routine becomes quite standard (with perhaps a 5' step tossed in, but no more), due to the high to-hit & high damage output of the beefier critters.  Currently, once a fighter gets in close, there's a very large disincentive to make large moves due to the ease with which you can provoke AoOs.

I  would, however, change the stereotypical fighter sequence:



> "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".




to replace "I move and single attack" with "I charge the next big one," but that's it.  In the group I run/play in, Powerful Charge & Greater Powerful Charge are must-have feats for just about every fighter/barbarian that's made.


----------



## renevq (Jan 4, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In other words, fighters have a fair number of combat options, some of them which may not work in every situation.  Being a good fighter requires some tactical thinking.
> 
> I don't see a problem with this.




In my experience, it's: fighters have a limited number of combat options, most of them which may not work in most situations. If they do work, then generally they all work against the same type of opponent.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jan 4, 2008)

Fighters sucked* which is why I never played them.  I'm glad they are gaining combat maneuvers because then they will be fun to play.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 4, 2008)

Desert Wind is not anime inspired.

Desert Wind is Arabian-influenced. Am I the only one that actually likes 1001 Arabian Nights/Al-Qadim? From the names of the manoeuvers, to the use of fire, heat and light, this is pure fantasy Arabian.

Shadow Hand...Yea, that's definitely got anime flavour.

Setting Sun..Eh, definitely not anime derived. I'm not sure what style of combat one can say tripping/throwing is most like though.

re: Popularity

At one of the conventions, pre-4E announcement, WOTC officials also said that Bo9S was popular moreso than say Incarnum. I always assumed there would've been a Bo9S II given the popularity of it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 4, 2008)

renevq said:
			
		

> In my experience, it's: fighters have a limited number of combat options, most of them which may not work in most situations. If they do work, then generally they all work against the same type of opponent.



Yes, this was my experience as well.  Almost every combat option other than full attack was next to useless against 80-90% of the monsters people would fight unless you spent every feat you had specializing in that one maneuver.

If you were REALLY good at tripping you could increase your chance of succeeding so that it'd work against 60-70% or so of the enemies you fought.  However, at that point, you STILL only had one viable option: Full attack, first attack being a trip, get the bonus attack from Improved Trip and continue to full attack.  It wasn't all that much different.

Since you weren't specialized in any of the other options, they were next to useless.

Although some players didn't realize this and often had eyes rolled at them when they were playing characters who insisted that they wanted to try all sorts of other options:

Player: "I grapple the troll"
DM: "Ok, you don't have improved grapple so he takes his AOO on you, he hits...since he does at least 1 damage your grapple automatically fails."
Player: "I'm in the middle of a full attack, I grapple him with my second attack."
DM: "Ok, grapple check then, make sure to use the lower BAB for your secondary attack."
Player: "Ok, I get...15."
DM: "The troll gets 30.  Next character."
Player 2: "I attack twice, full power attack.  I hit both times and I do 59 damage."
DM: "The Troll falls unconscious."


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 4, 2008)

I really had no interest in it.  Then one of my players bought me a copy.  Right now there are something like 5 copies in my group.  The other group I know of has several more copies of it.  

Now I love Bo9S, although it isn't balanced against the melee classes.   So I cheated and simply declared them to be epic classes, since my party was 20th level when it came out.  It does a great deal to let the melees with PrCs and not a lot of epic feats start catching up to the casters.  If we keep running for several more levels I might need to worry about the Martial Adepts outstripping the casters, but for now the casters have plenty of AE and nuke spells that I don't have to worry about it.  

A game with Martial Adepts designed in from ground up is very appealing.  I'm not sure it'll be the D&D I'm used to but I'm going to give it a chance.  My biggest fear is they'll go too far.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 4, 2008)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I really had no interest in it.  Then one of my players bought me a copy.  Right now there are something like 5 copies in my group.  The other group I know of has several more copies of it.
> 
> Now I love Bo9S, although it isn't balanced against the melee classes.   So I cheated and simply declared them to be epic classes, since my party was 20th level when it came out.  It does a great deal to let the melees with PrCs and not a lot of epic feats start catching up to the casters.  If we keep running for several more levels I might need to worry about the Martial Adepts outstripping the casters, but for now the casters have plenty of AE and nuke spells that I don't have to worry about it.
> 
> A game with Martial Adepts designed in from ground up is very appealing.  I'm not sure it'll be the D&D I'm used to but I'm going to give it a chance.  My biggest fear is they'll go too far.





Hrmm... are you sure you're using it right? I play a swordsage in a friends campaign and haven't found it to be unbalanced. Does about rhe same amoutn of damage as the average melee fighter


----------



## carmachu (Jan 5, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> If WotC is saying the book sold great, this is certainly not the way one would go about disproving it.




just because they said it, doesnt make it true.

Abit of hard evidence goes a long way,


----------



## Nifft (Jan 5, 2008)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Now I love Bo9S, although it isn't balanced against the melee classes.



 True, but misleading -- since IMNSHO the melee classes weren't balanced against spellcasters in the first place, and the Martial Adepts are. 

(Well, except the Barbarian. He's pretty much balanced against the spellcasters, and thus the Martial Adepts, which is to say the Barbarian is better than the Fighter, Ranger and Paladin.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nifft (Jan 5, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is Anime now?



 It's certainly better drawn than Western cartoons. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Azgulor said:
			
		

> The popularity claim rang hollow with me when I first read it.  Going only by my personal experience, I've seen the book only once in a bookstore while I've seen most of the other WotC books multiple times (presumably because they were purchased and restocked).  I don't know any D&D gamers who actually own it.




So, you say one book isn't selling because you don't see it on the shelves, and another is selling better because you always see it on the shelves? That's funny. That's like saying the PlayStation3 is outselling the Wii because you can't find the Wii anywhere, but can find PlayStation3 all over the place.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 5, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> True, but misleading -- since IMNSHO the melee classes weren't balanced against spellcasters in the first place, and the Martial Adepts are.



Depends, of course, on which splatbooks you allow.  For my campaign, I allowed all of the feats from CAdv and CWar; I was much more restrictive on the spells and feats from CArc and CDiv.  The balance would, I think, have been about right if the players had been powergaming to an equal extent (as it turned out, the Brb/Ftr was by far the most dominant offense through the end of the campaign at level 11).


----------



## Nifft (Jan 5, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> (as it turned out, the Brb/Ftr was by far the most dominant offense through the end of the campaign at level 11).



 I do make special mention of Barbarians in the post you quoted. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> True, but misleading -- since IMNSHO the melee classes weren't balanced against spellcasters in the first place, and the Martial Adepts are.



Except the part where fighters hold up quite well with spell casters and Martial Adepts run circles around spellcasters.  Other than that I agree.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, you say one book isn't selling because you don't see it on the shelves, and another is selling better because you always see it on the shelves? That's funny. That's like saying the PlayStation3 is outselling the Wii because you can't find the Wii anywhere, but can find PlayStation3 all over the place.



Unlike the Wii, I'm pretty certain no one was standing in line to buy out shipments of Bo9S as quick as they came in.  Not a valid comparison at all.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Unlike the Wii, I'm pretty certain no one was standing in line to buy out shipments of Bo9S as quick as they came in.  Not a valid comparison at all.




Completely valid.

Saying "Hey, this book isn't on the shelves at my FLGS means that it isn't selling." completely ignores the fact that it might not stay on the shelves because *it's selling out every copy*.

Saying "Hey, this book is on the shelves at my FLGS every time I go in, that means it's selling." completely ignores the fact that it might be staying on the shelves because *it's not selling, so he's seeing the same copies every time he goes*.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

Anecdotal Evidence: Book of 9 Swords is pretty popular in my gaming group, particularly among three of the gamers. Several characters in the past four or five campaigns have either been classes from the book, or at the very least used feats from the book, in particular the "Martial Study" feat, which gives Maneuvers to the peons.

I finally gave in to wickedness a few months ago, and started a Crusader of Bane.  I'll admit, I enjoy playing him, in particular smashing the HELL out of something with Mountain Hammer or Divine Surge, but I also note I'm picking the same 5 maneuvers over, and over, and over again, because they work so well, and leave conventional warriors like Barbarians and Paladins in the dust...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Anecdotal Evidence: Book of 9 Swords is pretty popular in my gaming group, particularly among three of the gamers.




Another piece of anecdotal evidence... My group consist of 6 people, and among us, we have 3 PHBs, 2 MMs, 2 DMGs, and 6 copies of Bo9S.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Except the part where fighters hold up quite well with spell casters and Martial Adepts run circles around spellcasters.  Other than that I agree.



 I suspect we've seen different people playing spellcasters -- I'll concede that it's possible to play a spellcaster who's as ineffective as a Fighter, but that's not the only way to play one. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 5, 2008)

I suspect we'll see the more flashy Swordsage powers show up when they finally gets around to giving us the promised Swordmage class.

For an arcane defender, those powers seem pretty reasonable.

For "martial" characters? Yeah, some of them (Shadowhand, Desert Wind) are a little over-the-top.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Except the part where fighters hold up quite well with spell casters and Martial Adepts run circles around spellcasters.  Other than that I agree.




What do these spellcasters do, throw direct-damage spells at everything?  My experience is that a well-played caster can run circles around martial adepts, starting around level 11-12.  Before that point, they're pretty even.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I suspect we'll see the more flashy Swordsage powers show up when they finally gets around to giving us the promised Swordmage class.
> 
> For an arcane defender, those powers seem pretty reasonable.
> 
> For "martial" characters? Yeah, some of them (Shadowhand, Desert Wind) are a little over-the-top.




Over the top how?

In a world full of people that can cast all kinds of different spells... why can't people who use sword combos do the same.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 5, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I suspect we've seen different people playing spellcasters -- I'll concede that it's possible to play a spellcaster who's as ineffective as a Fighter, but that's not the only way to play one.



Yes, it's possible to play an evoker, but it's not the only school you can specialize in.  No, I take that back.  An evoker is much less effective than a fighter against powerful foes (though better against mooks).


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 5, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Over the top how?
> 
> In a world full of people that can cast all kinds of different spells... why can't people who use sword combos do the same.




Because according to everything we've been told about the "martial" power source, it's supposed to represent more down-to-earth heroics.

Arcane blows stuff up with fire. Divine heals with positive energy.

Martial? They use their muscles to accomplish extraordinary feats. And running really fast just doesn't leave a fire trail. The flavor is wrong.

If "martial" characters could call up flames and step through shadows, they'd just be arcane by another name. And since we already have "arcane," that'd be silly.

That's not to say that "people" can't cast spells using sword combos. It's to say that characters that rely on the "martial" power source just don't do things like summoning fire from mid-air. That sounds to me like something that's perfect for an "arcane" character, though, like the promised Swordmage class.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is Anime now?




No, but it's an Eastern "animal name" and including it in the list amused me.  Deal.


----------



## Will (Jan 5, 2008)

Regarding fighters and 'I swing a lot.'

The only good exception I know of is a really well-built spiked chain specialist, who trips everything, constantly. They are very scary.

Generally, though, shields, simple weapons (spears, sigh), thrown weapons, and generalized fighters all pale next to the greatsword wielder with power attack.

Which is a real shame, but there you go.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If "martial" characters could call up flames and step through shadows, they'd just be arcane by another name. And since we already have "arcane," that'd be silly.




That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me. I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap, but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 5, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> So there's no reason to call the book anything but popular. It follows the adage: When In Doubt, Declare Success!




Well, not exactly. The evidence we have to date is that the Bo9S is one of the better sellers at Amazon. It seems that WotC is declaring success due to success.

People should check out Amazon's Category Rankings: Entertainment / Puzzles & Games / Role Playing & Fantasy / Dungeons & Dragons



> What Sales Rank Means
> 
> As an added service for customers, authors, publishers, artists, labels, and studios, we show how items in our catalog are selling. The lower the number, the higher the sales for that particular item. The calculation is based on Amazon.com sales and is updated each hour to reflect recent and historical sales of every item sold on Amazon.com. We hope you find the Amazon.com Sales Rank interesting!
> 
> ...




Bo9S is ranked 20 on that list.

#2 Rules Compendium Oct 2007
#4 Players Handbook Jul 2003
#5 Core Rulebook Set Sep 2003
#8 Magic Item Comp Mar 2007
#9 Dungeon Master's Guide Jul 2003
#10 Monster Manual Jul 2003
#11 Complete Scoundrel Jan 2007
#12 Player's Handbook II May 2006
#13 Complete Adventurer Jan 2005
#14 Complete Warrior Dec 2003
#15 Complete Arcane Nov 2004
#16 Monster Manual IV Jul 2006
#17 Dungeon Master's Guide II Jun 2005
#20 Book of Nine Swords Aug 2006

20 out of 790 results (many of which are paperback novels)

Realizing that recently released books will have better rankings than older books, it is still amazing that Bo9S beat out the entire Eberron hardbounds, the entire Forgotten Realms hardbounds, a few of the Complete Series (Complete Divine, Complete Psionics), the Races books, Unearthed Arcana, etc. WotC has put out more than a hundred hardbound books and Bo9S has beat most of them.

The Sales Rankings are misleading compared to the Category Rankings (which are still skewed somewhat by recent releases). In 6 months, Bo9S might be higher than Rules Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, and Complete Scoundrel due to how Amazon ranks these. Considering that it has been on the list for 1 1/2 years, it's pretty high up.


And statistically, Amazon is big enough that the rankings here are probably very close to WotC's rankings (except for the recent sales aspect).

All in all, the good sales of Bo9S does not appear to be a myth after all.


----------



## Warbringer (Jan 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Setting Sun..Eh, definitely not anime derived. I'm not sure what style of combat one can say tripping/throwing is most like though.




Jujitsu, judo, akido ... definitely not anime derived, no conmnection whatsoever


----------



## Warbringer (Jan 5, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> It's certainly better drawn than Western cartoons.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




You dare draw comparisons to Scoobt Do???? Blasphemy


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 5, 2008)

This kind of rhetoric doesn't correspond to my experience playing fighters or fighter types at all--nor to my experience of what skilled players do with fighting characters. (Note that I don't say fighters not because fighters are a lame class, but rather because, IME, single class fighters are quite rare among the PCs I see when I run and play games. Some of the characters people play have more options than fighters, probably half of them have fewer tactical manuever style options than single classed fighters of the same level might have (multiclassing with barbarian will do that), but in any event using the single classed fighter to represent all melee combatants in D&D 3.x would be wildly inaccurate).

I attack and manuever to be able to pull off my Rhino's Rush charge into a spot adjacent to two enemies, one of whom is injured so I'll be able to cleave into the other.

I delay for the spellcaster to cast haste and then declare my dodge opponent as the aspect of Grazz't, manuever around the succubus  (scorning her attack of opportunity) but setting up so that when the aspect of Grazz't would get an AoO on me for closing with him, he will be flanking with the succubus and my Elusive Target feat will go off making him miss and hit the succubus, and giving me a free trip attack against him, and I can follow up by smiting him with a four point power attack.

The target is surrounded by the barbarian, paladin, and the cleric, so I will bull rush him instead of attacking to generate three attacks of opportunity which may enable the barbarian to cleave into another bad guy/ I charge and hit him with my shield, Power Attacking for four points; if I hit that gives me the opportunity to knock him prone and he has to make a save or be dazed. The next round, I get 3/2 Power Attack because I charged and hit, so I will sunder his axe, cleaving sunder through to hit him, and hit him again so he'll have to make a fort save or be nauseated.

3.x combat is only a dull repetition of single attack/full attack if you want it to be. Between positioning (where you can be flanked, where you can't be flanked, where you can be charged, where you can't, where you control the approaches to the spellcasters, where you don't, where you do flank, where you have cover from enemies with ranged attacks and where you don't, where you provide cover to enemies from your allies' ranged attacks, where you will be full attackable and where you won't, where you can cleave, what your cleave options are, etc) mathematical feats (Power Attack, Combt Expertise, Fight defensively, etc), attack options (grapple and trip being the most common followed by sunder, disarm, and bullrush), and feat granted options (combat brute, shock trooper, elusive target, shield charge, shield slam, intimidating strike, mad foam rager), class granted abilities (smite evil, spells (like Rhino's Rush, Strength of Stone, Knight's Move, deafening clang), hexblade's curse, marshal auras, knight's challenge, flurry of blows, rage etc), and equipment (bracers of the quick strike, weapon capsule retainers, cloak of the montebank, healing belt, etc), you have plenty of options to make combat interesting. 

Manuevers may seem cool to you, but if your experience of D&D 3.x melee combat is "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack" then you haven't scratched the surface of the tactical possibilities. And, if a designer is posting that, then they really don't understand the current edition of the game.



			
				Seule said:
			
		

> What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".
> 
> --Seule


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 5, 2008)

More Anectodal "Evidence":  I actually have a copy of Bo9S, and I think it's pretty darn interesting.

Unfortunately, no one in my group wants to try out any of the classes in the book.

They are, however, very keen on the rules for combat maneuvers in the Mike Mearls' Book of Iron Might, so we have adopted them into our house rules.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Except the part where fighters hold up quite well with spell casters and Martial Adepts run circles around spellcasters.



What mutant version of 3.x have you been playing?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 5, 2008)

Requiring feats (or class abilities) to make non Bo9S combat manuevers usable should hardly be an issue in the question of whether Bo9S Combat Manuevers make otherwise boring combat interesting. After all, fighters get feats as class abilities. Fighting characters who aren't fighters take fighter levels to get more feats. Bo9S characters take martial adept levels (or spend feats) to get manuevers. Bo9S manuevers require class abilities to be usable as well. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, a Bo9S character who didn't pick a particular manuever can't use it any more than a character who didn't take Intimidating Strike as a feat can do that. Sounds somewhat similar to me.

As for the core fighting options losing usefulness at high levels, that is only an issue if, for you, real D&D only happens at level 15+. If you spend a lot of time playing at lower levels, it's not as much of an issue. And furthermore, the various options do retain a lot of their usefulness at high levels--if your character puts effort into making them usable. A 15th level monk/fighter/wizard may not be able to grapple anything he wants to, but if he took the various grappling feats, built up his strength, and picked up a grappling item or two, all but the biggest and strongest monsters should fear his grapple check. (In the case of the monk I'm thinking of, they should fear his trip check too). Some even get new potential at high levels. Bull rushing a formian to generate AoOs from the cleric and the rogue at 3rd level is one thing. Bull rushing a marilith through the prismatic wall is another thing entirely. You may not be likely to succeed at bull rushing the Eldritch Giant fighter, but there are plenty of other things you can do to the Eldritch Giant fighter--Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk come to mind. (And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).

Furthermore, the idea that all of the manuevers from Bo9S are inherently more interesting than attack/full attack seems somewhat improbable. How is it more interesting to use the manuever that gives you a massive 100+ damage single attack than to full attack for 100+ points of damage in a round? Either way, you are spending your round dealing damage to the enemy.



			
				IanB said:
			
		

> I would say it is more like they have a *few* combat options, most of which lose their usefulness at high levels, and also require feats to make them usable.
> 
> Feats that could otherwise be spent on improving their core ability of 'full attack, full attack, move and single attack, full attack.'


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Requiring feats (or class abilities) to make non Bo9S combat manuevers usable should hardly be an issue in the question of whether Bo9S Combat Manuevers make otherwise boring combat interesting. After all, fighters get feats as class abilities. Fighting characters who aren't fighters take fighter levels to get more feats. Bo9S characters take martial adept levels (or spend feats) to get manuevers. Bo9S manuevers require class abilities to be usable as well. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, a Bo9S character who didn't pick a particular manuever can't use it any more than a character who didn't take Intimidating Strike as a feat can do that. Sounds somewhat similar to me.



Apples and oranges. There isn't a single Fighter feat that even comes close to matching even a mid-level ToB maneuver, much less a high-level one. Comparing Intimidating Strike to a ToB maneuver is a joke.



> As for the core fighting options losing usefulness at high levels, that is only an issue if, for you, real D&D only happens at level 15+. If you spend a lot of time playing at lower levels, it's not as much of an issue. And furthermore, the various options do retain a lot of their usefulness at high levels--if your character puts effort into making them usable. A 15th level monk/fighter/wizard may not be able to grapple anything he wants to, but if he took the various grappling feats, built up his strength, and picked up a grappling item or two, all but the biggest and strongest monsters should fear his grapple check. (In the case of the monk I'm thinking of, they should fear his trip check too). Some even get new potential at high levels. Bull rushing a formian to generate AoOs from the cleric and the rogue at 3rd level is one thing. Bull rushing a marilith through the prismatic wall is another thing entirely. You may not be likely to succeed at bull rushing the Eldritch Giant fighter, but there are plenty of other things you can do to the Eldritch Giant fighter--Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk come to mind. (And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).



1) Monks are lousy grapplers, anyway.

2) You don't GET any more situational than having a Prismatic Wall you can push a marilith through, assuming you get lucky with your positioning. Plus the Wizard has to be there to create a Prismatic Wall. That's just yet another example of a PHB melee class not being able to stand on his own two feet without ANY magical help.



> Furthermore, the idea that all of the manuevers from Bo9S are inherently more interesting than attack/full attack seems somewhat improbable. How is it more interesting to use the manuever that gives you a massive 100+ damage single attack than to full attack for 100+ points of damage in a round? Either way, you are spending your round dealing damage to the enemy.



A single 100+ damage hit guarantees that I'm invoking the massive damage save. Failing that, I only used a standard action, which means I actually get to move into a better position within the same round.

By the way, iterative attacks are out the window in 4e. Better get used to the idea.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> (And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).



Must nitpick about this one. It is vastly, VASTLY easier to change out maneuvers than swap out feats, and you know it. (Moreover, Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk are both supplement feats as well, so we're talking non-core on both ends. Those feats represent almost as large a departure from core fighter abilities as do maneuvers.)


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

> 15th level monk/fighter/wizard




My condolences to the player of this character.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 5, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges. There isn't a single Fighter feat that even comes close to matching even a mid-level ToB maneuver, much less a high-level one. Comparing Intimidating Strike to a ToB maneuver is a joke.




Weapon Specialization will, on average, add as much or more damage damage per 5-round fight than a 5th level Martial Adept maneuver. Compare a str 20 level 9 fighter with a +2 greatsword and WS: greatsword to a dex 20 level 9 swordsage with a +2 shortsword and Elder Mountain Hammer, both fighting an Androsphinx (CR 9).

Fighter has a charge at +19 on the first round and attacks at +17/+12 for the remaining 4 rounds. He hits an average of 6.3 times for 12.6 added damage from Weapon Specialization.

Swordsage has a standard attack at +13 which hits 60% of the time for +6d6 damage and then is used up for the remainder of the combat. 60% of 6d6 averages to, amazingly, 12.6.

And that's just Weapon Specialization. Melee Weapon Mastery is significantly better (14.3 added damage), especially when combined with the obvious choice, Power Attack (MWM + PA for 2 = 37.8 expected extra damage).



> By the way, iterative attacks are out the window in 4e. Better get used to the idea.



Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Weapon Specialization will, on average, add as much or more damage damage per 5-round fight than a 5th level Martial Adept maneuver. Compare a str 20 level 9 fighter with a +2 greatsword and WS: greatsword to a dex 20 level 9 swordsage with a +2 shortsword and Elder Mountain Hammer, both fighting an Androsphinx (CR 9).
> 
> Fighter has a charge at +19 on the first round and attacks at +17/+12 for the remaining 4 rounds. He hits an average of 6.3 times for 12.6 added damage from Weapon Specialization.
> 
> ...



Well, this comparison is just a bit skewed.

First off, you're comparing a full BAB class to a 3/4 BAB class. Of course the Fighter is going to hit more! You want a fair comparison in that department, compare the Fighter to a Warblade and see how that goes. *snickers in Fighter's direction*

Second, you're comparing the damage accrual, using full attack, of Weapon Spec over a five-round fight ... to ONE SINGLE USE of a maneuver within all five rounds. You don't think that said Martial Adept is going to use more than one maneuver over the course of a battle? That would be like a Wizard casting one fireball, then using his quarterstaff the rest of the encounter. Worse, actually. Wizards have an excuse to be conservative with their spells. Martial Adepts don't with their maneuvers, since they can easily recover them after an encounter.

Also, doing more damage in one hit has more practical value, allowing for more tactical options afterwards (namely, Elder Mountain Hammer being a standard action, allowing you to move into a better position, for one). It's like American football. A 6-yard pickup on first down for 2nd and 4 gives you a lot more playcalling options than an incomplete pass on 1st down giving you 2nd and 10.




> Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.



Considering BAB has been confirmed more or less out altogether in 4e (an even more radical departure than SWS), we can safely assume iteratives are gone.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.




Andy Collins confirmed that the "full-attack" option is gone. Since full-attack was the only way to get your iterative attacks, this would lead one to believe that they're gone, especially in light of Saga being a "significant preview."


----------



## Zurai (Jan 5, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Well, this comparison is just a bit skewed.
> 
> First off, you're comparing a full BAB class to a 3/4 BAB class. Of course the Fighter is going to hit more! You want a fair comparison in that department, compare the Fighter to a Warblade and see how that goes. *snickers in Fighter's direction*
> 
> Second, you're comparing the damage accrual, using full attack, of Weapon Spec over a five-round fight ... to ONE SINGLE USE of a maneuver within all five rounds. You don't think that said Martial Adept is going to use more than one maneuver over the course of a battle? Especially since, you know, he can, because all he needs to refresh is a few minutes between battles at worst?




Your statement was that a single fighter feat _could not possibly equal_ a single mid-level martial adept maneuver. You were comparing _a single feat_ to _a single maneuver_, and you criticize me for comparing a single feat to a single maneuver? Amusing. The *only* criterions you gave were "*a* single fighter feat" and "*a* mid-level maneuver". 



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Andy Collins confirmed that the "full-attack" option is gone. Since full-attack was the only way to get your iterative attacks, this would lead one to believe that they're gone, especially in light of Saga being a "significant preview."




Thanks.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Your statement was that a single fighter feat _could not possibly equal_ a single mid-level martial adept maneuver. You were comparing _a single feat_ to _a single maneuver_, and you criticize me for comparing a single feat to a single maneuver? Amusing. The *only* criterions you gave were "*a* single fighter feat" and "*a* mid-level maneuver".



Sorry, full attacking for four rounds straight after a charge does not qualify as "equal" in ANY practical execution of D&D combat. Again, apples and oranges.



> Thanks. Though, I find it amusing that Darth Cyric was speculating and didn't actually have a source.



Guess you didn't read Races and Classes then, which confirmed the elimination of 3.x-style BAB.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Guess you didn't read Races and Classes then, which confirmed the elimination of 3.x-style BAB.




This is true, as well. All BAB/Defense/Skills/Ability-To-Touch-Your-Toes is now on a standardized progression for all classes, with the implication that certain classes will get bonuses to appropriate progressions (like fighters get bonus to attack).


----------



## Zurai (Jan 5, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Sorry, full attacking for four rounds straight after a charge does not qualify as "equal" in ANY practical execution of D&D combat. Again, apples and oranges.




Your objection was that the martial adept could use multiple maneuvers in multiple rounds. Well, fine, my fighter can use multiple feats then. 5 rounds of combat, so 5 maneuvers if possible and 5 feats. Same Androsphinx from before. We'll assume a flank buddy for both characters after round 1, to be even. This time, though, I'll calculate in crits as well. Deal?

Fighter: Weapon Spec, Melee Weapon Mastery, Power Attack, Vexing Flanker, Improved Critical.  We'll convert all of the bonus to-hit from feats and flanking into Power Attack damage. That gives us a charge at +19, 4 attacks at +17, and 4 attacks at +12, for the same 6.3 expected hits from before.  There are 1.26 expected critical threats on an average attack bonus of +15; that's an average of 0.882 confirmed criticals (half of which are because of Improved Critical). Totalling the bonus damage from our feats, then, we have (6.3*2) from Weapon Spec, (6.3*2) from MWM, (5.4*12 + 0.9*4) from Power Attack, and ((0.882 * (2d6+19))/2) from Improved Critical. That's a total added damage of 105.066.

Warblade: Oh, wait, I can only use 4 maneuvers in 5 rounds at level 9. My 4 maneuvers are Elder Mountain Hammer, Death From Above, White Raven Strike, and Bonecrusher. That's one maneuver at +17, three at +19, and a +19/+14 full attack to recover maneuvers. We'll use our least damaging maneuver (WRS) on the +17. +19 is a 90% chance to hit, while +17 is an 80% chance to hit. (0.9 * 6d6) + (0.9 * 4d6)*2 + (0.8 * 4d6) + two baseline no damage added attacks is a total yield of 42.7 average "extra" damage. But wait! The Warblade _gave up attacking three times at +14 to make those extra damage attacks_! That's 27.3 expected damage, meaning the Warblade's maneuvers only gained him 15.4 damage overall. Crits are irrelevant for the warblade, because maneuvers are not multiplied on a crit, and I already factored out the "normal" greatsword crit damage from the Fighter's results.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

Anyway...


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> This kind of rhetoric doesn't correspond to my experience playing fighters or fighter types at all--nor to my experience of what skilled players do with fighting characters. (Note that I don't say fighters not because fighters are a lame class, but rather because, IME, single class fighters are quite rare among the PCs I see when I run and play games. Some of the characters people play have more options than fighters, probably half of them have fewer tactical manuever style options than single classed fighters of the same level might have (multiclassing with barbarian will do that), but in any event using the single classed fighter to represent all melee combatants in D&D 3.x would be wildly inaccurate).
> 
> I attack and manuever to be able to pull off my Rhino's Rush charge into a spot adjacent to two enemies, one of whom is injured so I'll be able to cleave into the other.
> 
> ...



While not ALL melee combat involves full attack x infinity, a lot of the examples you gave were rather situational, and they only stressed further how much more the non-ToB melee classes were reliant on others to be able to stand on their feet. For example, how many parties are going to have a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin AND a Cleric, or more than two other characters that can hit hard enough, without a Sneak Attack, in melee to make Bullrushing an enemy into their threatened areas truly worth it?

Sadly, a lot of the feats and abilities do not scale very well with levels. As for some of the spells you mentioned (Rhino's Rush, Knight's Move, Find the Gap, etc.), yes, those are very powerful Paladin spells. It's too bad that even at Lv. 20 he only gets to cast those a couple times a day at best. He'll nova to better than a Fighter for two encounters in the day, at most, and then quickly become a featless Fighter with more than likely a mediocre Strength score. And the Fighter as a class, feats and all, didn't look pretty to begin with.

No wonder the Warblade and Crusader are considered what the Fighter and Paladin, respectively, should have been. Looks like they got the hint for 4e.


----------



## GnomeIllusionist (Jan 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Weapon Specialization will, on average, add as much or more damage damage per 5-round fight than a 5th level Martial Adept maneuver.



Zurai, I completely disagree with your comparison.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Compare a str 20 level 9 fighter with a +2 greatsword and WS: greatsword to a dex 20 level 9 swordsage with a +2 shortsword and Elder Mountain Hammer, both fighting an Androsphinx (CR 9).



This setup seems arbitrary. I agree with the fighter but why a Swordsage, why Dexterity 20 and why a Shortsword? Let's look at some other scenarios.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> Fighter has a charge at +19 on the first round and attacks at +17/+12 for the remaining 4 rounds. He hits an average of 6.3 times for 12.6 added damage from Weapon Specialization.
> 
> Swordsage has a standard attack at +13 which hits 60% of the time for +6d6 damage and then is used up for the remainder of the combat. 60% of 6d6 averages to, amazingly, 12.6.
> 
> And that's just Weapon Specialization. Melee Weapon Mastery is significantly better (14.3 added damage), especially when combined with the obvious choice, Power Attack (MWM + PA for 2 = 37.8 expected extra damage).



I have not checked your calculations but I trust they are correct. They are the same additional damage. I find it far more likely that the Swordsage will have four more maneuvers to use in an encounter than the Fighter is to find four more useful feats that keep them even or give him the advantage.

Same Fighter, although I don't see how your getting +17/+12 - it should be +16/+11 by my reckoning unless you are counting Weapon Focus which is unfair in a feat vs. maneuver comparison.
Same encounter as the one you proposed.
A level 9 Warblade with 20 Str, a +2 Greatsword, +16/+11 attack bonus, using Elder Mountain Hammer.

The Fighter lands an average 6.3 attacks (charge first round at +19 then full-attack at +17/+12 for four rounds) dealing an extra 12.6 damage.
The Warblade lands an average 5.75 attacks (maneuver first round at +16 then full-attack at +16/+11 for four rounds) dealing an extra 15.75 damage.

This is counting two feats (Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization) for the Fighter. And, because Elder Mountain Hammer negates DR on that hit it swings it even more in favor towards the Warblade against an opponent with DR (which many monsters do that those levels).

This doesn't include the Warblade refreshing on rounds two and four which would deal 47.25 extra damage. A Crusader or Swordsage with the same weapon, stats and maneuver would do exactly the same. If we compare a Fighter with Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization (4 feats) to a Crusader with one extra maneuver (Doom Charge) we get:

Fighter average 6.75 attacks, 27 extra damage.
Crusader average 5.35 attacks, 33.6 extra damage.

I am sure there are feats that would add more extra damage than a single maneuver when measured in this way, but they would be more complex to compare because of additional factors. The 'classic' Fighter feats certainly aren't more powerful than maneuvers, though. And feats are a Fighters only class feature.

EDIT: I started typing my post before I saw the last few, sorry. Zurai, your post with the five feats and five maneuvers is interesting and is what I meant by it being more complex to compare other feats. A Fighter certainly can out-damage a Warblade but it requires more optimization and circumstances in my opinion and experience.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 5, 2008)

Yes, I included WF for the fighter AND the swordsage. Fighter because it's a pre-req for Weapon Specialization, Swordsage because they get it as a bonus feat. I gave the SwS 20 dex so it could equal the to-hit from the fighter's strength (I've never seen a full-strength swordsage, although one could of course exist) using Weapon Finesse. Honestly though, since I included it for both characters and didn't use Power Attack in the initial example, it's pretty much irrelevant.

Yes, comparing full builds is a much more complex deal. That's why I took Darth Cyric at his word and compared a single feat to a single maneuver. Don't forget that if the Swordsage recovers his Elder Mountain Hammer, he forfeits an entire round to do so, including movement and both attacks. That easily negates any added damage from refreshing the maneuver. Again, Darth Cyric *did not make the claim that a Warblade could beat a Fighter in added damage*. He claimed that a single Fighter feat could not even come close to the added damage from a mid-level maneuver. Which I disproved. He wasn't talking about _classes_, he was talking about _maneuvers_. Since Swordsages are THE premier maneuver-based class, I feel the comparison is quite valid in the context of Darth Cyric's mistaken claim.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Yes, I included WF for the fighter AND the swordsage. Fighter because it's a pre-req for Weapon Specialization, Swordsage because they get it as a bonus feat. I gave the SwS 20 dex so it could equal the to-hit from the fighter's strength (I've never seen a full-strength swordsage, although one could of course exist) using Weapon Finesse. Honestly though, since I included it for both characters and didn't use Power Attack in the initial example, it's pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> Yes, comparing full builds is a much more complex deal. That's why I took Darth Cyric at his word and compared a single feat to a single maneuver. Don't forget that if the Swordsage recovers his Elder Mountain Hammer, he forfeits an entire round to do so, including movement and both attacks. That easily negates any added damage from refreshing the maneuver. Again, Darth Cyric *did not make the claim that a Warblade could beat a Fighter in added damage*. He claimed that a single Fighter feat could not even come close to the added damage from a mid-level maneuver. Which I disproved. He wasn't talking about _classes_, he was talking about _maneuvers_. Since Swordsages are THE premier maneuver-based class, I feel the comparison is quite valid in the context of Darth Cyric's mistaken claim.



And the point of all that was? As pointed out already, a Warblade refreshing between uses of EMH will do damage, unlike the Swordsage, and then the disparity becomes even greater.

You also ignored stances. Punishing Stance's (a 1st level stance!) average damage is 3.5, which alone comes pretty close to matching Weapon Spec and Melee Weapon Mastery combined.

Also, a little secret. The best maneuvers aren't strictly about the damage anyway. And, quite frankly, a Warblade who selected, much less prepared all of the four maneuvers you chose for your example deserves to die.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 5, 2008)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Jujitsu, judo, akido ... definitely not anime derived, no conmnection whatsoever




Er, not really. 

You'd be hardpressed to find a shonen anime where the characters utilize judo/akido/throws. Pressure-point attacks, Yes. Brick-smashing punches? Certainly. But one based on using body leverage? Only one I can think of is Grappler Baki and even there, it isn't the main character (Baki) that uses judo.

re: Feats vs Manoeuvers.
I think the main difference is that Feats can be combined for one attack. With the number of splatbooks around, you can combine a chain of feats into one single devastating attack. The typical one-trick pony.

With manoeuvers, the self-limitation on actions means that there is an inherent limit as to how powerful manoeuvers can become.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me. I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap, but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.




Agreed.  I expect some bending of the laws of physics.  I'd prefer if they weren't broken, though.

Put another way, anything a martial character can do should be no more than an exaggeration of real life -- bigger jumps, harder hits, more endurance, greater feats of strength, etc.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Warbringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please guys, it's "aikido", not "akido".


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 5, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I expect some bending of the laws of physics.  I'd prefer if they weren't broken, though.
> 
> Put another way, anything a martial character can do should be no more than an exaggeration of real life -- bigger jumps, harder hits, more endurance, greater feats of strength, etc.



Yeah, I know.  This is the general opinion of most people it seems.  The only way to wield magic is casting a spell or having an item enchanted with a spell.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with a person concentrating for a moment and channeling magic through themselves to make themselves as light as air for a short while.  They use magic, but they don't cast spells and they aren't "magic users".  These are the characters that the Bo9S creates the most easily.

Then again most of my D&D worlds have more than just "magic" as a power source.  There might be Ki, psionics, incarnum, shadow, truenaming, pacts, etc.  They all might have different rules, let you do different things and might not all be "magic".  Ki might be useful for making large jumps but not allow you to change shape.  It might not be restricted by antimagic fields since it isn't actually magic.

To me its more complicated than a yes/no question.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 5, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I expect some bending of the laws of physics.  I'd prefer if they weren't broken, though.
> 
> Put another way, anything a martial character can do should be no more than an exaggeration of real life -- bigger jumps, harder hits, more endurance, greater feats of strength, etc.




Valid concept of what a fighter should be Mercule. Basically, if I'm reading you correctly, what a 20th level fighter is capable of is just what a 1st level fighter can do but just better/easier.

My problem with it though is that said fighter is supposed to exist with MU as valid player character classes. A 20th level MU in 1E/2E/3E not only does what a 1st level mage can do and better (1st level spells are more powerful when cast by a 20th level mage versus a 1st level mage) but they also gain HUGE and ENTIRELY new class features (the 20th level mage can fly, turn invisible, etc. All stuff that looking at the 1st level mage you can't extrapolate from)

This has always been D&D's problem and I'm interested to see if the 4E designers can solve this aspect.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 5, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Another piece of anecdotal evidence... My group consist of 6 people, and among us, we have 3 PHBs, 2 MMs, 2 DMGs, and 6 copies of Bo9S.




FWIW our group of 6 has 6 PHB, 4 DMG, 4 MM, 1 Bo9S.

IMC there is 1 Bo9S character out of 5 PCs a Crusader lvl 3.

He out damages the two other melee classes and the wizard, and out heals the cleric. Perhaps things will balance out at higher levels but at levels 2 and 3 he really stands out. That being said no one really seems to mind as far as I can tell.


----------



## Will (Jan 5, 2008)

Flipping through Bo9S again, I think my biggest complaint is that it's TOO different.

Almost every single detail about each class is utterly, utterly different from everything else in the entire system. It's sort of like learning a completely new game.

That causes several problems:
It'll take me a while to really absorb and grasp the rules. And then I might find I don't like it or can't integrate it with everything else I'm doing.
I can't figure out what's balanced and what isn't.
I don't know what choices are good ones.
I have no idea what it's going to synergize with and not.

I'd love options like Bo9S for fighters that remained a little closer to the actual system. For example, I've been thinking that fighters' biggest problem is the lack of level-dependent effects (other than ... 3 feats?).

Having read Bo9S, I'd rather have something along the lines of: fighters have maneuvers based on level, perhaps a more limited number. Maneuvers are fighter feats, not a new thing.

So, suddenly realize Bull Rush would be really handy? Use your fighter 'martial training' to use it...


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Jan 5, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> FWIW our group of 6 has 6 PHB, 4 DMG, 4 MM, 1 Bo9S.
> 
> IMC there is 1 Bo9S character out of 5 PCs a Crusader lvl 3.
> 
> He out damages the two other melee classes and the wizard, and out heals the cleric. Perhaps things will balance out at higher levels but at levels 2 and 3 he really stands out. That being said no one really seems to mind as far as I can tell.




Having run a Crusader at level 13 they seem fairly balanced at that level depending on what the rest of the party looks like.

Probably the strongest thing is the Stone Dragon power chain that lets you ignore DR and Hardness.

But with our Cleric providing Fast Heal 5, and the Crusader triggering healing effects there was a shortage of complaints at the table last session when the Fighter got to the end of the combat (having rolled some 21 attacks vs the Crusader's 3) and everyone was fully healed.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 5, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For "martial" characters? Yeah, some of them (Shadowhand, Desert Wind) are a little over-the-top.





I dont really think the swordsage was ever intended to be "martial" in the mundane sense, but rather the hand to hand combatant sense. He's a blade mage, gish, sword mage, bladesinger etc... whatever you want to call him. He blends magic and swordplay into a cohesive whole, much like the duskblade does. He does what you'd want a more fighter oriented fighter mage to do... use his magic to increase his melee combat abilities. He's not some normal dude who likes swords so much they burst into flame. I'm perfectly fine with that distinction.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 5, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> FWIW our group of 6 has 6 PHB, 4 DMG, 4 MM, 1 Bo9S.
> 
> IMC there is 1 Bo9S character out of 5 PCs a Crusader lvl 3.
> 
> He out damages the two other melee classes and the wizard, and out heals the cleric. Perhaps things will balance out at higher levels but at levels 2 and 3 he really stands out. That being said no one really seems to mind as far as I can tell.



Wow...someone is playing that crusader wrong if he is doing that well.  I've played a crusader for a while.  At that level the ability to heal for 1d8+3 is about the best you're going to get.  And you can only do it once every 3 or 4(don't have the book with me) rounds.  I don't know if he'd be high enough level for the stance that heals people, but if so they might be able to heal another 6 points in 3 rounds.

The cleric should be able to cast a 2d8+3 heal every round for at least 3 rounds.  At least.  They probably should have Augment healing for another 4 points of healing each round.

Out damaging a melee characters and Wizard?  No offense, but how?  A Barbarian with 18 strength who rages with a greatsword should be doing at least 2d6+9 damage per hit for an average of 16 points of damage per round.

A Crusader with 18 strength(which is pushing it considering they need charisma pretty badly) and a greatsword can do 2d6+6 damage per round and (I think) an extra 3d6 once every 3 or 4 rounds.  Which is almost identical damage to the above Barbarian.  It's just that he does less damage in 2 rounds and more in 1 round.  Also, due to the randomness of his powers he may not be able to use the power that does extra damage at all before the combat is over.

A Wizard at 3rd level should be able to do a guaranteed 7 damage per attack with magic missiles(if you assume the above characters are hitting 50% of the time, then this is nearly the same damage as them).  Wizards start out fairly low damage and don't start ramping up until level 5 or so, so they will be weaker at this level in exchange for all of their other benefits.  However, they hit with their attacks way more often since they are using touch attacks and attacks that don't require attack rolls.

I admit that if you take a stock crusader with low stats, like a 12 strength and a fighter with 12 strength and both take useless feats he'll outperform the fighter almost every time.  Trust me, this has a lot less to do with the power of the Crusader than the weakness of the fighter.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 5, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Hrmm... are you sure you're using it right? I play a swordsage in a friends campaign and haven't found it to be unbalanced. Does about rhe same amoutn of damage as the average melee fighter




My campaign is 3.0; I officially started it the month after the 3.0 DMG & MM came out.  The players were building characters for use in 1-shots the week after GenCon when we came back with PHBs.  

The biggest problem with balance is the "dip" factor when you have developed characters.  My PCs were 20th level.   If they took their 21st level as, say, Warblade, they are an 11th level Initiator (20/2 + 1) with access to 6th level maneuvers.  *THAT* is a lot of power to suddenly give a character.

Even if they'd been 10th, they would have had access to 3rd level maneuvers, which includes fun things like Tactics of the Wolf and White Raven Tactics.  Compare that the 11th level of any class. 

I'm fine with the Bo9S classes vs. the casters.  I'm even more fine with Bo9S vs. Warlocks.  The secondary campaign that I run when players can't make the game but I don't want to cancel is a "no spell slots/day or psipoints/day" game that from what I can tell is exactly where 4e is going.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

ShadeyDM said:
			
		

> He out damages the two other melee classes and the wizard, and out heals the cleric.




Now, a crusader WILL out-heal the cleric if he's using his revitalizing strike illegally; but it's got to be against an actual threat, of a different alignment than you. And even then, it's only 1d6+3 points of healing. Against an actual cleric, he won't heal as often, and plus people are getting hurt all the while he's "healing" someone.

As for damage, at level 3 he's got some pretty good options -- say, greatsword + mountain hammer, which not only basically doubles your damage but ignores DR. But again, it's only once per 4 rounds on average (every other round if he has adaptive study feat). But double damage every other round equals out to what he would have been doing anyway.

However, the fighters can't move and deal 60 damage in one shot, the way a crusader can (divine surge), nor can they easily pick up tricks from other repertoires like teleporting across a room or making targets explode with flame when hit.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> They use magic, but they don't cast spells and they aren't "magic users". These are the characters that the Bo9S creates the most easily.




...except that two-thirds of the maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords are listed as extraordinary, and DON'T use magic, even stuff like Shadow Jaunt, Divine Surge, and Bonecrusher. If there's one big failing for Bo9S, it's a need to re-categorize some of those maneuvers as supernatural that just aren't, not even in errata.



			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> The biggest problem with balance is the "dip" factor when you have developed characters.




I agree here, too. People in our games were taking Martial Study and Martial Stance feats, especially fighters and fighter-types, because it just flat out beat most other feats they considered. Even the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers were so useful that people wanted them like crazy. You want to teleport 50 feet once per battle for the cost of a feat? GO for it! You want to have at least one strike in a battle that can ignore all DR and hardness? take the feat! You want a stance that gives you an extra d6 per hit for a minor cost? martial stance, baby!


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 5, 2008)

kigmatzomat: Keep in mind that nearly all maneuvers have prerequisites.  And warblades get the fewest maneuvers known/readied of anyone.  Sure, the guy might become an 11th-level initiator suddenly, but he'll have to waste probably all but 1 of his maneuvers known just on learning the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers needed to qualify for the single 6th-level maneuver he wants.

Say he wants Greater Insightful Strike as a 6th-level maneuver.  With his 1 level of warblade, he can just barely manage this.  Learn Stance of Clarity and Moment of Perfect Mind, and that'll qualify him, then he has 1 maneuver left to choose; it might be Ruby Nightmare Blade, but he'll still be spending his turn initiating one of these in combat rather than unleashing a full-attack action.  And a high-level warrior can do an awful lot of damage with a full-attack.

Anyone who can't is probably still not going to be as awesome in melee, even after learning these handy maneuvers (which would basically just be people like bards, wizards, and non-core classes that highly resemble them; just about anyone else could make a powerful full-attack with just one or two spells active, or a wild shape, if nothing else).  And those few who couldn't do so would probably just be better off casting a spell than trying to attack someone physically with maneuvers (in other words, gaining those nice but not awesome maneuvers won't make an appreciable difference in their power, because they'll probably already have an option available that is superior given their general abilities.

A barbarian power-attacking at 21st-level in a rage might deal moderately less damage than a Greater Insightful Strike if he just makes a single attack, but if he full-attacks, he can probably guarantee hitting twice or more, which will deal more damage than the GIS.  The barbarian will be using a magic weapon with bonuses and extra damage, whereas the GIS guy will only deal the damage dictated by his Greater Insightful Strike, impressive though it may be.  The barbarian will outdamage him.  The rogue would be better off full-attacking while flanking and sneak attacking.  The wizard would be better off casting a Quickened Maximized Magic Missile and a Twinned Maximized Magic Missile in the same round, or just casting Horrid Wilting or an Empowered Cone of Cold.  Etc.


Majoru:

Actually, the crusader would heal 1d6+5 damage once per 3-5 rounds, and heal 2 damage on each other round.  Martial Spirit is the 1st-level stance that heals 2 HP for the initiator or a nearby ally each time the initiator hits someone in melee, and Crusader's Strike would heal 1d6+3 at 3rd-level.

My experience with a 1st-level to 2nd-level crusader was that he wasn't as useful at healing as a proper Cleric would've been, especially since he could only heal people with violence, in, y'know, combat against real foes (the healing maneuvers and stance tend to be rather specific about who you hit to get the healing, merely slapping your harmless buddy probably won't cut it).


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> If there's one big failing for Bo9S, it's a need to re-categorize some of those maneuvers as supernatural that just aren't, not even in errata.



I'm hoping that the categorizations of "Extraordinary", "Supernatural", "Spell-Like", and "Spell" will just all go away, and instead powers will be categorized by source: "Martial", "Arcane", "Divine", and, eventually, "Psionic".  Whether something is 'magic' or not won't really matter.  This would require dispel-type effects to take a backseat, or become similarly based on source: 'Dispel Magic' would become 'Dispel Arcana' or somesuch.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I don't have any problem with a person concentrating for a moment and channeling magic through themselves to make themselves as light as air for a short while.  They use magic, but they don't cast spells and they aren't "magic users".




You misunderstand.  I don't have any issue with there being people who use magic without spells or even through their weapons or bodies.  Those are still mystic characters, though, not martial (okay, if they fight, they're martial, but that definition includes even the warmage).

Also, if it uses magic, it's a "magic user".  It may not be a wizard, though.

As I said, I don't have an issue with mystic warriors.  It certainly isn't the only archetype for fantasy warriors.  It also isn't the one I want to play.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Valid concept of what a fighter should be Mercule. Basically, if I'm reading you correctly, what a 20th level fighter is capable of is just what a 1st level fighter can do but just better/easier.
> 
> My problem with it though is that said fighter is supposed to exist with MU as valid player character classes. A 20th level MU in 1E/2E/3E not only does what a 1st level mage can do and better (1st level spells are more powerful when cast by a 20th level mage versus a 1st level mage) but they also gain HUGE and ENTIRELY new class features (the 20th level mage can fly, turn invisible, etc. All stuff that looking at the 1st level mage you can't extrapolate from)
> 
> This has always been D&D's problem and I'm interested to see if the 4E designers can solve this aspect.




Agreed.  The balance can be an issue -- and one I'd like to see solved without removing the flavor of either the fighter or the wizard.

I really want to be able to play a Conanesque character, who can actually be victorious over an ancient necromancer or powerful, dark cultist through force of arms and skill.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2008)

I think that the problem with this, though, is that in the current game, such characters require heaps of magical trinkets to be effective, which is as far from the classic S&S genre as is the levitating long-jumping flame-bladed fighter. Really, the only d20 games in which I've seen the divide evened out are the ones that radically reduce the magic-user's power (e.g. OGL Conan) or that radically increase the overall staying power and diversity of abilities of the fighter-types (Iron Heroes).


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me. I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap, but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.



Well, the thing about all the examples you've listed is that for the most part, they depict folks who are, in the 4e context, "heroic tier" characters. 

But I think you've hit on something. IMO, the trick with martial characters is to make the *depiction* of the ability somewhat quasi-believable, but the *mechanical effect* of the ability scale up in line with the flashier spells. Zhang Yimou's martial-arts films seem to provide nice examples of this; in _Hero_, for instance, heroes knock flights of hundreds of arrows out of the air, barrel through an entire army on their way to defeat a king, and move so dizzingly fast that time itself seems to slow down, but it all feels like the product of some great skill rather than a flashy arcane physics-breaking effect. Ditto with House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (at least IMO). Those are the sorts of moves I think of when imagining high-level fighters.


----------



## Goblyn (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me.* I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap,* but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.




Emphasis mine. I'm not sure about slapping arrows out of the air, but 'running' up walls a few steps and making 20-foot leaps are not reality bending at all. Look up 'parkour' and 'hapkido'.


----------



## Seule (Jan 5, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this.  Could this be a strawfighter?




If course it'sa a strawfighter, particularly for some edge case fighters (like spiked chain wielders). On the other hand, against large monsters rather than other humanoids, the options of the fighter drop drastically to a very few good options.
As others say, basically you can attack for damage, or you can try control (trip, grapple, disarm, sunder). Those control options all require feat investment, and all don't work on large or larger critter-types.
On the other hand, playing a fighter tactically isn't that simple, as where you ove to and why can be critically important, but you are still pretty much full attacking for damage, or moving and single attacking, much of the time.
Using Bo9S isn't like that nearly as much. Your maneuvers give you interesting options, and trying to guage when each is best to use is a minigame itself. I'm not saying that fighters aren't fun to play (I have an 11th level straight fighter in one game), just that my warblade is more fun, by a wide margin, for me.

  --Seule


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2008)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine. I'm not sure about slapping arrows out of the air, but 'running' up walls a few steps and making 20-foot leaps are not reality bending at all. Look up 'parkour' and 'hapkido'.




In plate mail. While winded. while carrying a longsword and a shield. 



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Well, the thing about all the examples you've listed is that for the most part, they depict folks who are, in the 4e context, "heroic tier" characters.




I have no clue, but if they give 1st level characters the kinds of things they've given 1st level Star Wars Saga characters, then they'll be over-the-top heroic at 1st level. And Dragonslayer's protagonist was a normal joe, more of a charlatan, protected by a good shield and a magic charm. Another good example for me: The Musketeer, with Justin Chambers. It did use Wuxia-style moves in its fight scenes, but not so over the top that I lost all suspension of disbelief. There was fighting on barrels, and prodigious leaps, but no running on flying bullets or leaping 30 feet to the top of a wall in one bound.



> But I think you've hit on something. IMO, the trick with martial characters is to make the *depiction* of the ability somewhat quasi-believable, but the *mechanical effect* of the ability scale up in line with the flashier spells. Zhang Yimou's martial-arts films seem to provide nice examples of this; in Hero, for instance, heroes knock flights of hundreds of arrows out of the air, barrel through an entire army on their way to defeat a king, and move so dizzingly fast that time itself seems to slow down, but it all feels like the product of some great skill rather than a flashy arcane physics-breaking effect. Ditto with House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (at least IMO). Those are the sorts of moves I think of when imagining high-level fighters.




I couldn't stand Hero for those exact scenes. By the time they got to defending a bunch of scribes who could write really pretty calligraphy by deflecting ten thousand arrows a second from the rooftops, I had to turn it off. For me, that's just too far into "magic" territory for me. Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> In plate mail. While winded. while carrying a longsword and a shield.



Probably not in plate mail, because jumping off the wall 20 feet is obviously a Rogue ability.  So it's more like doing it in leather armor while carrying a rapier and dagger.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 5, 2008)

The thing is once a martial character gets to be really high-level, epic-level perhaps they're going to be doing things in myths like what Cúchulainn, Hercules, Beowulf and Guan Yu were described as doing.  Such as taking a swim in the ocean while wearing armor, killing every sea monster and fish along the way.  Toppling a building with bare hands (Samson) was described as a feat that martial characters could do in Races & Classes.

At a level where wizards call down meteors to strike their enemies, a fighter armed with a warhammer should be able to hit all enemies within 10 feet and send them all flying 30 feet back and prone on the ground.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I have no clue, but if they give 1st level characters the kinds of things they've given 1st level Star Wars Saga characters, then they'll be over-the-top heroic at 1st level.
> ...
> I couldn't stand Hero for those exact scenes. By the time they got to defending a bunch of scribes who could write really pretty calligraphy by deflecting ten thousand arrows a second from the rooftops, I had to turn it off. For me, that's just too far into "magic" territory for me. Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.



You and I probably have very different visions of what fantasy gaming should look like, then. Those scenes are far more subtle in their visual depiction than the stuff in, say, Beowulf (which couldn't even have been done using real people + special effects), and I'd tend to see walloping giant sea monsters and ripping trolls' arms off as essential to D&D martial feats.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 5, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> The thing is once a martial character gets to be really high-level, epic-level perhaps they're going to be doing things in myths like what Cúchulainn, Hercules, Beowulf and Guan Yu were described as doing.  Such as taking a swim in the ocean while wearing armor, killing every sea monster and fish along the way.  Toppling a building with bare hands (Samson) was described as a feat that martial characters could do in Races & Classes.




The high level fighters in my 3.5 game can do this stuff.  (Well, maybe just one for the Samson thing, but I don't think a party should be full of that type anyway.)



> At a level where wizards call down meteors to strike their enemies, a fighter armed with a warhammer should be able to hit all enemies within 10 feet and send them all flying 30 feet back and prone on the ground.



Since this seems to obviously apply to mooks, the only requirement would be dramatic description from the DM on the flying 30 feet part.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I couldn't stand Hero for those exact scenes. By the time they got to defending a bunch of scribes who could write really pretty calligraphy by deflecting ten thousand arrows a second from the rooftops, I had to turn it off. For me, that's just too far into "magic" territory for me. Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.




I haven't seen the movie, but it doesn't sound like I'd like it much, either.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.




I find this kinda odd. You sat down to watch a Wuxia movie, then you were surprised when it started doing what Wuxia movies do?

Kinda reminds me of all those parents that took their small children to see the South Park movie, and then were surprised that an R-Rated cartoon was profane (well, except for the fact that you might not have known it was a Wuxia movie, while anyone who didn't know South Park was R-rated and brought a small child was a fool).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I have no clue, but if they give 1st level characters the kinds of things they've given 1st level Star Wars Saga characters, then they'll be over-the-top heroic at 1st level.




What you call "over-the-top" heroic, I call "don't-get-killed-by-a-single-attack-by-a-one-eyed-goblin" heroic.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I couldn't stand Hero for those exact scenes. By the time they got to defending a bunch of scribes who could write really pretty calligraphy by deflecting ten thousand arrows a second from the rooftops, I had to turn it off. For me, that's just too far into "magic" territory for me. Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.



A YouTube video featuring that scene is right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj368oN3Ix8

...and I'm really finding it hard to understand how what's going on there is excessively "magical" looking (other than the flying-ish way in which Jet Li and Maggie Cheung jump to the roof, which easily could have been done with a standard jump in a non-wuxia film) or beyond the expected capabilities of a Western mythic hero.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> What you call "over-the-top" heroic, I call "don't-get-killed-by-a-single-attack-by-a-one-eyed-goblin" heroic.




Apples and Oranges comparison.

Henry is talking about non-plausible martial mega-powers at first level. Like swinging an axe and having 5 NPCs fly back 30 feet through the air and falling prone. Or healing an ally without using magic. Or forcing enemies to attack him as opposed to the Wizard with the opponents not having any sort of Will Save against it.

There is nothing wrong with first level Fighter types having special abililties.

It's when those special abilities are outside the norm of real world physics at first level where the suspend disbelief problems come in. Introduction of really amazing (i.e. outside the laws of real world physics) abillities should be very gradual and gained at much higher levels, not right away.

Sure, a 30th level Fighter jumping 15 feet up a wall is fine (at least for some of us, note: I do not even think of this as him jumping 15 feet straight up like in a Wuxia movie, instead I think of it like a Jackie Chan movie where he bounces from wall to wall up the wall, and on the last bounce, pulls himself up with one hand with his super strength at that level to stand on the wall).

But, jumping straight up 15 feet is not DND for a first level Fighter. It's unrealistic. It's not the flavor of DND.

Henry's point has nothing to do "killed by a single attack".

As for Wuxia, I do not want Wuxia in DND. That is not DND. It's Wuxia. If one wants to Fly in DND, they should have to use some form of magic.

My favorite Wuxia example was from "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon". After my friends and I went to see it, my one friend said "I didn't know that they filmed this on the moon."

It's a perfect example. Even Wuxia is getting so stupidly fantastical and nonsensical that it is getting hard to enjoy. As Henry did, I felt the same way about Hero. It gets so far out into left field (with each director trying to outshine the previous ones) that parts of the film are beyond enjoyment outside of silly parody at this point. Might as well watch a Roadrunner comic. At least people can tell that Kung Fu Hustle was a parody. Some Wuxia movies these days are a parody (intentionally or not) and people cannot tell the difference.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> ...and I'm really finding it hard to understand how what's going on there is excessively "magical" looking (other than the flying-ish way in which Jet Li and Maggie Cheung jump to the roof, which easily could have been done with a standard jump in a non-wuxia film) or beyond the expected capabilities of a Western mythic hero.




Hard to understand? You're kidding, right?

Stopping dozens of arrows with a wave of silk over and over again does not appear magical?

Stopping about 50 arrows about to hit all over his body without even waving his sword as if they hit a force wall does not appear magical?

If your great great grandfather (who never saw the fantastical levels of film entertainment that we get to see and did not understand computer graphics) saw this, he would be stunned and think it magical looking.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 6, 2008)

Put that in context, please. Pose the question as "legendary feat of martial arts" vs. "magic" and think about how that answer might come out.

This is your great grandfather who read the Iliad, Beowulf, and perhaps ER Eddison's Worm Ouroborous? 

Yeah, he'd think the special effects are "magical," but the actual deeds might simply seem "heroic."

Also, where did the "did not even wave his sword" thing come from? Are you watching the same video I am?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Put that in context, please.
> 
> This is your great grandfather who read the Iliad, Beowulf, and perhaps ER Eddison's Worm Ouroborous?
> 
> Yeah, he'd think the special effects are "magical," but the actual deeds might simply seem "heroic."




We are talking the abilities here.

His idea of heroic deeds or abilities would be Conan's or Doc Savage's (i.e. within the realm of possible), not Jet Li Magic Boy's (i.e. within the realm of fantastical beyond belief). At that level, it's called magic (or even superheroic). As are some of Beowulf's deeds.

Look up the definition of magic. It's all about supernatural abilities. In other words, abilities BEYOND NATURAL. If you consider Wuxia abilities not beyond natural, you have an unusual definition of that word. They are supernatural (i.e. magical) all the way.



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Also, where did the "did not even wave his sword" thing come from? Are you watching the same video I am?




Yes, watch carefully. When he gets on the roof, there is one scene where he just stands there and hardly moves his sword at all and about 50 arrows "bounce off" with nothing deflecting them.

In fact, there are quite a few scenes where arrows bounce away without the sword (or her silk) getting near them.


----------



## Benimoto (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Look up the definition of magic. It's all about supernatural abilities. In other words, abilities BEYOND NATURAL. If you consider Wuxia abilities not beyond natural, you have an unusual definition of that word. They are supernatural (i.e. magical) all the way.



I don't know that that's necessarily true.  The whole idea behind the wuxia thing is that by studying martial arts a long time, you might refine your techniques to such a degree that you do things that are impossible for the untrained.

There's nothing explicitly magical about them, usually.  The character doesn't have a wizard cast a spell on them, despite the fact there there are usually wizards in the stories as well.  If you define magic as everything beyond natural then I think you're casting too wide a net.

Plus, where do you draw the line?  In some versions of the Arthurian legend, Excalibur was so strong that by the end of the story Arthur is cutting people in half directly through their helmet and armor.  Is that wuxia, or is it just because Arthur has a magical sword?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Look up the definition of magic. It's all about supernatural abilities. In other words, abilities BEYOND NATURAL. If you consider Wuxia abilities not beyond natural, you have an unusual definition of that word. They are supernatural (i.e. magical) all the way.




Okay, what about this? Can a normal person break stone, rock, or wooden beams by smacking them with their bare hands? Can they break an iron bar on their heads? Can they support their body on six spear points without them piercing their skin? Most people would say "no, they can't."

But Kung Fu masters in _the real world_ can do all of these things. These are seemingly supernatural feats which can be demonstrated today.

Ponder that.

And as far as european myths being limited to "realistic" leaps goes, I could bring up Cu Chullain's "salmon leap," but that seems too easy...

I think it's largely a matter of flavor. It'll be interesting to see what abilities "martial" characters get, and at what levels.

You can find some info about a trick archer named Howard Hill from the 1930s & '40s who could accomplish feats most people would find hard to swallow - shooting quarters out of mid-air at 30 paces, cutting strings with his arrows, and so forth. That's obviously not supernatural, but it's really flipping impressive.

The video is "Cavalcade of Archery" (1945), which is included on the recently released 2-disc special edition of _The Adventures of Robin Hood_ (1938). Hill performed the brillian arrow stunts in the movie, which is why he's on the disc.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Henry is talking about non-plausible martial mega-powers at first level.




Oh, that's funny, because I thought he was talking about Star Wars Saga Edition 1st-level characters, like he said in what I quoted.



> Like swinging an axe and having 5 NPCs fly back 30 feet through the air and falling prone.




A first level Saga character cannot do this. Y'know what a first level Saga Soldier can do? Increase his Max Dex Bonus on armor by +1... +2 bonus to grapple checks... make a check to notice who is at half-hp or lower... pistol whip someone... get a +1 bonus to damage on all melee attacks... and the worst part? He has to pick ONE of those he can do.



> Or healing an ally without using magic.




Hit points are an abstract that represent more than just physical damage, else they'd have a more serious effect on combat, since real physical damage hampers your ability to perform actions in real life.



> Or forcing enemies to attack him as opposed to the Wizard with the opponents not having any sort of Will Save against it.




Oh, you must be talking about that *level 27* paladin ability, which does actually take their Will Defense into account... which affects 1st-level characters in what way?

...

So, I'm still waiting to see what about 1st-level Saga characters is so over-the-top, because it's obviously not in the book I'm holding.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I don't know that that's necessarily true.  The whole idea behind the wuxia thing is that by studying martial arts a long time, you might refine your techniques to such a degree that you do things that are impossible for the untrained.
> 
> There's nothing explicitly magical about them, usually.  The character doesn't have a wizard cast a spell on them, despite the fact there there are usually wizards in the stories as well.  If you define magic as everything beyond natural then I think you're casting too wide a net.




Wuxia has evolved into a superhero type of thing where abilites are no longer natural or even quasi-natural. Hence, it is now in the realm of supernatural (or magical) abilities.

Magic is when something is accomplished which cannot be done via natural forces or abilities.

If you saw Wuxia in the real world, you would be shocked and awed and consider it magical based on your frame of reference. No different than when a street magician pulls one off on someone. In this case, it's a natural ability, but it seems magical.

But, Wuxia (as depicted in the movies) are not really natural abilities (i.e. real world natural abilities). One cannot use a "studying martial arts a long time, you might refine your techniques to such a degree that you do things that are impossible for the untrained" explanation to explain what is seen in the movies *without* suspending disbelief to do so. 

One never had to suspend disbelief in DND for natural martial abilities until higher levels. Low level Monks could not heal themselves and fall great distances without magic.

Do you consider Wuxia as depicted in the movies as trained natural real world abilities? Within the context of the story, belief can be suspended to do so, but DND should not have such a "context of the story" as its *default low level setting*. Sure, a given DM can tell his players to suspend belief for his specific campaign setting, but this level of supernatural capability and extreme suspension of disbelief should not be the default for low level PCs. That's not DND flavor.

This is like Eberron discussions. If magic exists in the world, it would be considered science and people would use it to solve everyday problems. Well, that's not DND flavor either, regardless of WotC releasing the setting. When magic becomes science, it is no longer special and unique. When martial abilities duplicate magical abilities, magic is no longer special and unique.

Just another super power. Yawn.



			
				Benimoto said:
			
		

> Plus, where do you draw the line?  In some versions of the Arthurian legend, Excalibur was so strong that by the end of the story Arthur is cutting people in half directly through their helmet and armor.  Is that wuxia, or is it just because Arthur has a magical sword?




I draw the line at low level DND characters doing Wuxia-like supernatural yet explained as non-magical martial deeds.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2008)

> Wuxia has evolved into a superhero type of thing where abilites are no longer natural or even quasi-natural.




I think your limit for "natural" is much, much more demanding than most humans' limit, throughout history, especially in regards to the legends and mythos that D&D draws from.

"Magic" is not a hard-and-fast category, and neither is "natural." A disease is considered magic. Spearing a group of warriors like a shish-kebab, is considered natural (if, you know, out of the realm of Joe Anybody). Winning a basketball game is kind of magical (thanking Jesus and all that). Having a baby, magical. Making the statue of liberty disappear, though, is natural. Everything done in a Die Hard movie, natural. 

There's no hard-and-fast rule. It's kind of a continuum, and it's full of gaps and exceptions that will be different for different people. Speaking to the legendary history that D&D kind of emulates, wuxia stunts are (mostly) natural, if amazing, abilities of amazingly heroic characters. They don't call powers from the other world, they just push their own bodies past the point that most could endure (jumping REALLY FAR, running REALLY FAST, etc.). Fireballs and the like are supernatural, calling powers from beyond to be commanded by the expert wielder.

You can't expect 20th level D&D characters to be constrained by the same limits as JoeBob the Town Guardsman in terms of physical capabilities, right?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But, Wuxia (as depicted in the movies) are not really natural abilities (i.e. real world natural abilities). One cannot use a "studying martial arts a long time, you might refine your techniques to such a degree that you do things that are impossible for the untrained" explanation to explain what is seen in the movies *without* suspending disbelief to do so.



 Sure, but no more than one must suspend disbelief while watching Rambo or Die Hard.

Crashing through glass without bleeding profusely = magic, right?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You can't expect 20th level D&D characters to be constrained by the same limits as JoeBob the Town Guardsman in terms of physical capabilities, right?




Actually, a sizable group do seem to think this... well, except when it comes to spellcasters, since they should be superior to all other classes because they use magic.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Actually, a sizable group do seem to think this... well, except when it comes to spellcasters, since they should be superior to all other classes because they use magic.




Exactly. 

In the Hero example (which is a good example to use), their deflection of arrows in that shot totally blows away all thought that what they're doing is anything but magical; in an anti-magic field, they shouldn't be doing any of that. On the other hand, let's take another example -- a hero being thrown through a plate glass window without being cut to ribbons -- I could believe it a lot more readily happening in an anti-magic field.

The Hero example of those two characters deflecting THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of arrows is nothing short of use of the supernatural; The whole Beowulf thing I can't see, either, but then, I'm not talking Beowulf, or even Roland splitting people stem to stern in one blow. I'm talking heroics in the vein of the Conan movies, or even the original Star Wars films, which are still impossible (Luke doing the whole tow-cable up to the AT-AT and taking it out with one bomb after crash-landing and almost getting squished? Yeah, right) but still bend the physics without abandoning them completely.

Yes, it's a matter of personal taste; I don't think anyone disputes that. But I do disagree if someone insinuates they don't see any difference in magic use between, say, The Musketeer's derring-do moves versus Hero's arrow deflections.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Oh, that's funny, because I thought he was talking about Star Wars Saga Edition 1st-level characters, like he said in what I quoted.
> 
> ...
> 
> A first level Saga character cannot do this. Y'know what a first level Saga Soldier can do? Increase his Max Dex Bonus on armor by +1... +2 bonus to grapple checks... make a check to notice who is at half-hp or lower... pistol whip someone... get a +1 bonus to damage on all melee attacks... and the worst part? He has to pick ONE of those he can do.




A first level Saga Soldier can get hit 3 or 4 times by blaster pistol fire (with Second Wind) and still be standing.

A first level Saga Scoundrel can hack a secure computer (at a level of science that would be about 30th+ century on our world, and if you hadn't noticed, it is getting more difficult for people in the real world to hack secure systems these days, not easier). This is pure fantasy at that level of technology.

A first level Saga Noble can make an ally act faster than the ally could ever do on his own.

A first level Saga Scout can avoid damage from an explosion that targets his area, regardless of whether there is anything to hide behind. Do you know how fast high tech explosions are? How devastating?

All of this is fairly fantastical, but supposedly natural abilities in SWSE. And the reason is because it's fantasy opera. Nothing wrong with that in a fantasy opera the heroes are supposed to almost always succeed setting, but it is more fantastical than DND ever was at first level. PCs in SWSE do not need Force powers to do non-plausible things at first level.

Every first level Saga character is capable of healing himself more in SWSE than most non-magical mid-level PCs in DND can do without special items. The natural (i.e. non-force user) SWSE first level PCs can do some non-natural abilities. Most first level historical natural (i.e. non-spell caster) DND PCs could not. It typically took higher levels.

Every first level Saga PC can change the probability of the Universe with Force Points and Destiny Points. Bad roll? Reroll with your feats. Not high enough? Throw some mystical bonus on it. About to *die*? Prevent it and just fall unconscious. Every PC can use the Force that much.

Special abilities like self healing and great odds at doing things were typically gained in DND (by going up levels), not automatically granted. It's a different fantasy mindset. More space opera and less dangerous sword and sorcery.

DND fun is now equated to "powers for everyone" and entitlement to things like "strong protection against death", instead of reward for effort.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> So, I'm still waiting to see what about 1st-level Saga characters is so over-the-top, because it's obviously not in the book I'm holding.




Have you even played the game?

1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE. Sounds pretty over the top to me. This is fine for a space opera setting or a superhero setting, but it will be totally lame for DND. It just plain is not that type of genre.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> In the Hero example (which is a good example to use), their deflection of arrows in that shot totally blows away all thought that what they're doing is anything but magical; in an anti-magic field, they shouldn't be doing any of that. On the other hand, let's take another example -- a hero being thrown through a plate glass window without being cut to ribbons -- I could believe it a lot more readily happening in an anti-magic field.



That's because you've been trained by the visual language of Western film to accept it. In reality, I've seen a friend put his hand through a plate-glass window (not even his whole body) and the resulting injury caused profuse bleeding and required an immediate trip to the emergency room, dozens of stitches, weeks of recovery and a scar that his wife (then - 10 years ago - his girlfriend) still makes fun of. Plate glass shatters in jagged pieces that can easily slice through flesh and bone (my friend was lucky he didn't lose the arm, and even luckier that the window didn't cut any tendons or ligaments - that would have stretched his recovery time from weeks to months). Crashing through a plate-glass window and walking away with Hero Wounds only is pretty damn magical.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You can't expect 20th level D&D characters to be constrained by the same limits as JoeBob the Town Guardsman in terms of physical capabilities, right?



Sure I can.  In my favorite version of D&D, no PC, no matter how high level, can have an ability score exceeding 18.  Just like NPCs. 
The PCs might be more skilled, but they're still fundamentally human.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> That's because you've been trained by the visual language of Western film to accept it. In reality, I've seen a friend put his hand through a plate-glass window (not even his whole body) and the resulting injury caused profuse bleeding and required an immediate trip to the emergency room...




Hence my "without being cut to ribbons" part. I've seen some pretty vicious cuts off of shattered glass myself. And yes, of course, previous film and novels help shape perception of that. But which one is more believable -- seeing someone bust plate glass without injury, or seeing someone swat away thousands of arrows with a sword? If I watched the first one it would have me saying, _"damn, man, you were lucky!"_ whereas watching the second one would have me saying, _"what ARE you?!?!!?"_



> Only Force-users can build lightsabers? I never got that.
> 
> If you want to graft metal to flesh, rip a hole in the space/time continuum, lay down the circuits for artificial intelligence or even blow up a planet in a single shot, you go to a tech specialist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> On the other hand, let's take another example -- a hero being thrown through a plate glass window without being cut to ribbons -- I could believe it a lot more readily happening in an anti-magic field.



Have you seen the Mythbusters where they address the myth of being thrown through windows?  The whole walking away from that was a busted myth.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 6, 2008)

> 1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE. Sounds pretty over the top to me. This is fine for a space opera setting or a superhero setting, but it will be totally lame for DND. It just plain is not that type of genre.




How many times has Rambo died? How about King Arthur? How vulnerable was Achilles? How fragile was Beowulf? How unrealistic are Bilbo and Sam's exploits? How much does Conan fear death?

HEROES are immune to death, by and large, unless it directly affects the plot. That is ENTIRELY in the genre of D&D, the language of myth and legend and epic. 

D&D characters are not town guardsmen and lucky gardeners. They don't survive the harsh winter by the skin of their teeth, they don't cower in front of a goblin invasion, and they stand their ground when confronted by a dragon's supernatural fear. D&D characters do not simulate Average Joes of Fantasy World #7. They are the main characters in a narrative. 



> Yes, it's a matter of personal taste; I don't think anyone disputes that. But I do disagree if someone insinuates they don't see any difference in magic use between, say, The Musketeer's derring-do moves versus Hero's arrow deflections.




Hero's arrow deflections are in a more mythic mode. The Musketeers are more in a, let's say, heroic mode. D&D accomplishes (or tries to accomplish) both. At 1st level, the characters might be more Muskateer. Still very capable very heroic characters, but more "prime of humanity" than "above humanity." By 10th level (maybe), we're starting to see some mythic. By 30th, we're slaying gods.

The Muskateers could never hope to slay a god.

I don't think that any D&D character will be able to accomplish Hero-style wuxia at first level, but I don't think any D&D character will be able to jump through a window unharmed or fall out of an airship and catch themselves or kill 30 goblins at 1st level. But by 10th? By 20th? ABSOLUTELY. And they'll be able to do it without wizardy mumbo jumbo.

Because 20th level D&D characters are CLEARLY more powerful than Muskateers. They will be, probably, forever, and they have been in all earlier editions. By that point, we've left the world of mortal limitations behind, but we're still not in the realm of the Weave, because everything we do we do under our own inherent mortal power.



> Sure I can. In my favorite version of D&D, no PC, no matter how high level, can have an ability score exceeding 18. Just like NPCs.
> The PCs might be more skilled, but they're still fundamentally human.




Well, ability scores is neither here nor there. In 3e, NPC's didn't have ability scores exceeding 10 unless they were somehow heroic themselves -- JoeBob the Town Guard had 10's across the board. So even an 18 is SUPERHUMAN. Heck, a 12 is superhuman -- that's what the racial bonuses get you. No mere mortal has a +1 ability score bonus!

More philosophically speaking, fundamental humanity isn't defined by your ability or inability to do amazing things that no other human can do. Rambo and John McLane and Indiana Jones are fundamentally human, but they're doing stuff I can't imagine any human doing. Heck, I just watched _Jurassic Park_ and the kids in that movie survive falling down ravines, getting electrocuted, surviving for for days in the wild without food or fresh water, beating up Velociraptors......and they're freakin' PUBESCENT! You or me, in those situations, we'd die right quick. 

Those are low-level D&D characters. And by the time we're hitting the double-digit levels, we're entering the territory of more superlative abilities, and thus more mythic stylings. 

JoeBob can maybe survive an encounter with one goblin, if he got a head start. Low-level D&D characters can kill a half-dozen before they're starting to tire. High-level D&D characters can pretty much wipe out a village. 30th level D&D characters might do that ACCIDENTALLY, while trying to slay Maglubiyet. 

It's the nature of a level-based system that it is going to get MORE and BETTER. The difference between JoeBob and Regdar is already pretty huge, and it just gets bigger (it doesn't stay in the same place).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Exactly.




While that makes for good stories, it makes for poor game design when you start with the premise that certain classes become obsolete because of other classes, especially in the core rules. The fact that the wizard and cleric can upstage the fighter and rogue in their respective roles is a problem, because it penalizes players that don't want to play spellcasters. Thus, you make one set of character types have way more traction in the system than another set.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jan 6, 2008)

After a certain point, because of the scale at which powers increase, it is inevitible that D&D characters exceed what is humanly possible, first to the point of just beyond it, eventually getting to a point so far beyond the max of human ability it is _totally_ unbelievable and only comparable to superheroes or wuxia.

The only way to avoid this (with out having casters much stronger than fighters) is to stop the level scale at some point before the abilities of characters become increased to such great proportions.
Hence the creation of E6.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Sure I can.  In my favorite version of D&D, no PC, no matter how high level, can have an ability score exceeding 18.  Just like NPCs.
> The PCs might be more skilled, but they're still fundamentally human.




I'm sorry, but this simply CAN NOT work when one other class is making reality sit, roll over and beg and I think for those of us who like Bo9S, this is where we are coming from.

Grabbing a PHB that's by my computer (the 2E PHB black cover), we see that a *13th* level mage gets access to things like

Teelport without Error, Reverse Gravity, Forcecage, Limited Wish etc and all those lower level spells simply become more powerful (good old fireball that used to 5d6 and a range of 60 yards NOW does 13d6 AND has a range of 140 yards). At 20th level, the wizard is not even a superhero, he's a mini-deity in his own right in that the only thing that can beat him is greater magic than his own (without magic items, a 30th level fighter in 1E through 3.x has NO chance versus even a 15th level wizard without setting up a surprise situation)

How exactly is this balanced by the non-magic user STILL doing the same damage AS they were at first level with a weapon (without magic weapons/buffs, a fighter at 13th level does the same damage per swing as 1st level)

Seriously, how can a fighter remain "believeable" yet "useful" when paired with 2 other magic users in the typical party?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A first level Saga Soldier can get hit 3 or 4 times by blaster pistol fire (with Second Wind) and still be standing.




A first level Saga Soldier (Con 14) has 32 hit points.

A blaster pistol does 3d8 (avg 13.5) damage. The first hit, on average, drops him to 18 hit points. No second wind yet. The second drops him to about 5. Second Wind kicks in and bumps him back to 19. One more shot and he's at 6 hp. If he takes one more shot, he's down for the count.

Furthermore, his damage threshold is 15 (just over the average damage). So without spending a Force Point, his chance of being killed by that fourth (or maybe second) shot is at least present.

Hit points make it possible for him to survive. But they're like heroic luck. No normal person is getting shot solidly and living. Based on the esthetics of _Star Wars_, hit points usually represent shots that miss and exhaust some of the character's "heroic luck." Force points, OTOH, represent the ability to survive certain death.

How many blaster bolts hit 1st-level Luke Skywalker in _A New Hope?_ Hint: it's a lot less than one quarter of the ones that are shot at him.

Oh, and Luke only starts with:

Hit Points: 26
Ref: 15 (Dex +2, Class +2, Level +1)
Fort: 14 (Con +2, Class +1, Level +1)
DT: 15 (Luke doesn't wear armor)

Liberal use of Force Points is what keeps Luke _alive._

Even though it's realistic, nobody actually wants to play a character who gets shot once and dies. Do they?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Seriously, how can a fighter remain "believeable" yet "useful" when paired with 2 other magic users in the typical party?



I'm hoping Mearls can square this seeming circle.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How exactly is this balanced by the non-magic user STILL doing the same damage AS they were at first level with a weapon (without magic weapons/buffs, a fighter at 13th level does the same damage per swing as 1st level)



If you knew the system I was referring to, you'd know that the high-level fighter had the option of multiple attacks and three different means of doing extra damage (Smash, the asterisked numbers on the hit rolls chart, and Weapon Mastery).  And yet he would never be stronger than the strongest "ordinary" human.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A first level Saga Soldier can get hit 3 or 4 times by blaster pistol fire (with Second Wind) and still be standing.




Yeah... that's "don't-die-from-a-single-shot-from-a-one-eyed-goblin" heroic. That's the ability to take a couple wounds before succumbing. Heroes that die from a single hit from a weak goblin aren't really heroes... they're just pretending.



> A first level Saga Scoundrel can hack a secure computer (at a level of science that would be about 30th+ century on our world, and if you hadn't noticed, it is getting more difficult for people in the real world to hack secure systems these days, not easier). This is pure fantasy at that level of technology.




A first-level character being able to manipulate technology in a highly technological world is proof of what, exactly? That first-level characters are overpowered? Or that maybe realism isn't the focus of the game?



> A first level Saga Noble can make an ally act faster than the ally could ever do on his own.




Oh, you're talking about the ability to help an ally go from using a standard action to using a move action for a skill check. You shave maybe a second or two off the actual time it takes them to do it.  Oh noes, someone could actually feint (normally a standard action) and attack in the same round! Obviously over-the-top.



> A first level Saga Scout can avoid damage from an explosion that targets his area, regardless of whether there is anything to hide behind. Do you know how fast high tech explosions are? How devastating?




Oh snap, a first level character of any class can avoid damage from an explosion that targets his area, regardless of whether there is anything to hide behind. That's so obviously overpowered compared to having to wait until 2nd level (like the rogue) that it's over-the-top.



> but it is more fantastical than DND ever was at first level.




If it's more fantastical than the premier fantasy game, then there's something wrong with that fantasy game in my mind.



> PCs in SWSE do not need Force powers to do non-plausible things at first level.




Neither do D&D characters. Oh snap, I'm angry, so I suddenly am stronger and have more hit points. Oh yeah, and living in the wild makes me all fast. The barbarian does totally implausible things at first level... except if you take into account that you're playing a heroic fantasy game, and realized that the implausible is what heroes do.



> The natural (i.e. non-force user) SWSE first level PCs can do some non-natural abilities.




Same with the barbarian... unless you're going to tell me that Rage and Fast Movement are real-life natural abilities.



> Most first level historical natural (i.e. non-spell caster) DND PCs could not.




Until non-weapon proficiencies were introduced, most characters couldn't do much aside from the narrow focus of their class. Until 3e, searching was limited to a single class (and maybe a few kits that used thief skills). If this "well, non-magical D&D characters couldn't do this before" is your support for not putting new abilities in, then we should just go back to the time when fighters couldn't notice things (no perception skills... hell... no skills at all), and only thieves could steal things.



> Every first level Saga PC can change the probability of the Universe with Force Points and Destiny Points. Bad roll? Reroll with your feats. Not high enough? Throw some mystical bonus on it. About to *die*? Prevent it and just fall unconscious. Every PC can use the Force that much.




Giving players the ability to boost themselves at appropriate times makes the game over-the-top? Uh, well, the descriptions I would use would be flexible and rewarding. You're right, Action Points made d20 Modern way over-the-top... err.. wait... no, actually, it didn't.



> More space opera and less dangerous sword and sorcery.




Have you ever read any Conan, where he is in fights where he's bleeding, wounded, hurting, fighting some demon thing, and somehow reaches into himself, overcomes his wounds and kicks it's ass? That's Second Wind.



> DND fun is now equated to "powers for everyone" and entitlement to things like "strong protection against death", instead of reward for effort.




Well, if your idea of D&D fun is "some classes should be overshadowed by other classes in the core rules," then I'm glad you're not designing it.



> Have you even played the game?




Yeah, I have. Which is why I scoff at claims of the minor bonuses that players get at 1st level being over-the-top.



> 1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE. Sounds pretty over the top to me.




Sounds like you had a carebear GM. I'll admit that SWSE 1st-level characters are tougher than D&D ones, but that's because D&D characters at 1st-level are weak... hell, the toughest Barbarian you can make with the core rules is merely a crit away from being wormfood.



> This is fine for a space opera setting or a superhero setting, but it will be totally lame for DND.




Maybe you never noticed, but the barbarian class is just a copy of the Incredible Hulk ("You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."). Nor does it appear you've noticed that a lot of people skip first level because a single crit can spell doom for even the hardiest first-level characters.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Have you seen the Mythbusters where they address the myth of being thrown through windows?  The whole walking away from that was a busted myth.




Again, "cut to ribbons in real life," got it. But if you personally saw someone get thrown through a plate glass window in real life with only minor scratches, would you treat them like a god incarnate, or Bruce Willis' character from unbreakable? Or would you just think they were one lucky son of a gun?

Same question, different miracle: You've just watched someone swat away a swarm of arrows so thick they blocked out the sun. Do you think them lucky, or they've got some trick up their sleeve (like being a god in human form, for instance)? In my opinion, They're both miracles, but they're two completely different levels of miracle.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> While that makes for good stories, it makes for poor game design when you start with the premise that certain classes become obsolete because of other classes, especially in the core rules.




Agreed, but it doesn't have to be that way. For one thing, wizards don't have to be that powerful; just because they are now doesn't mean they have to be for future versions of the game. In fact, I'd rather they powered down some of the Wizard's reality-bending. It could also be more taxing for a wizard to do his thing, meaning the wizard who just created a 50-foot demon from nothing should be ready to keel over. The Fighter who just killed ten guys with a whirlwind attack should be just getting warmed up, however.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> How many times has Rambo died? How about King Arthur? How vulnerable was Achilles? How fragile was Beowulf? How unrealistic are Bilbo and Sam's exploits? How much does Conan fear death?




While true, I've always preferred that stage of D&D's life cycle where the PCs weren't those guys; they were more like the guys from The Black Company instead, where occasionally the main characters died, but were replaced and the Company still went on. That's the D&D I grew up with, and it has definitely gradually left the building (to many cheers, I might add).



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> How exactly is this balanced by the non-magic user STILL doing the same damage AS they were at first level with a weapon (without magic weapons/buffs, a fighter at 13th level does the same damage per swing as 1st level)




Quite a few ways, to me: Increased damage through training, special abilities to hamper an enemy (that hamstring feat they gave rogues in Song and Silence would work pretty well for all martial characters), giving them abilities against mooks specifically that wizards or clerics couldn't get (feng shui, I can't believe I'm using this, actually had abilities that made gunslingers get BETTER the weaker the mooks they faced were), etc. Just because the fighter has to break out or improvise a rope and grapple instead of flying someplace I can't believe it makes him useless any more than a wizard facing an iron golem. Everybody's going to have weaknesses, not just fighters.

I'm not expecting to convert anyone, I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to have different expectations on the "plausiblity" of magical vs. non-magical-based characters. Mine are more based in western fantasy and cinema, and may be why I simply cannot run a campaign of Super-heroes or Feng Shui to save my life, though I can always do one-shots. It's just not my cup of tea.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> If you knew the system I was referring to, you'd know that the high-level fighter had the option of multiple attacks and three different means of doing extra damage (Smash, the asterisked numbers on the hit rolls chart, and Weapon Mastery).  And yet he would never be stronger than the strongest "ordinary" human.




What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels. Nor have I seen an edition where the rogue's core abilities aren't overshadowed by the wizard at some point, as well.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Again, "cut to ribbons in real life," got it. But if you personally saw someone get thrown through a plate glass window in real life with only minor scratches, would you treat them like a god incarnate, or Bruce Willis' character from unbreakable? Or would you just think they were one lucky son of a gun?
> 
> Same question, different miracle: You've just watched someone swat away a swarm of arrows so thick they blocked out the sun. Do you think them lucky, or they've got some trick up their sleeve (like being a god in human form, for instance)? In my opinion, They're both miracles, but they're two completely different levels of miracle.




Both of those examples, to me, depend on the genre. Gritty realism? None of those mesh. Heroic fantasy? All of those mesh.



> Agreed, but it doesn't have to be that way. For one thing, wizards don't have to be that powerful; just because they are now doesn't mean they have to be for future versions of the game. In fact, I'd rather they powered down some of the Wizard's reality-bending. It could also be more taxing for a wizard to do his thing, meaning the wizard who just created a 50-foot demon from nothing should be ready to keel over. The Fighter who just killed ten guys with a whirlwind attack should be just getting warmed up, however.




This is what it appears they're doing: toning down spellcasters and toning up other characters. Your Fighter example isn't something you really see in D&D now (aside from the technicality of only 8 people being susceptible to a Whirlwind without reach), and he certainly isn't maintaining his place as a high-damage dealer when the wizard is outclassing, especially at the higher levels when most of his effectiveness in terms of damage (iterative attacks) are lost when he has to move, while the wizard moves and still maintains that effectiveness.



> While true, I've always preferred that stage of D&D's life cycle where the PCs weren't those guys; they were more like the guys from The Black Company instead, where occasionally the main characters died, but were replaced and the Company still went on. That's the D&D I grew up with, and it has definitely gradually left the building (to many cheers, I might add).




The problem is that in it's life cycle, it never addressed the problem with 1st-level: it's pretty likely to stop the campaign in it's tracks, because one good roll for an NPC equals dead PCs. One-shot the cleric and you're talking TPK. That's the number one reason why people skip 1st-level to opt to start at 3rd or 4th.



> Quite a few ways, to me: Increased damage through training, special abilities to hamper an enemy (that hamstring feat they gave rogues in Song and Silence would work pretty well for all martial characters), giving them abilities against mooks specifically that wizards or clerics couldn't get (feng shui, I can't believe I'm using this, actually had abilities that made gunslingers get BETTER the weaker the mooks they faced were), etc.




These things you're talking about is exactly what they've been lacking up until now... more options that fit their theme and role. And this is exactly what they're putting in the game. Abilities that let a fighter knock someone down with a successful blow, or slow their movement, or stun them (all adds on the Defender role).


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Have you even played the game?




KD, I don't know if you meant it that way, but that came off a bit antagonistic. Let's try not to go that route, all. Thanks.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> KD, I don't know if you meant it that way, but that came off a bit antagonistic. Let's try not to go that route, all. Thanks.




Well, since it was sparked by the post I quoted from you...

What is it about Saga PCs that you think is over-the-top for D&D characters to have? Second Wind (do remember that HP is an abstract system for combat endurance, not a direct reflection of physical punishment capacity)? Triple HP at first level?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels.



Did I say that?
No.
I was responding to the assertion that putting a hard cap on ability scores would mean that the fighter's damage remained the same as it was at first level.  And, in BECMI, it didn't remain the same.

There was a clearly defined human maximum for all ability scores -- 18.  The fighter's Strength never increased to superhuman levels (nor the wizard's Intelligence).  Never. 

Now, if you want to run the numbers, go look up the Master's Set and see what kind of damage a Grandmaster would do with a Two-Handed Sword.  I think it was about 20 per hit.  Now add +3 Str, +5 magic, and 4 attacks.  That's 112 damage per round.  A 36th-level wizard with Magic Missile would do (4.5*15) = 67.5 damage.  Fireball would do 20d6 (about 70), save for half.  Meteor Swarm would do more, I think, but again it has a save.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels. Nor have I seen an edition where the rogue's core abilities aren't overshadowed by the wizard at some point, as well.




In 3.5e, the 20th level fighter of the group was dealing circa 200 points of damage (or more) per round against a lone enemy. The Wizard was doing nowhere near that much damage. Sure, the Wizard had "save or die" type effects, but the fighter was more reliable.

PH2 tilted the balance a lot more back to the fighter, btw.

Not perfect, but it was better than (say) 1e.

Cheers!


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Now, if you want to run the numbers, go look up the Master's Set and see what kind of damage a Grandmaster would do with a Two-Handed Sword.  I think it was about 20 per hit.  Now add +3 Str, +5 magic, and 4 attacks.  That's 112 damage per round.




Be a dear and break this down for me. I didn't play BECMI.

20 per hit... 2d6 + 8 without factoring in Strength or anything like that? A Grandmaster got a +8 to damage automatically?

And 4 attacks? Really? 1e/2e had stuff like 5/2 for high level characters, maybe 3/1 at the top end, but 4/1?



> A 36th-level wizard with Magic Missile would do (4.5*15) = 67.5 damage.  Fireball would do 20d6 (about 70), save for half.  Meteor Swarm would do more, I think, but again it has a save.




A 36th-level wizard would probably be using "save or die" spells and be outclassing that Grandmaster with his insta-kills.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 3.5e, the 20th level fighter of the group was dealing circa 200 points of damage (or more) per round against a lone enemy. The Wizard was doing nowhere near that much damage. Sure, the Wizard had "save or die" type effects, but the fighter was more reliable.




Could you also break this down for me? In my experience, the last two iterative attacks (at -10 and -15 compared to your BAB) weren't really that effective, and since the fighter's damage was based on the concept of him getting four attacks, it didn't work as well in practice as it did in theory.



> Not perfect, but it was better than (say) 1e.




Oh, I'll never argue that point. Each edition of D&D balances things more and more, but that's no reason to stop the evolution.


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> These things you're talking about is exactly what they've been lacking up until now... more options that fit their theme and role. And this is exactly what they're putting in the game. Abilities that let a fighter knock someone down with a successful blow, or slow their movement, or stun them (all adds on the Defender role).




And those would be fine to me, as long as they don't get into "running on arrows" and "walking on air" territory like many Wuxia films as a default behavior. Splatbook options, cool: In the core PHB1, they proscribe a default D&D where the fighters are as miraculous as the demon-summoning and fireball-spitting mages. 



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> What is it about Saga PCs that you think is over-the-top for D&D characters to have?




I mentioned some of them in a previous post, but:

1) Powers of the nature of Force Grip, Force Lightning, or Move Object, with results for 6 dice of damage and up at 1st level. A 1st level Jedi, thanks to virtue of the low DCs, could pick up a tank and flip it on top of someone for somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 or 8 dice of damage with a halfway decent dice roll. A destiny point puts it in the 14 dice range. For a level one character. Force lightning is about as bad -- 8 dice of damage will cook any opponent at first level (ignore the dark side points a moment, because not only does D&D not have them, but you can get rid of them as a free action with a force point.)

2) The hit points combined with the force point usages to save someone. Not only could said soldier survive 4 blaster hits that could kill anyone else, he can spend a force point on that last hit to just go unconscious for the rest of the fight. With a single talent, he can move himself completely back up the condition track for that matter if he chooses to. (not that he needs it, he can just rest for 30 seconds and get the same amount of improvement.)

I would also say destiny points as a whole, but I like them at their core; I like every player to have one point or so to completely rewrite things if he needs it. However, the Star Wars PCs get one of those boogers at every level!!! Not one maximum, but one per level! A whole five or six person party has enough Destiny to rewrite the movie trilogies!

EDIT: just noticed this:



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Yeah... that's "don't-die-from-a-single-shot-from-a-one-eyed-goblin" heroic. That's the ability to take a couple wounds before succumbing. Heroes that die from a single hit from a weak goblin aren't really heroes... they're just pretending.



In some ways, they're the cooler heroes to me.. the ones who know that they could die any time from a lucky rusty goblin sword, but they do what has to be done, anyway, to complete the task (save the town, save the princess, whatever). Or, to look at it another way, it's fun to risk stupid death raiding some goblin lair who never did you any wrong just for loot and treasure, and getting pasted against the wall by a pipsqueak you wouldn't have expected could kill you. 

Look at it this way: Some of D&D's best war stories come from both spectacular failures, as well as from snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. I don't remember any of the cakewalks... but my group does remember the battle where the deep dragon turned one PC into puddly goo in his own boots before dying, as well as when the wizard ran out of spells and had to resort to fisticuffs to save the party's bacon, of the 1st level PC who inexplicably tried to take on an Umber Hulk by himself, and got bisected for his attempt at glory.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> 1) Powers of the nature of Force Grip, Force Lightning, or Move Object, with results for 6 dice of damage and up at 1st level. A 1st level Jedi, thanks to virtue of the low DCs, could pick up a tank and flip it on top of someone for somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 or 8 dice of damage with a halfway decent dice roll. A destiny point puts it in the 14 dice range. For a level one character. Force lightning is about as bad -- 8 dice of damage will cook any opponent at first level (ignore the dark side points a moment, because not only does D&D not have them, but you can get rid of them as a free action with a force point.)




I agree that this would be a problem in D&D, but this is a Star Wars-specific thing. When we have quotes from the property like "Don't be too proud of this technological monstrosity of yours. The power to destroy a planet is insignificant to the power of the Force." it makes sense to make the Force really powerful in the game, even if the imbalance in the system makes the game designer in me sad.

Remember, Star Wars opts to emulate the movies, and unless D&D suddenly strives to emulate the Star Wars movies, I don't think this is a problem.



> 2) The hit points combined with the force point usages to save someone. Not only could said soldier survive 4 blaster hits that could kill anyone else, he can spend a force point on that last hit to just go unconscious for the rest of the fight. With a single talent, he can move himself completely back up the condition track for that matter if he chooses to. (not that he needs it, he can just rest for 30 seconds and get the same amount of improvement.)




Is this so different from Inigo Montoya taking a tri-bladed dagger to the guts, sinking to the ground as if dying, then finding the strength to staunch the blood and win the fight (the book tells you that he's dying and it's his father and his mentor's spiritual prodding that allows him to live)? Or so different from Boromir defending Merry and Pippin to his last breath, despite being riddled with arrows (the description the book gives)?



> I would also say destiny points as a whole, but I like them at their core; I like every player to have one point or so to completely rewrite things if he needs it. However, the Star Wars PCs get one of those boogers at every level!!! Not one maximum, but one per level! A whole five or six person party has enough Destiny to rewrite the movie trilogies!




Destiny points are a particular mechanic that I doubt we'll see in D&D, since technically, every hero should have a cool destiny in store for him (which is why epic destinies exist).


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Is this so different from Inigo Montoya taking a tri-bladed dagger to the guts, sinking to the ground as if dying, then finding the strength to staunch the blood and win the fight (the book tells you that he's dying and it's his father and his mentor's spiritual prodding that allows him to live)? Or so different from Boromir defending Merry and Pippin to his last breath, despite being riddled with arrows (the description the book gives)?




To me, the Die Hard feat modeled that pretty well (and both men definitely deserved having that feat!)

I really don't even have a problem with second wind; but if a hit reduces you to negatives before you can use it, not even second wind might save you all the time. As it is in Saga, it'd be kind of unwise not to use your second wind after you dropped to half hit points or so. You've got 20 or so odd hit points as a buffer, so no one attack is going to kill you; but with less hit points, it's a lot less sure when to use it if you're only down one or two points.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, the Die Hard feat modeled that pretty well (and both men definitely deserved having that feat!)




Well, I can see Inigo using Diehard, but I don't see Diehard helping Boromir, as he was continually peppered with arrows... to me, the only thing that could really keep him going would be additional hit points, represented by Second Wind, so he could keep taking arrows and keep fighting.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, I can see Inigo using Diehard, but I don't see Diehard helping Boromir, as he was continually peppered with arrows... to me, the only thing that could really keep him going would be additional hit points, represented by Second Wind, so he could keep taking arrows and keep fighting.




Boromir's last stand is a _textbook_ example of the Immortal Fortitude stance from Bo9S.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> 20 per hit... 2d6 + 8 without factoring in Strength or anything like that? A Grandmaster got a +8 to damage automatically?



My books are in moving boxes, but it was roughly +50% damage for Skilled, +100% for Expert, +150% for Master, and +200% for Grand Master.  For example, the normal sword (longsword in 1E) went from 1d8 to 1d12 to 2d8 for the first 3 tiers.  So 1d10 (base 2-handed sword) went to about 20, I think.  Each tier gave another +2 to hit, and some special abilities.

There were also a couple of buffing spells (like the clerical spell Striking and the ever-overpowered Haste) in BECMI.  Haste DOUBLED your attacks (but not spellcasting), and you could stack Haste from two different sources (such as spell and potion) for quadruple-speed.  Furthermore, there were weapon enhancements that went up to +10 (e.g. Sword +5, +10 vs. dragons) and some ways to do double damage (Potion of Growth, or the Extra Damage power for an intelligent sword).  I don't recall if this doubled base damage or total damage.  Meanwhile, there were no ways to increase spell damage.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> And 4 attacks? Really? 1e/2e had stuff like 5/2 for high level characters, maybe 3/1 at the top end, but 4/1?



2 attacks per round at 12th level if you could hit your opponent on a 2, 3 attacks per round at 24th, 4 attacks per round at 36th.  Fighters could very often hit on a 2, especially with the Weapon Mastery bonuses.  AC had a hard cap of -10 (equivalent to 30) for PCs and for everything except for the oldest of dragons IIRC.  Fighters could also use Smash -- take a -5 to hit and add Str score to damage.  Kind of like an early version of Power Attack.  I can't recall if you could use Smash with Multiple Attacks. 


			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> A 36th-level wizard would probably be using "save or die" spells and be outclassing that Grandmaster with his insta-kills.



Anything involving a save was very unlikely to work against tough opponents in BECMI.   A 9th-level spell from an 18-Int wizard was no harder to save against than a 1st-level spell from a 9-Int wizard.  I don't recall there being any no-save insta-kills other than the Power Word spells, which have their HP caps, or Death Spell and Cloudkill, which had HD caps.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> While true, I've always preferred that stage of D&D's life cycle where the PCs weren't those guys; they were more like the guys from The Black Company instead, where occasionally the main characters died, but were replaced and the Company still went on. That's the D&D I grew up with, and it has definitely gradually left the building (to many cheers, I might add).




To me, there's a big difference between durability (hit points and Second Wind rules) and characters having "over-the-top" abilities. You're talking about the latter Henry.

Characters from The Black Company were able to accomplish feats that are impossible for a D&D character. There's no way a couple low-level fighters could get the drop on two of the most powerful wizards in the world (as Croaker and Raven do). To account for that, Green Ronin altered the way hit points worked in _The Black Company_ campaign setting. Moreover, to truly mimic that scene, you have to use the optional gritty rules. As that scene shows, characters in the Black Company don't get tougher at higher levels the same way D&D characters do. Of course, they also don't fight dragons...

Now maybe you have no problem with high-level characters being able to get tail-slapped by a dragon and live. But if that's so, it's not the level of "realism" that's the problem. It's that you think being fragile at the start of their careers makes the game more "realistic" even though it doesn't last. That switch is a pretty uniquely D&Dish notion.

I'll say it again. To me, hit points are mostly heroic luck. It's because of hit points that the low-level character is lucky enough to survive all those arrows that get shot at him. They might nick him (if it's needed for believability reason, like an arrow being poisoned) but for the most part, they aren't solid hits. And even when they are, they might not be lethal hits. An arrow passes straight through the meat of your arm, for example. In the Black Company novels, Croaker is a PC and so are some of the other characters, as are many of the wizards. Many of their comrades are not. Survivability is the defining characteristic of a low-level hero. Yes, he might die, but only if he's in truly dire straights or gets very unlucky.

Is it possible to stand in the middle of "enough arrows to block out the sun" and _not get hit?_ Yes. Certainly, it's not likely, but it is possible. Luck tends to run in the PCs favor.

You can certainly decide that survival past the low levels is dependent on luck favoring the _player,_ but 4e takes the position that fortune usually favors the _character_. Saga does this for a reason. It has the advantage of not requiring Luke Skywalker to already be a seasoned adventurer (3rd-level) just to survive his adventure in _Star Wars_. With the Saga rules, Luke can start as a 1st-Level hero. And to me, that's a definite advantage.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Sure I can.  In my favorite version of D&D, no PC, no matter how high level, can have an ability score exceeding 18.  Just like NPCs.
> The PCs might be more skilled, but they're still fundamentally human.



Fighters, Paladins and Rangers could have 18/xx scores in STR, which were truthfully the equivalents to the 19-23 range in 3e. So, uh, not entirely accurate.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> Fighters, Paladins and Rangers could have 18/xx scores in STR, which were truthfully the equivalents to the 19-23 range in 3e. So, uh, not entirely accurate.



No, it IS entirely accurate.  I'm referring to BECMI, which didn't have that ludicrous Exceptional Strength rule.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> If you knew the system I was referring to, you'd know that the high-level fighter had the option of multiple attacks and three different means of doing extra damage (Smash, the asterisked numbers on the hit rolls chart, and Weapon Mastery).  And yet he would never be stronger than the strongest "ordinary" human.




Which I believe is a fundamental problem with D&D in pretty much all incarnations.

In your example, even you admit that a fair amount of the damage comes from "outside" the character itself, namely magic weapon and magic spells. This is basically the system saying, "Yeah, fighter do suck, so here's some help".

A fair number of people want to model Aragorn/Conan/Black Company yet they use a system where two of the 4 main classes laugh at that.

Seriously, I think this is why the fighter has always been seen as boring. The character at 20th level is basically the same character at 1st level, only difference being you can hit more often.

Why can't we have for a BBEG, the fighter but must always default to the evil MU?


----------



## Henry (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Characters from The Black Company were able to accomplish feats that are impossible for a D&D character. There's no way a couple low-level fighters could get the drop on two of the most powerful wizards in the world (as Croaker and Raven do). To account for that, Green Ronin altered the way hit points worked in _The Black Company_ campaign setting.




Ironically, GR's Black Company game is one of my favorite d20 products of all time. 



> ...Croaker is a PC and so are some of the other characters, as are many of the wizards. Many of their comrades are not. Survivability is the defining characteristic of a low-level hero. Yes, he might die, but only if he's in truly dire straights or gets very unlucky.




And yet, even Croaker dies (sort of), and other Annalists come on and tell the story. But you're making an assumption here that they're the PCs; what if ALL of the Black Company characters are Player Characters, and it's just the players rotating through different characters as theirs are killed off? The person playing the Lady so to speak was earlier playing Raven, and playing TomTom before that?



> Is it possible to stand in the middle of "enough arrows to block out the sun" and _not get hit?_ Yes. Certainly, it's not likely, but it is possible. Luck tends to run in the PCs favor.




How about stand in the middle of enough arrows to blot out the sun and swat them all away? Still possible? I hate to harp on my earlier question, but it illustrates my point that there's a difference in the "level of miracle" that the PCs are pulling off, here. One's more in line with previous D&D versions until recently, the other one is not.



> You can certainly decide that survival past the low levels is dependent on luck favoring the _player,_ but 4e takes the position that fortune usually favors the _character_. Saga does this for a reason. It has the advantage of not requiring Luke Skywalker to already be a seasoned adventurer (3rd-level) just to survive his adventure in _Star Wars_. With the Saga rules, Luke can start as a 1st-Level hero. And to me, that's a definite advantage.




...and earlier versions did not take this stance, or took it with much less favor. That's the divergence I'm getting at.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, ability scores is neither here nor there. In 3e, NPC's didn't have ability scores exceeding 10 unless they were somehow heroic themselves -- JoeBob the Town Guard had 10's across the board. So even an 18 is SUPERHUMAN. Heck, a 12 is superhuman -- that's what the racial bonuses get you. No mere mortal has a +1 ability score bonus!



I wasn't talking about 3E.  I was talking about BECMI.  Where it was my understanding that every single individual in the world had an ability score between 3 and 18 for each stat.  But I believe a Town Guard in 3E would be modeled as a War1 with the "non-elite array" of 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> In your example, even you admit that a fair amount of the damage comes from "outside" the character itself, namely magic weapon and magic spells. This is basically the system saying, "Yeah, fighter do suck, so here's some help".



The fighter in BECMI, even without any magic items or spells, and with "merely human" strength, can STILL do an outstanding amount of damage.
Let's see... 20 base, +3 Str, no magic, 4 attacks per round: 92 damage per round through skill and training.  Still more than Magic Missile or Fireball, no save, and he won't run out of sword swings.  It looks like magic accounted for a whopping 20 points of damage in my initial example. 
If Smash can be used on multiple attacks (not sure), that's +18 on each, for 164 points of damage per round.

What magic (particularly Haste) does is to boost the fighter's damage into the stratosphere (by BECMI standards).  Even without Haste, the high-level fighter in BECMI was a powerhouse.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Ironically, GR's Black Company game is one of my favorite d20 products of all time.




I'm quite fond of it as well. I find I love its magic system for example. However, I wouldn't want to face dragons with a PC operating under the rules from _The Black Company_.

I don't really want to get into how to best model a novel. But I'll say this. Despite their high levels, characters in the novels never seem to become immune to death. Would you agree with this?

Because of that, it's very hard to properly model the dramatic flow of a story in a game. In classic tales of Robin Hood, for example, he beats many situations seemingly more dire than the one that eventually resulted in his death. You can't exactly make that work in D&D terms...



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> How about stand in the middle of enough arrows to blot out the sun and swat them all away? Still possible? I hate to harp on my earlier question, but it illustrates my point that there's a difference in the "level of miracle" that the PCs are pulling off, here. One's more in line with previous D&D versions until recently, the other one is not.
> 
> ...and earlier versions did not take this stance, or took it with much less favor. That's the divergence I'm getting at.




The first is largely, in my opinion, a flavor issue. I'll give you what I think is a good example, stealing from _Star Wars_.

Han Solo (6th-level scoundrel 4/soldier 2) is targeted by blaster fire. Han barely manages to avoid being hit, even though some of the shots come close enough to nearly singe his hair (loses several hit points). "Luck," he thinks, "just luck."

Obi-Wan Kenobi (6th-level Jedi) is targeted by blaster fire. Obi-Wan manages to avoid being hit, deflecting many of the shots but the effort tires him out (loses several hit points). "The force is with me," thinks Obi-Wan.

Mechanically, what's the difference? None. It's all flavor. Han just "got lucky," whereas Obi-Wan "deflected shots with his lightsaber."

There's a difference between this situation with Obi-Wan and the one where he deflects blaster bolts effortlessly. The latter is covered by the Jedi talent "Deflect" whereas the former is hit point loss.

In _Star Wars,_ actually getting hit by a blaster bolt is usually lethal. In fact, only two film characters are ever hit by one and "just wounded." (That's Chewie and Leia, both in _Return of the Jedi_).

I realize you like the added lethality, but hit points can represent "just luck." I know 4th Edition building that into the system at 1st-level is a change from earlier versions, but IMO, it could be a very good one. I'd rather see a variant rule whereby a solid hit (half the character's total hit points in one shot?) provokes, say, a persistent condition of "bloodied." That could be handy at ALL levels.

But that's just my preference.


----------



## chitzk0i (Jan 6, 2008)

I think it's important to note that 4e will have a different "level of miracle" the PCs are able to pull off based on what level they are.  Epic-tier characters will likely b able to accomplish much more fantastic feats than Heroic-tier ones.  Just look at the differences in the paladin smites.  The basic first level one grants an AC bonus to one ally, whereas the epic one doesn't allow the monster to attack anyone but the paladin.  

I doubt that characters will be able to avoid a hail of arrows that blocks out the sun _in the heroic tier_.  But I'd pretty much expect that for the epic tier.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 6, 2008)

Sorry to disappear mid discussion yesterday but my group had a rare saturday game scheduled yesterday.

Anyways yes the crusader outheals the cleric for a variety of reasons including but not limited to his ability via crusader strike to heal at range while the cleric needs to move around the battlefield trying to avoid aoos and other combat hazards. Also by stance he is healing someone for 2 points on top of the crusader strike healing every few rounds. Further these abilities do not run out unlike the cleric's spells.

As far as out damaging the other melee classes and the wizard the crusader uses a Great Axe and every few rounds gets to add 2D6 dam via Foehammer.

Combine these factors with the crusaders ability to soak/delay 5 pts of damage every round and he is truely one of the most powerful and dynamic low level PCs I have ever witnessed.

Again I am not complaining nor are any of the other players. As the DM I showed the Bo9S to the player and told him I would allow him to make a Crusader because I wanted to observe some 4E mechanics first hand. The Crusader has allowed the PCs to turn the tide of battle on several occasions and has allowed the party to continue adventuring in situations where another party would have been forced to stop and rest so the healer could recover some spells.

From my perspective therefore the Crusader experiment has been win win in that we are all getting a sneak peek at some 4 E comcepts and the party's ability to heal and deal damage has been enhanced. But if I had to give an opinion right now at 3rd level I would absolutly say not balanced. Only time will tell if the gap closes with further advancement.

In yesterdays game we wrapped up a string of adventures and the group has just started the Barrow of the Forgotten King which seems like its going to be lots of fun!



Again right now the PCs are still only 3rd level


----------



## glass (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you saw Wuxia in the real world, you would be shocked and awed and consider it magical based on your frame of reference.



Yes, but what real-world martial artists can do is shocking too. Hell, what Wayne Rooney and Christiano Ronaldo do can be awesome, but there abilities assuredly aren't supernatural.


glass.


----------



## hopeless (Jan 6, 2008)

*Regarding this*



			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> One of the things that has puzzled me about the 4e PR (and there are many) is the reference to Bo9S being one of the "preview books" of 4e and that WotC felt it "worked" due to its popularity.
> 
> The popularity claim rang hollow with me when I first read it.  Going only by my personal experience, I've seen the book only once in a bookstore while I've seen most of the other WotC books multiple times (presumably because they were purchased and restocked).  I don't know any D&D gamers who actually own it.
> 
> ...




Of all of these books the Tome of Battle is the only one I have never bought.
And no buying the Complete Mage isn't an endorsement of the Warlock which to my point of view still should have never been nything more than a prestige class.

I have to admit I am curious to see if anyone would post a poll as to who has actually bought that book to see if there are grounds to wonder if its popularity is truly a myth.


----------



## Jim DelRosso (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, the Die Hard feat modeled that pretty well (and both men definitely deserved having that feat!)
> 
> I really don't even have a problem with second wind; but if a hit reduces you to negatives before you can use it, not even second wind might save you all the time. As it is in Saga, it'd be kind of unwise not to use your second wind after you dropped to half hit points or so. You've got 20 or so odd hit points as a buffer, so no one attack is going to kill you; but with less hit points, it's a lot less sure when to use it if you're only down one or two points.




Not sure how relevant it is, but the fact that you need to spend an action on your turn to take a Second Wind can make a huge difference. The first Sith my players ran up against (3rd level, while they were 1st level) got dropped without using his Second Wind because the hit that took him below half his HP and the hit that took him out happened between his turns.

While I'll grant that things like Force Lightning feel somewhat wonky if they come into play at 1st level, my experience running a game in which 3 1st level PCs tussled with the aforementioned Sith and some pirate minions using the "Thug" stats from the book did not leave me with the impression that the PCs were all that over-the-top. We almost lost the soldier in a fight with two pirates, and the final encounter with the Sith and the last two pirates felt like it could've gone either way.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm quite fond of it as well. I find I love its magic system for example. However, I wouldn't want to face dragons with a PC operating under the rules from _The Black Company_.
> 
> I don't really want to get into how to best model a novel. But I'll say this. Despite their high levels, characters in the novels never seem to become immune to death. Would you agree with this?
> 
> Because of that, it's very hard to properly model the dramatic flow of a story in a game. In classic tales of Robin Hood, for example, he beats many situations seemingly more dire than the one that eventually resulted in his death. You can't exactly make that work in D&D terms...




I don't know yet about D&D, but I have some limited experience in Torg. 
Torg plays very cineatic/pulpy. Taking down enemies can be done with guns, but also with feints, tests of will, magic and outmaneuvering. Characters in Torg gain "Possibilities", which they can use to improve rolls (and sometimes need to pay off racial special abilities)

An important part of the encounter system is the Drama Deck. It contains of a large set of cards, that serve 3 purposes: 
- Initiative and special combat situations. This determines who may begin to act, and what othe benefits or penalties the characters gain. 
- A solution system for non-combat situations, where you need to succeed checks to basically gain completion points to finish a task. 
- A player card that allows the player to gain certain benefits or grant them to others. Some of the are more useful in combat, some have out of combat purposes (like starting a "Romance" subplot or finding a connection that can help the PC out)

The encounter system distinguishes between regular and "Dramatic" encounters. 
In the first case, the benefit is always for the PCs. They often win initiative, they get additional actions, can add an extra d20 to their result and so on, while the NPCs tend to fatigue, break off or just generally fail in whatever they attempt.
In a dramatic encounter, the table is turned - suddenly, the deck is more in favor of the NPCs. These are the kind of encounters where the PCs fight against real hard enemies, enemies with their own possibilities to spend, and that are generally competent. These are combats where it's easily possible to die.

The dramatic encounters are for the types of scenes where heroes in movies and books can die - or win ... The system doesn't really support random PC death (unless they are stupid, which happens  ) outside of dramatic encounters. 

Transferring such a system to D&D is probably impossible directly. Basically, non-dramatic encounters (in 3E) can be emulated with fighting against lower level/CR foes, while dramatic scenes are against higher level PCs. But it's still not the same sense of dynamic, I think.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A first level Saga Soldier (Con 14) has 32 hit points.
> 
> A blaster pistol does 3d8 (avg 13.5) damage. The first hit, on average, drops him to 18 hit points. No second wind yet. The second drops him to about 5. Second Wind kicks in and bumps him back to 19. One more shot and he's at 6 hp. If he takes one more shot, he's down for the count.




If he has an 18 Con, a few points less damage than average will result in him still standing after 4 hits.

If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.

If he has Tough As Nails, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.

If he has Extra Second Wind and Tough As Nails, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 5 shots in a combat. With this and a 17 Con, he could take 6 shots in a combat. 33 - 13.5 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 - 13.5 = 3. An 18 Con would result in 7 hits left over.

I didn't say that it would happen every time, I said it could happen and it can happen 3 times most battles, even with the 14 Con and no special abilities in this area.

The point is, the guy's a tank at first level. A Clone Trooper can only take 2 blaster hits. The first level Soldier can be designed to take 6 hits.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Again, "cut to ribbons in real life," got it. But if you personally saw someone get thrown through a plate glass window in real life with only minor scratches, would you treat them like a god incarnate, or Bruce Willis' character from unbreakable? Or would you just think they were one lucky son of a gun?
> 
> Same question, different miracle: You've just watched someone swat away a swarm of arrows so thick they blocked out the sun. Do you think them lucky, or they've got some trick up their sleeve (like being a god in human form, for instance)? In my opinion, They're both miracles, but they're two completely different levels of miracle.




And that's the difference that people are not comprehending.

The first Miracle is plausible. Not likely, but possible. A once in a blue moon event.

The other is not ever plausible.

The first is ok for DND low level PCs, the second is not.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And that's the difference that people are not comprehending.
> 
> The first Miracle is plausible. Not likely, but possible. A once in a blue moon event.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think that's the point others have been making. The first Miracle ISN'T plausible. It is JUST as unlikely as a guy who can swat a hundred arrows out of the air with one swing. 

The difference is that we have grown up on a diet of action movies where doing so is just something a hero does and walks away from with just a scratch. Thus, it is seen as something a PC can do because that isn't considered exotic.

Still, the ones who support the "20th level fighter is just a 1st level fighter but better" still haven't dealt with how such a character is supposed to be "equal" in options as a 20th level mage.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Giving players the ability to boost themselves at appropriate times makes the game over-the-top? Uh, well, the descriptions I would use would be flexible and rewarding.




There is a difference between boosting abilities and saying:

Player: "No Mr. DM, I did not die falling a thousand feet. Even though the rules say I died, I really didn't because of the "Pull My Butt Out of the Fire" Force rule."

It's one thing to boost a roll with a Force Point. That's heroic. It's another to say "Nope, nope, falling into the Disintegration Disposal Bin didn't kill me". That's lame. If you want to play a game where death is prevented, play Monopoly.

This use of Force Points to prevent death IS over the top. Death Immunity makes the game non-dangerous and LESS fun for some of us. Not more fun. It makes it a yawn. There is no thrill if you can just go to the RPG and play it like a computer game and reset. At least for some people.

Hopefully, this application of Force or Action points will not exist in 4E. That is what Raise Dead is for. It requires effort and resources to prevent death in DND. Not a silly death immune rule.

It's understandable to have this type of rule in Star Wars where the heroes always win (or at least survive), but not in DND. Different genre.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Still, the ones who support the "20th level fighter is just a 1st level fighter but better" still haven't dealt with how such a character is supposed to be "equal" in options as a 20th level mage.



He's _not _ supposed to be.  They are completely different classes with completely different mechanics.  However, in my experience, the fighter's options are of equal or superior effectiveness in dealing damage.  (May have been different had I played in a game that allowed those terrible orb spells, Energy Substitution, Sudden metamagic, or Arcane Mastery.)
The wizard has more options but many of them are of limited use (he can run out of spells).
The fighter has fewer options but they are of unlimited use.
The warlock is closer to the fighter -- fewer options, unlimited use.

4E is going for a radically different game design.  I'll be happy to go back to BECMI.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Still, the ones who support the "20th level fighter is just a 1st level fighter but better" still haven't dealt with how such a character is supposed to be "equal" in options as a 20th level mage.




I actually do not support that. I support a 20th level Fighter having extraordinary abilities. I still do not think he should Fly or Teleport though.

DND 3E introduced super powers with things like Hide in Plain Sight. It was a bit of a problem for some DMs. It's ok to have these types of abilities at high levels (like 15), but not at 8. JMO.


----------



## glass (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> He's _not _ supposed to be.



I, for one, thank goodness that the designers do not think the way you do.


glass.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 6, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> He's _not _ supposed to be.  They are completely different classes with completely different mechanics.  However, in my experience, the fighter's options are of equal or superior effectiveness in dealing damage.  (May have been different had I played in a game that allowed those terrible orb spells, Energy Substitution, Sudden metamagic, or Arcane Mastery.)
> The wizard has more options but many of them are of limited use (he can run out of spells).
> The fighter has fewer options but they are of unlimited use.
> The warlock is closer to the fighter -- fewer options, unlimited use.
> ...




I played 1e, 2e and 3e. Is BECM1 that different that high level wizards (level 11+) didn't rule the roost?

I mean, unless the wizard was played less effective than usual or the fighter got the drop on the wizard (wizard just before memorizing and fighter placed right in wizard's face), unless a fighter had SIGNIFICANT magical assistance, a 11th level wizard could tear to shreds even a 20th level fighter in 1e through 3.x. Even the scenarios I listed require magic.

Simple example:
Wizard uses flight and simply starts lobbing fireballs from over 100 yards away straight up.
Wizard simply drops force cage on fighter.

MU through the years have ALWAYS had so many options over the years that I personally always believed that high-level fighters were intended to be the servants since really, they don't shape the campaign world.

You could run an adventure/campaign for a magic item less 20th level fighter that is basically the same adventure for a 1st level fighter but the wizard simply destroys this because of its options.

That's why I never considered the "limited nature of spells" a balancing feature since D&D adventures assume you have an appropriate level mage in your party. If you didn't you got one either by hiring one or resting.

Fighters ARE on a limited budget as well. Namely the budget of the clerics/wizards.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 6, 2008)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> kigmatzomat: Keep in mind that nearly all maneuvers have prerequisites. ... Sure, the guy might become an 11th-level initiator suddenly, but he'll have to waste probably all but 1 of his maneuvers known just on learning the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers needed to qualify for the single 6th-level maneuver he wants.




I did some character builds and it's not that hard.  Most of the disciplines have at least one 4th or 5th level maneuver that has no pre-req, probably to allow those 10th level Warblades & Crusaders to branch out without taking a 1st level maneuver.  

Anything 20/Warblade1: 
Moment of Perfect Mind   Pre:0  Concentration instead of Will Save
    or
    Action before Thought     Pre:0   Concentration instead of Ref Save
    or
    Rapid Counter                Pre:0   Use attack roll to block 
  or
   Insightful Strike             Pre:0   Damage = Concentration (d20+Con+Skill) 

Emerald Razor               Pre:1   Attack goes against Touch AC
Greater Insightful Strike  Pre:2  damage =2x Concentration(d20+Con+Skill)
Hear the Air Stance         Pre:2  30' blindsense, +5 insight Listen

This character now has permanent blindsense 30', +5 Listen checks, gets one attack/encounter as a touch attack (on par with a psionic feat), gets another attack/encounter that gets to use 2d20+extras for damage, plus either a boost to a weak save, a parry, or an attack that uses d20+extras for damage.  

Yeah, that's a sucky dip.  

Even at Anything10/Warblade 1 you get:
Insightful Strike             Pre:0   Damage = Concentration (d20+Con+Skill)
Emerald Razor               Pre:1   Attack goes against Touch AC
Pearl of Black Doubt Stance  Pre:2   Gain +2 dodge every time someone misses you 

Or:
Wall of Blades              Pre:0     use attack roll to block
   or
Steel Wind                   Pre:0     get 2 attacks as Standard action

Iron Heart Surge           Pre: 1IH  dispel effect on self, +2 attack bonus 1/round
Absolute Steel Stance   Pre: 1IH  +10ft move, +2 dodge if move 10'+  
Bone  Crusher               Pre:0  +4d6 dam and possibly +10 to crit confirms

The Adept can dispel negative effects, has a move bonus with a scout-like dodge, has a pretty mean attack that improves crits, and can either move and attack 2 targets or counter an attack.  

Yup, this is a very dip friendly system.  I'd have been happier if it had been capped to 4x the MA level.  That would limit both the 20/1 and 10/1 to Initiatior 4th, or 1st and 2nd maneuvers.  Still quite useful since virtually every stance is a equivalent to a feat but not quite so dip-friendly.


----------



## Stanoje (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If he has an 18 Con, a few points less damage than average will result in him still standing after 4 hits.
> 
> If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.
> 
> ...




Neither Tough as Nails nor Extra Second Wind allow you to use the Second Wind ability more than once per encounter. If you take both, you can use Second wind 3 times per day, but still only once in any given encounter.

Your example doesn't work.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 6, 2008)

Double post.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I played 1e, 2e and 3e. Is BECM1 that different that high level wizards (level 11+) didn't rule the roost?
> 
> I mean, unless the wizard was played less effective than usual or the fighter got the drop on the wizard (wizard just before memorizing and fighter placed right in wizard's face), unless a fighter had SIGNIFICANT magical assistance, a 11th level wizard could tear to shreds even a 20th level fighter in 1e through 3.x. Even the scenarios I listed require magic.
> 
> ...





You forget how hard it used to be to complete a spell pre 3e.  All a fighter has to do is shoot an arrow at the wizard.  He doesn't even have to hit.  If the wizard uses his dex bonus to ac to dodge the arrow, he loses his spell.  If he's hit, he loses the spell and takes damage.  Now, you could say how he'd have stoneskin up, etc, but there's no reason the fighter couldn't be prepared as well.  Neither exists in a vacuum.  The fighter could have had protective spells cast upon him as well.  The bottom line is whoever prepares best wins.  And the fighter has more room for error.  If he slips up, he's likely got a hundred hit points to absorb screwups.  The wizard might have 45 or 50.  Pre 3e, of course.  Until 3e, a wizard was a badass, but a one hit point wonder.  A high level fighter could take down a high level wizard in one round without breaking a sweat.  The wizard could do the same only if the fighter rolled poorly on a save or die spell.  3e changed all that by giving the wizard more hit points, ac out the roof, and made it much easier to get a spell off.  This changed the entire playing field.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If he has an 18 Con, a few points less damage than average will result in him still standing after 4 hits.
> 
> If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.
> 
> ...




Of course a character with an 18 Con can have an ungodly amount of hit points. Of course, the default array in Saga doesn't have any 18's in it, but I'll let that slide. If you're rolling, an 18 Con is a pretty rare stat. If you're point buy, it's a significant investment of character resources.

Similarly, your hypothetical character with both Extra Second Wind AND Tough as Nails has devoted his entire allotment of 1st-level resources (unless he's human) to achieving this.

And he's not actually _taking 6 hits!_ He is surviving 6 very close shots from a blaster pistol. Again, think of Luke in _A New Hope_. He's a 1st-level Scout (about 26 hp). Stormtroopers are shooting at him. Constantly. And they never even _get close._

Of course, if you're going to make the assumption of an 18 Con (highest available), the guy ought to be able to survive better than average shots. Oh, and those second winds only help as long as the guy's not getting shot multiple times in the same round.

Sorry, I just don't see this character as superhuman. Heroic? Yes. Everyone knows that getting shot _hurts,_ so cinematically, you don't want characters who are getting shot 6 times. But are they getting shot "at" more than 24 times? More than 30? How many times does Luke get shot at? 100? If 1st level characters are still going to be on their feet after that, it's because they "lost hit points" in the process of avoiding all that blaster fire.

Blaster pistols can't work the way melee combat does. In melee combat, you can turn a "hit" into a grazing blow. With a firearm, that's harder to swallow.

Who wants to play the guy who cowers when the shooting starts because one hit would mean his death?


----------



## Will (Jan 6, 2008)

As an aside, Torg is one of the most brilliant games, ever.

I've used it as an example of how social rules and characters can actually be a vital part of combat, rather than sitting on the sidelines yelling 'go team.'

Mustrum, did you know one of the Torg designers is on 4e dev team? I'm REALLY hopeful to see some Torg ideas make it in...


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Another piece of anecdotal evidence... My group consist of 6 people, and among us, we have 3 PHBs, 2 MMs, 2 DMGs, and 6 copies of Bo9S.




Back when there was serious management at WOTC, I remember an article stating that if everyone wants one feat, this means it is BROKEN.

Was not 4e a paragon of game  balance supposed to improve on the oh-so-broken-and-not-fun 3.x bad,bad,bad game ?


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And that's the difference that people are not comprehending.
> 
> The first Miracle is plausible. Not likely, but possible. A once in a blue moon event.
> 
> ...



If you read my original response to Henry, you'll note that I said that the sorts of feats undertaken in _Excalibur_, _Dragonslayer_, etc. are Heroic-tier. I was introducing the example from _Hero_ specifically as something that is *above* Heroic-tier; i.e. not for "DND low level PCs." That said, as AllisterH noted, at some point one has to give fighters "martial" abilities that *approach* the magical in order to generate parity with the explicitly magical characters and monsters. 'Sall.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 6, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry, I just don't see this character as superhuman. Heroic? Yes. Everyone knows that getting shot _hurts,_ so cinematically, you don't want characters who are getting shot 6 times. But are they getting shot "at" more than 24 times? More than 30? How many times does Luke get shot at? 100? If 1st level characters are still going to be on their feet after that, it's because they "lost hit points" in the process of avoiding all that blaster fire.



Exactly. IMO, this whole deal would be avoided if D&D just explicitly called out vitality points and wound points as in SWd20. But I guess that system is too complicated for most people's tastes. Given that, it should be made apparent (maybe even carefully explained in the rules) that having 26 hit points simply means that you don't automatically die when someone shoots at you, takes a swing at you, or throws you through a plate glass window.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I played 1e, 2e and 3e. Is BECM1 that different that high level wizards (level 11+) didn't rule the roost?



Do you mean hypotethically or in actual play?
In actual play, there was not that much gameplay at levels above 8, due to the escalating XP requirements.  And in actual play, there were very few wizards, since few players had the patience, caution, and luck to get one to survive the first few levels.  RAW, you rolled for HP at 1st level, died at 0 HP, and all new characters were 1st-level.   But let's go on to hypothetical.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Simple example:
> Wizard uses flight and simply starts lobbing fireballs from over 100 yards away straight up.



I believe that in BECMI, you cannot cast and move in the same round.  Round 1, cast fly.  Round 2, fly up.  Round 3, cast fireball.  The fighter has gotten to shoot you several times (there is no Stoneskin or Greater Invisibility in BECMI).  Also, you have to declare actions before rolling initiative.  If you've declared "I'm casting Fireball," but the fighter wins initiative and damages you that round, then your spell is ruined.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Wizard simply drops force cage on fighter.



I am pretty sure that spell doesn't exist in BECMI.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> That's why I never considered the "limited nature of spells" a balancing feature since D&D adventures assume you have an appropriate level mage in your party. If you didn't you got one either by hiring one or resting.



Resting?  Every competent DM I have seen places some sort of constraints on the party.  Time constraints, wandering monsters who attack you while you're resting, enemies who fortify if you delay, and so on.  Every one.  The limited nature of spells has actually mattered in every D&D game I've played in.  If it hasn't been a factor in games you've played in, then I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> As an aside, Torg is one of the most brilliant games, ever.
> 
> I've used it as an example of how social rules and characters can actually be a vital part of combat, rather than sitting on the sidelines yelling 'go team.'
> 
> Mustrum, did you know one of the Torg designers is on 4e dev team? I'm REALLY hopeful to see some Torg ideas make it in...



I don't know. Are any of the designers still around? I didn't play Torg often enough, since the group I played it with played it mostly before my time.. they have played all the adventures through - some several times. Nobody has the time and energy to pull off a few new adventures, and for some reason it turned out that the current setup of the group seems to have trouble grasping the right attitude for the game. We're too much into the D&D playstyle, I guess.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Exactly. IMO, this whole deal would be avoided if D&D just explicitly called out vitality points and wound points as in SWd20. But I guess that system is too complicated for most people's tastes. Given that, it should be made apparent (maybe even carefully explained in the rules) that having 26 hit points simply means that you don't automatically die when someone shoots at you, takes a swing at you, or throws you through a plate glass window.



I think it primarily suffered from the implementation of the critical rules, that allowed random instant death each round. If you'd remove that and replace it with D&D 3 or D&D 4 critical hit rules, I think the system would work okay. Though I think there is another benefit of the Sgaga Edition(and probably D&D 4?) method of determining 1st level hit points: Your first character class matters more if you gain triple HD in hit points. This can be important for balancing the 1st level benefits of classes (#skills, #feats, #hp, size of attack and defense bonuses). 

It might still be okay to just declare that the hit points gained by your first _n_HD are considered your wound points.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think it primarily suffered from the implementation of the critical rules, that allowed random instant death each round. If you'd remove that and replace it with D&D 3 or D&D 4 critical hit rules, I think the system would work okay. Though I think there is another benefit of the Sgaga Edition(and probably D&D 4?) method of determining 1st level hit points: Your first character class matters more if you gain triple HD in hit points. This can be important for balancing the 1st level benefits of classes (#skills, #feats, #hp, size of attack and defense bonuses).
> 
> It might still be okay to just declare that the hit points gained by your first _n_HD are considered your wound points.



How about "Half your hit points are considered wound points, and the other half vitality points"?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 6, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If he has an 18 Con, a few points less damage than average will result in him still standing after 4 hits.
> 
> If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat...I didn't say that it would happen every time, I said it could happen and it can happen 3 times most battles, even with the 14 Con and no special abilities in this area.




You said "1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE." And from that we were supposed to read an implied 18 Con?


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 6, 2008)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I did some character builds and it's not that hard.  Most of the disciplines have at least one 4th or 5th level maneuver that has no pre-req, probably to allow those 10th level Warblades & Crusaders to branch out without taking a 1st level maneuver.
> 
> 
> Yup, this is a very dip friendly system.  I'd have been happier if it had been capped to 4x the MA level.  That would limit both the 20/1 and 10/1 to Initiatior 4th, or 1st and 2nd maneuvers.  Still quite useful since virtually every stance is a equivalent to a feat but not quite so dip-friendly.





I disagree.

One of the main problems with multiclassing is that many class abilities are just not worth it the higher level you are in the original class.

Look at your example for a moment. A 20th level character has actually picked useful class abilities for 20th level.

It should be noted that your example isn't valid though. 1st level warblades (and all martial adepts) MUST select a 1st level stance.

re: Prep
Again, see what I mean. If a fighter had spells cast on him, he was a match for a wizard. That doesn't tell me that the fighter was decent. That tells me that the fighter was designed to be useful only if the fighter uses magic.

Seriously, why else would people use high level magic users as BBEG as much as we do if we though high level fighters were as dangerous/challenging?


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Exactly. IMO, this whole deal would be avoided if D&D just explicitly called out vitality points and wound points as in SWd20. But I guess that system is too complicated for most people's tastes. Given that, it should be made apparent (maybe even carefully explained in the rules) that having 26 hit points simply means that you don't automatically die when someone shoots at you, takes a swing at you, or throws you through a plate glass window.




I think you can avoid the complication of wound and vitality points by just deciding that hit points are reflective of your overall health.

To steal the Saga Example, it makes more sense to think of every hit as a grazing blow until the one that plummets you below zero hit points. Basically, until the character hits 0 hp, he might be battered and bleeding, but he's not really hurt. Your "wound points," so to speak, are the points below 0 hp.

A Condition Track similar to Saga's could model this really well with one small change. If exceeding the character's "damage threshold" caused a persistent "wounded" condition until properly treated, you combine the benefits of hit points and wound points. In other words, those serious wounds (like the solid hit that exceeds your damage threshold) represent the rare blow that temporarily renders the hero's arm useless...or the like.

If hit points recovered faster, people might accept that they don't represent serious physical injury. They're an abstract combination of minor wounds and fatigue. A character who's been nickel-and-dimed from 60 hp to 1 isn't "uninjured." He's a mess of scratches, bruises, and the like, but unless he's taken some solid hits (ones that exceeded his "threshold"), his wounds are not, separately, serious. But by the time he's down to a few hit points, he's vulnerable, and the hit that pushes him to 0 makes him "wounded" enough that he falls.

If you institute that notion, a high-level character might be able to take a few solid hits. But like Boromir in the film version of _Fellowship of the Ring_, he's mostly been slowly worn down. Those last few arrows, and especially the very last one, are what killed him. Up until that last shot, a good healer could have patched him up (maybe with some penalties from the persistent conditions from his wounds). But it was that over-the-damage-threshold hit into his chest that actually did him in.

Using a combination of known 4e rules and inferences based on SAGA, if you model Boromir as a 10th-level fighter, he would have a damage threshold of 25 (Base 10, +2 for fighter class, +3 for Con, +5 for level, +5 for his mail). That would mean a shot that did over 25 hp in damage would be enough to kill him, if it also dropped him below 0 hit points. That's probably a number that's achievable by a dedicated archer, if not all the time. Which means a good hit "wounds" him, and a solid hit that also drops him below 0 hp (or the 5th level down on the Track) kills him. Now normally, a PC won't be overwhelmed like that, but it _could_ happen.

I have no idea if 4e is going to have a damage threshold rule, but if it doesn't, something like this might be my first houserule.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 6, 2008)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Back when there was serious management at WOTC, I remember an article stating that if everyone wants one feat, this means it is BROKEN.




Y'know what's funny? They designed the 3e to be like that *on purpose*. That's why they talked about the concept of "system mastery" and the fact that an experience player can look at Toughness and know it sucks, but a new player has to learn it the hard way before achieving "system mastery."



> Was not 4e a paragon of game  balance supposed to improve on the oh-so-broken-and-not-fun 3.x bad,bad,bad game ?




Please take your strawman somewhere else, as it's already been pointed out when this strawman is brought up in other threads that nobody is saying "3.X is not fun at all" except people like you trying to stick words in our mouths.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Seriously, why else would people use high level magic users as BBEG as much as we do if we though high level fighters were as dangerous/challenging?



An NPC opponent has very different considerations than a PC.
A BBEG has ONE encounter.  A wizard in such a role is much more powerful than a fighter in that role -- but that doesn't mean that a wizard PC is much more powerful than a fighter PC.  Look at some of the differences between being a BBEG and being a PC:
1) The BBEG will almost certainly be at full strength and full spells when encountered.  The PC will not (in most adventures I've seen, the players have to fight through several rounds of guards or wards before getting to the BBEG)
2) Unlike most PC wizards, the BBEG can just retreat if the battle goes the slightest bit against him (most players do not want to sit out for a climactic battle, even if it means their PC might die)
3) The BBEG often doesn't care if he kills many of his allies in the process of killing the PCs.  Most PCs are more careful in this regard.  
4) The BBEG can afford to burn through lots of one-shot items and once-per-day abilities.

Whether or not a PC wizard is much more powerful than a PC fighter might indeed be a valid question -- but looking at how those classes fill the BBEG role won't answer the question.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 6, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You said "1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE." And from that we were supposed to read an implied 18 Con?




Side note: a character in SWSE who's reduced to 0 hp has to make a DC 10 Constitution check (at a -10 penalty!) or remain unconscious. If you fail by 5 or more, you die.

That means the 1st-level PC needs to roll a 20 or higher (slightly less if he's got a Con bonus) to recover. If he rolls a 15 or less (again, slightly lower if he has a CON bonus), he dies.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jan 6, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> One of the main problems with multiclassing is that many class abilities are just not worth it the higher level you are in the original class.
> 
> Look at your example for a moment. A 20th level character has actually picked useful class abilities for 20th level.




I wouldn't have a problem with multiclassing that's as valuable as single classing. What I  _*do*_ have a problem with is multiclassing that's *more* valuable than single classing.  Unless the latest Complete book has something I haven't read, there's no single class level that's as valuable as a dip into Martial Adept. 

I have _casters_ interested in taking MA class levels so they can use Concentration checks instead of Fort and Ref saves, not to mention the "dispel adverse affect" ability, or the Dim Door as a swift action.  




> It should be noted that your example isn't valid though. 1st level warblades (and all martial adepts) MUST select a 1st level stance.




Really?  Where's the page number so I can waive it at my players.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 7, 2008)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Really?  Where's the page number so I can waive it at my players.




"All <crusaders/swordsages/warblades> begin play knowing one 1st level stance."

The book specifically states that the initial stance can only be first level.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 7, 2008)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Really?  Where's the page number so I can waive it at my players.



 Unless you're being exceptionally clever, you want to say "wave". 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Felix (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Well, not exactly. The evidence we have to date is that the Bo9S is one of the better sellers at Amazon. It seems that WotC is declaring success due to success.
> 
> People should check out Amazon's Category Rankings: Entertainment / Puzzles & Games / Role Playing & Fantasy / Dungeons & Dragons
> 
> ...



You checked your sources. Which of course was my advice, eh? 

The OP took a look at some data that seemed inconsistent with what WotC had said about the sales of Bo9S; I took that and posted why one should not take WotC at their word. If WotC has something to back up their claim, all well and good. But I'm not going to believe the sky is blue and clouds are fluffy simply because they say so.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 7, 2008)

Stereofm said:
			
		

> Back when there was serious management at WOTC, I remember an article stating that if everyone wants one feat, this means it is BROKEN.
> 
> Was not 4e a paragon of game  balance supposed to improve on the oh-so-broken-and-not-fun 3.x bad,bad,bad game ?



You are right, but not EVERYONE wants to play classes out of the Bo9S.  People want to play Clerics, Wizards, Warblades, Swordsages, Crusaders, Druids, Knights, Barbarians, Duskblades, Warlocks, Scouts, Sorcerers, Rogues.

So there are lots of options, it is just that some of them (mostly Fighters, Paladins, Bards, Monks, Rangers, Swashbucklers, Samurai, Spellthieves, Truenamers, Binders, Shadowmages) were fairly below average.

A rules item is only clearly broken if given a choice between it and EVERYTHING else that it is chosen almost every time.  Playing a Wizard or a Swordsage?  Tough choice.  Fighter or Warblade?  Almost for sure the Warblade.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 7, 2008)

You know, I haven't seen anyone mention this, but one of the main reasons that I've seen the Book of Nine Swords as popular is due to the amount of discussion and questions that it has raised. There have been a number of comments from folks at WotC saying that the book generated a lot of discussion and emails to them about how the powers worked.

Now you may say that is not necessarily an indication of quality for the book (maybe quite the opposite) but if it generated significantly more traffic than say, Incarnium or the Book of Magic, I'd say that's because more people were *interested *in what it was trying to do. Is anyone complaining that we're not seeing a new magic system based on Incarnium? How about a core Binder? Nary a peep.

So I'd say that if 4E can make the Book of Nine Swords integrated into the core of the rules, and beyond that, make other spell casters as good with "just a dip" as a martial adept is, we'll see something genuinely impressive.

--Steve


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2008)

Stanoje said:
			
		

> Neither Tough as Nails nor Extra Second Wind allow you to use the Second Wind ability more than once per encounter. If you take both, you can use Second wind 3 times per day, but still only once in any given encounter.
> 
> Your example doesn't work.




My error.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It makes it less egregious.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> If you read my original response to Henry, you'll note that I said that the sorts of feats undertaken in _Excalibur_, _Dragonslayer_, etc. are Heroic-tier. I was introducing the example from _Hero_ specifically as something that is *above* Heroic-tier; i.e. not for "DND low level PCs." That said, as AllisterH noted, at some point one has to give fighters "martial" abilities that *approach* the magical in order to generate parity with the explicitly magical characters and monsters. 'Sall.




I do not disagree. My concern is with the "bigger, better, badder" aspect of recent WotC products. My concern is that low level DND 4E PC martial types will have magical powers. Like, short distance dimension door type powers or 10 foot leaps and such. They are already given the equivalent of self healing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You said "1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE." And from that we were supposed to read an implied 18 Con?




Force Points allow a player to say "My PC is not dead, he is unconscious".


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not disagree. My concern is with the "bigger, better, badder" aspect of recent WotC products. My concern is that low level DND 4E PC martial types will have magical powers. Like, short distance dimension door type powers or 10 foot leaps and such. They are already given the equivalent of self healing.




Then the question is "What level is appropriate".

Personally, since I judge everything by what the other classes can do, if half of the classes (the magic users) have an equivalent power available at 5th level (as they do via the PHB II), becomes a decent choice over other options by 9th level and is for all intents and purposes, at-will by 15th level, giving said power to the melee classes at 25th level is bupkiss.

Reminds me of how some said that the Favoured Soul is overpowered since it gains wings and thus Flight at 17th level.  Of course forgetting that in a normal game, even the mook's dogs have flight by 17th level thus making the "overpowered" ability not so impressive.

re: Bigger/badder aspect.
I disagree with this as well. In the last couple of years, the actual majority of products have been, well, underpowered. Tome of Magic, Incarnum, most of the new classes released. Sure, the PHB II & Bo9S see a lot of use, but that's because most of the other stuff released has been well, weaker, sorry to say, than most core stuff.

We tend to focus on the overpowering aspect if something gets released, forgetting the other 10 items/abilities/classes that got ignored because they were weaker.

In fact, the only "weaker" class I know of that has gotten serious traction was the warlock and I would argue/wager that the warlock is the most popular non-core class. So, it isn't that people are interested in powergaming, but the fact that much of the stuff releasedby WOTC was just plain boring.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Side note: a character in SWSE who's reduced to 0 hp has to make a DC 10 Constitution check (at a -10 penalty!) or remain unconscious. If you fail by 5 or more, you die.
> 
> That means the 1st-level PC needs to roll a 20 or higher (slightly less if he's got a Con bonus) to recover. If he rolls a 15 or less (again, slightly lower if he has a CON bonus), he dies.




Technically, an unconscious character has no penalty to rolls. He has to be conscious and on the bottom tier of consciousness to get the -10 penalty. Nothing in the rules states that the two different levels on the condition track are cumulative in any way.

Also, that check is made 10 rounds after falling unconscious. Typically, enough time for allies to assist.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 7, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Bigger/badder aspect.
> I disagree with this as well. In the last couple of years, the actual majority of products have been, well, underpowered. Tome of Magic, Incarnum, most of the new classes released. Sure, the PHB II & Bo9S see a lot of use, but that's because most of the other stuff released has been well, weaker, sorry to say, than most core stuff.
> 
> We tend to focus on the overpowering aspect if something gets released, forgetting the other 10 items/abilities/classes that got ignored because they were weaker.




Here I have to disagree.

Weaker abilities are irrelevant in released material. They can be ignored. My players take some of them on occasion due to the interest factor, but they are not game breaking.

Stronger abilities are often game breaking. That's the key difference. And a lot of time, it is due to synergy of other abilities.

As an example, let's take something simple like Crystal Shard. 1D6 per Power Point of damage, ranged touch attack.

Sounds harmless enough. Until one combines it with four feats:

Point Blank Shot, Psionic Shot, Greater Psionic Shot, Psionic Meditation

This can occur at level 7 for a Wilder. Sure, it used up a lot of feats. But it is a combo that allows the Wilder to shoot 5D6 ranged touch attacks that have very few defenses nearly every round for a single PP. At 7th level. For 50+ rounds per day. If the Wilder faces a real powerful opponent, s/he can boost it to 14D6. 14D6 with few defenses will take out or seriously damage most opponents a 7th level Wilder will face.

Levitate up (which has a long enough duration to last several encounters) for 3 PP and then blast away until nothing is left standing. At higher level, use Empower instead against tough foes and use this with low PP against weaker foes.

Compare that to the Warlock. 4D6 instead of 5D6. He can throw Invocations on his blasts, but then again, the Wilder has powers similar to Invocations. And, the Warlock cannot boost it to 14D6.

Sure, the Warlock can do it all day long. But, 3.5 DND is not a game of all day long. It's a game of (typically a maximum of) 3 to 5 encounters of maybe 3 to 8 rounds each. The Wilder has the same amount of longevity as the Warlock for all intents and purposes, but has the Big Gun that the Warlock would have difficulty matching.

To play in this sandbox, the Warlock could choose similar options. If he takes a Psionic race and these same four feats, he too can boost his Eldritch Blast. At 7th level, he does 8D6. Double his normal damage output and he can put Invocations on it still. The only difference (IIRC, I do not have my book in front of me), is that Spell Resistance applies for the Warlock and his range is better. For the Wilder, SR does not apply.



Btw, I am not saying that this is a game breaking combination. It is potent though and it is more powerful than most single target attacks. The main magical defense against it is with a miss chance (in the case of the Wilder).

I suspect that when Fighters can Fly with Martial Powers in 4E, overly powerful combos like this might start becoming possible. I hope not, but this combo slipped into Psionics.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 7, 2008)

I didn't read all of the thread, but in case it hasn't been said already, it's not like  WotC saw the sales numbers for B09S and decided it was so popular they had to put it in 4e; rather, they stuck their early ideas for the 4e Fighter class in Bo9S to try out different mechanical variations, and took people's (mostly positive) reactions to Bo9S into account as they continued to develop the fighter. (This is according to the timeline thing in R&C.)


----------



## Nifft (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Point Blank Shot, Psionic Shot, Greater Psionic Shot, Psionic Meditation
> 
> This can occur at level 7 for a Wilder.



 How does he get a feat at 7th level?

9th level for Wilder, 10th level for Psion (who does get a bonus feat then).

It's a nice combo, but it's not going to win wars -- the Close range is a significant limit. Anything that you want to plink to death will take not very many rounds to move outside of Close range, if there's no cover available, and then you'll have to un-_levitate_ if you want to follow.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This can occur at level 7 for a Wilder.



To elaborate slightly on what Nifft said, Greater Psionic Shot has a prerequisite of +5 BAB. A pure-classed Wilder needs to be 9th level before he can select this feat.

In addition, while Psionic Meditation allows you to regain your psionic focus as a move action, it's still a DC 20 Concentration check. Hence, a wilder still won't be able to do this reliably once per round at the low-middle levels.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 7, 2008)

Sorry, that Wilder combo (in addition to not being legal at level 7) is significantly weaker than a Warlock's eldritch blast. We'll bump it up to 9th since that's the first legal level.

1. 5d6 damage for the wilder vs 5d6 damage for the warlock. Point = Tie. Tiebreaker = Eldritch Essences to add debuffs or extra damage to the eldritch blast; Point = Warlock
2. Requires essentially a full-round action and a DC 20 concentration check every round vs requires a standard action. Point = Warlock
3. Affected by DR vs not affected by DR. Point = Warlock
4. Not affected by SR vs affected by SR. Point = Wilder (unless the Warlock uses Vitriolic Blast, but that's a Greater invocation and thus not usable at level 9)
5. Only affects a single target vs only affects a single target. Point = Tie. Tiebreaker = Blast Shapes to affect multiple targets; Point = Warlock
6. Usable ~80-90 times a day vs usable 14,400 times a day. Point = Warlock
7. 45' range vs 60' range. Point = Warlock (even more so with Eldritch Spear)



Frankly, your 'combo' requires 4 feats to use for a whopping 17.5 average damage at level 9. That's not even remotely close to powerful. A level 9 fighter will do nearly that much with just a _single swing_ of his +2 greatsword and no feats (2d6+2 = 9 avg, +7 strength), and we all know how weak fighters are in 3E.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jan 7, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> To elaborate slightly on what Nifft said, Greater Psionic Shot has a prerequisite of +5 BAB. A pure-classed Wilder needs to be 9th level before he can select this feat.
> 
> In addition, while Psionic Meditation allows you to regain your psionic focus as a move action, it's still a DC 20 Concentration check. Hence, a wilder still won't be able to do this reliably once per round at the low-middle levels.




To elaborate further, what you're saying is that this combination does 12d6, right? exactly the same as a empowered scorching ray does for a 7th level Wizard(a much better example than the Warlock, since they're much closer in role, power, and how they play), except it requires more investment?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 7, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> 3. Affected by DR vs not affected by DR. Point = Warlock



 Just to highlight how awesomely impartial I am, let's point out that this is an optional rule from a poorly received and unpopular supplement. If you just use what's in the SRD, _crystal shard_ is not affected by DR.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## outsider (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not disagree. My concern is with the "bigger, better, badder" aspect of recent WotC products. My concern is that low level DND 4E PC martial types will have magical powers. Like, short distance dimension door type powers or *10 foot leaps* and such. They are already given the equivalent of self healing.




You consider 10 foot leaps to be "magical powers"?  You have quite a different opinion of what's magical than I do.  The current standing long jump record is over 11 and a half feet.  Am I missing something, or does your definition of "magical abilities unsuited for low level martial characters" include feats that have been surpassed by real world athletes?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> To elaborate further, what you're saying is that this combination does 12d6, right? exactly the same as a empowered scorching ray does for a 7th level Wizard(a much better example than the Warlock, since they're much closer in role, power, and how they play), except it requires more investment?



No, the combination still does 5d6 at level 5. In addition, the combination only costs the wilder 1 pp per manifestation, while the wizard needs to use a 4th-level slot (or about 7pp) to pull off an _empowered scorching ray_. The closest wizard equivalent would be the non-core _lesser orb of [energy]_, which would deal 5d8 (or 5d6 for sonic) damage on a ranged touch attack when cast by a 9th-level wizard.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> How about stand in the middle of enough arrows to blot out the sun and swat them all away? Still possible? I hate to harp on my earlier question, but it illustrates my point that there's a difference in the "level of miracle" that the PCs are pulling off, here. One's more in line with previous D&D versions until recently, the other one is not.



By the way, I just remembered one particular scene from 300. 

What a difference a shield makes.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Force Points allow a player to say "My PC is not dead, he is unconscious".




The fact that they said Action Points are in doesn't mean that Force Points become Action Points. And Actions Points, in all previous incarnations, only allow you to stabilize while dying, not preventing death. And we still have death at -10 hp (unlike Star Wars), so the dying condition probably still exists.


----------



## Steely Dan (Jan 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And we still have death at -10 hp




The -10 rule dying/stabilization rule is still in 4th Ed?

If that's the case, I will be severely bummed, I have always thought the -10 dying rule is one of the clunkiest pieces of crap going in the game.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 7, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> That's because you've been trained by the visual language of Western film to accept it.




Exactly.

That is my cultural reference and what I want my fantasy gaming to adhere to.  Conveniently enough, D&D pretty much always has over the entire course of its life.

I'm not saying that anyone who wants to have their definition of "magic" vs. "martial" adhere to a more Eastern reference is a sicko or a flake or anything else -- though the reverse implication seems to get made often enough.  

All I'm saying is that I play a game that has served my genre well for 30+ years and I think it's fair to expect it to continue to do so.  D&D should not be expected to serve wuxia/anime tropes.  If those can be added in without interfering with the default Western (including pulp, sword and sorcery, and other non-real world sub genres) "feel" of the game, then I'm all for including them.  If not, then I'd prefer to keep those influences out.

Again, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Eastern culture or games based on wuxia concepts.  It doesn't even mean that I wouldn't play a wuxia game (I'd probably try one, but I doubt it'd hold my interest for long).  It just means that I don't like chocolate in my peanut butter.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 7, 2008)

> All I'm saying is that I play a game that has served my genre well for 30+ years and I think it's fair to expect it to continue to do so.




I don't think so. D&D is about pop fantasy hodgepodge, not about specific genre emulation (though you can often overlay genre emulation on top of it with enough house rules). As the world changes, as fantasy changes, as D&D's target audience (middle school through college kids) changes their interests, D&D *must* change to match, or become a relic. 

I don't really lay claim to a genre of fantasy as "mine." I enjoy most things, which is probably why I really delight in switching campaign settings once every year or two. Now gothic horror, now monster survival, now Age of Exploration, now Swords & Sorcery, now Grim & Gritty, now Anime Cartoony. 

D&D shouldn't cater to what was popular 10-20-30 years ago. It should give people the option of creating the *current* fantasy archetypes. Now, I think that they don't have to get rid of the old stuff, either (the fact that characters still can and probably will continue to regularly and steadily actually die, to be replaced by new characters, is evidence of that. Even if it's rare, it will happen). But I don't think that emulating a specific genre that was popular 20 years ago is D&D's goal, and I don't think it should be D&D's goal.

I think it could easily be the goal of a D&D or 3rd party supplement, though, and you bet your arse I'd be there to play it.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I suspect that when Fighters can Fly with Martial Powers in 4E, overly powerful combos like this might start becoming possible. I hope not, but this combo slipped into Psionics.



My snark-meter is busted.  I can't figure out whether to put you on ignore for this comment or not, because I can't tell whether you're serious, whether you're satirizing someone, if so who you're satirizing, or the nature of the satire.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not disagree. My concern is with the "bigger, better, badder" aspect of recent WotC products. *My concern is that low level DND 4E PC martial types will have magical powers. Like, short distance dimension door type powers* or 10 foot leaps and such. They are already given the equivalent of self healing.



Emphasis added.

If the short distance dimension door type power is a racial ability, is this a problem?  Did you have similar problems with gnomes getting spell like abilities, even if their class was martial in nature?


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 7, 2008)

I have the sneaking suspicion that the 3rd party equivalent of Badaxe Games' _Grim Tales_ or Capellan's _Iron Heroes_ is going to sell really well after the 4e OGL comes out. A lot of people like the idea of gritty games, and it'll be fun to see the 4e mechanics applied to this genre.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Here I have to disagree.
> 
> Weaker abilities are irrelevant in released material. They can be ignored. My players take some of them on occasion due to the interest factor, but they are not game breaking.
> 
> ...



Well, to use your own comparison, a 7th level warlock can shoot 4d6 ranged touch attacks every round.  It costs zero feats.  Four feats for +1d6 is hardly anything to be concerned about.  The crystal shard is not affected by SR, but with one or two of those four feats, the warlock could get Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration.



> At 7th level. For 50+ rounds per day. If the Wilder faces a real powerful opponent, s/he can boost it to 14D6. 14D6 with few defenses will take out or seriously damage most opponents a 7th level Wilder will face.



The warlock can also boost his blast by taking Sudden Empower and/or Sudden Maximize.   Also, to improve his damage output, he can take Eldritch Chain, and thereby damage multiple opponents.



> Levitate up (which has a long enough duration to last several encounters) for 3 PP and then blast away until nothing is left standing. At higher level, use Empower instead against tough foes and use this with low PP against weaker foes.



Fell Flight for zero PP, and you don't have to touch the ground at all, all day long.



> Compare that to the Warlock. 4D6 instead of 5D6. He can throw Invocations on his blasts, but then again, the Wilder has powers similar to Invocations. And, the Warlock cannot boost it to 14D6.
> 
> Sure, the Warlock can do it all day long. But, 3.5 DND is not a game of all day long. It's a game of (typically a maximum of) 3 to 5 encounters of maybe 3 to 8 rounds each. The Wilder has the same amount of longevity as the Warlock for all intents and purposes, but has the Big Gun that the Warlock would have difficulty matching.
> 
> To play in this sandbox, the Warlock could choose similar options. If he takes a Psionic race and these same four feats, he too can boost his Eldritch Blast. At 7th level, he does 8D6. Double his normal damage output and he can put Invocations on it still. The only difference (IIRC, I do not have my book in front of me), is that Spell Resistance applies for the Warlock and his range is better. For the Wilder, SR does not apply.



Yup.  Looks more or less even to me.  A pile of feats versus slightly less base damage and less ability to nova, even ignoring per-day limits, which do often come into consideration once the wilder starts to pull out his fully augmented shots.  He gets only 5 or six of those per day, if he does nothing else, and will run out well before 3 to 5 encounters of 3 to 8 rounds each has passed if he's not careful.  Once he's done, he's done.  The warlock gets less nova ability (it's tied to his Sudden feats), but he simply does not run out of juice no matter what he does.



> Btw, I am not saying that this is a game breaking combination.



So, why did you post this after your comments about game-breaking synergies as though this were an example of such?



> I suspect that when Fighters can Fly with Martial Powers in 4E, overly powerful combos like this might start becoming possible. I hope not, but this combo slipped into Psionics.



I thought you said this wasn't supposed to be a game-breaking combo.

I don't expect anyone will be doing much flying in 4E.  They've said somewhere that they plan to remove effects that allow characters to completely avoid interesting terrain or dungeon designs.  The focus seems to be on tactical relocation, rather than altered movement modes.  Expect lots of short-range, line-of-effect teleporting, but little flight or teleporting through objects.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 7, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I don't think so. D&D is about pop fantasy hodgepodge, not about specific genre emulation (though you can often overlay genre emulation on top of it with enough house rules).




Yes and no. You are correct about the hodgepodge, but D&D has had a range of sub-genres that it services well.  It does so with few house rules, actually.

I've said repeatedly that I don't have any problem with new editions or supplements adding to the range of sub-genres that it can effectively handle.  My concern is that it is possible to swing too and render the sub-genres that D&D has historically handled well to be difficult, at best, to emulate.  That might be because rules decisions almost require high level fighters to take wuxia-like powers.  It might be because an abundance of feat/power names in the PHB (etc.) are "Easterny", giving an implied flavor to the core rules.  It might be because the art is weighted toward big eyes/small mouth and spiky hair/big swords.

I don't know that any of these are going to happen in 4E.  Actually, I rather suspect they won't.  Even the occasional "Golden Wyvern" type name won't spoil the flavor, overall.  

Right now, my main frustration is with people who want anime or wuxia-flavored D&D.  Some people are nice and polite and just say, "Gosh, wouldn't it be great if D&D handled my favorite style of fantasy, too."  Far too many, though, seem bent on telling me that it's impossible to have fighters competitive with wizards at high levels without magic, that something isn't magic unless it involves a wizard casting spells, that I must love wizards and want to see fighters suffer because I don't like wuxia powers, that I'd like wuxia if I gave it a chance, that I'm just a grognard, that wuxia is the only way to keep D&D afloat, etc.

Once again, I think it'd be great if 4E supports both (all?) styles of play well.  If there's doubt, though, I'm going to go with not throwing out the legacy feel.


----------



## ehren37 (Jan 7, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> In plate mail. While winded. while carrying a longsword and a shield.
> 
> 
> > While having a 25+ strength and constitution. Lets also consider that plate mail was used, historically, for roughly the lifespan of a single dwarven smith. Presumably dwarves have been making plate mail for many generations, yes? I mean, "realistically", it should be weightless power armor by now.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jan 7, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.
> 
> If he has Tough As Nails, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat.
> 
> If he has Extra Second Wind and Tough As Nails, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 5 shots in a combat. With this and a 17 Con, he could take 6 shots in a combat. 33 - 13.5 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 + 17 - 13.5 - 13.5 = 3. An 18 Con would result in 7 hits left over.



This is not correct, since you can only use Second Wind once per encounter.

_Edit: Just realized there was yet another page to this thread, where this already had been mentioned._


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 7, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Right now, my main frustration is with people who want anime or wuxia-flavored D&D.  Some people are nice and polite and just say, "Gosh, wouldn't it be great if D&D handled my favorite style of fantasy, too."  Far too many, though, seem bent on telling me that it's impossible to have fighters competitive with wizards at high levels without magic, that something isn't magic unless it involves a wizard casting spells, that I must love wizards and want to see fighters suffer because I don't like wuxia powers, that I'd like wuxia if I gave it a chance, that I'm just a grognard, that wuxia is the only way to keep D&D afloat, etc.



The other possibility is that maybe "people" don't want anime- or wuxia-flavored D&D, but are looking to certain abilities featured in anime or wuxia films as exemplars of what a high-level warrior should be able to do. Just as one might look to the Beowulf motion-capture flick, 300, or any number of other films that feature "physically impossible" feats of prowess that nonetheless work as "martial" abilities.

The problem with D&D in all its previous incarnations is that it requires the fighter to be a Christmas tree in order to even come close to a spellcaster in power. In many cases, it actually requires the fighter to _rely_ on the spellcaster for any semblance of relevance. The designers originally attempted to create balance by giving wizards limited spells memorized, which if anything skews D&D _further away_ from most fantasy (with the exception of _Dying Earth_, and even that magic system is different). So in order for 4e to bring classes closer in parity without mandating a specific magic item allowance (and even that doesn't really bring full parity), fighters have to be beefed up a bit at high levels. Given that high-level warriors in _Western_ culture could be immune to damage (Achilles), swim the sea for nine days (Beowulf), or throw fatal spears at giants with their _toes_ (Cuchulainn), being able to deflect a swarm of arrows, jump 10 feet in the air, or knock a legion's worth of ordinary soldiers around like tenpins doesn't really seem like a stretch for me.

EDIT: As a disclaimer: I currently play (and will probably continue to play) _Iron Heroes_, simply because it offers me the greatest ability to duplicate "classic" vanilla high fantasy and S&S of any system out there (except possibly Conan, but I don't like the Conan ruleset, classes, etc.). IH confers no obviously magical abilities, but certainly does give fighters the ability to perform some amazing feats at high level. 

Most Bo9S maneuvers seem comfortably in line with the IH feats, and I'd like to see such abilities available to D&D fighters in 4e. If you don't want flight, dimensional travel, or setting one's sword aflame as martial abilities, I'd say that's reasonable. But it's also easy to recast those abilities in a slightly less "F/X-ish" fashion. Perhaps a warrior knows a special secret for treating his blade with alchemist's fire; or can simply hurtle himself through the air for dozens of yards (think the _Beowulf_ movie). Perhaps he's so acrobatic, subtle, and stealthy that he can travel ten paces with all observers not even realized he moved. I recontextualize Bo9S abilities like this all the time in my current game, and it seems to work.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 7, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> The other possibility is that maybe "people" don't want anime- or wuxia-flavored D&D, but are looking to certain abilities featured in anime or wuxia films as exemplars of what a high-level warrior should be able to do.




The way in which those two differ are pretty minor.

I'm all for a way to balance martial and arcane characters.  I don't see that being able to ignite your sword, leap 100', or the like are required.

On the other hand, I'm fine with punches that crack stone, vaulting over human-sized opponents, dodging arrows (maybe not volleys, though), enduring a cider block to the face, and snapping chains.  Those aren't real-world, but they have a somewhat different feel than some wuxia moves.

Something that occurred to me, in a somewhat humorous way is the old "turn it to 11" bit.  I want fighters to just "turn it to 11" (and 12, 13, 19, etc.).  The same stuff, just bigger.  I want wizards to use pyrotechnics.  I don't want my fighters using pyrotechnics (at least not of their own design), and I don't want my wizards just turning up the volume.

That isn't to say that I'm against fighter/mages.  I'm just against some types of magic being passed off as martial skill.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 7, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> The way in which those two differ are pretty minor.
> 
> I'm all for a way to balance martial and arcane characters.  I don't see that being able to ignite your sword, leap 100', or the like are required.
> 
> ...




However, as the other poster mentioned, this certainly isn't equivalent to what mid to high level D&D magic offers.

Yeah, being able to jump over human sized opponents sounds cool at 20th level, but the mu has been flying all the time since 10th level. Being able to dodge/catch a couple of arrows at 20th level is really NOT balanced in any form with being able to stop time.

This is one of the reasons why the EPIC rules for 3.x are held in such disdain

Reason why wuxia/anime is better for influence is that ironically, a wuxia warrior like HERO is better suited for high-level D&D. Seriously, when people say I want "Sword & Sorcery" a la Conan/Fahrd & Grey Mouser they always ignore that said stories don't have magic in the hands of the protoganist to a great extent. Certainly not even close to the level of a 10th level D&D cleric to say nothing of a 20th level wizard.

Fortunately, it looks like 4E is going to ratchet down the power of spellcasting (which of course, has caused another set of fans to cry foul)


----------



## Zurai (Jan 7, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm fine with ... dodging arrows (maybe not volleys, though).  Those aren't real-world, but they have a somewhat different feel than some wuxia moves.
> 
> Something that occurred to me, in a somewhat humorous way is the old "turn it to 11" bit.  I want fighters to just "turn it to 11" (and 12, 13, 19, etc.).




So how is dodging 10 arrows not "turning it to 11" from dodging 1 arrow? Furthering that, how is dodging 100 arrows not "turning it to 11" from dodging 10? And so on.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 7, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> The way in which those two differ are pretty minor.
> 
> I'm all for a way to balance martial and arcane characters.  I don't see that being able to ignite your sword, leap 100', or the like are required.



No one in _Hero_ or Yimou's other movies does those things. The craziest it gets is running on water, and that's an ability that can be kept or ditched on a pure flavor basis. As Zurai said, though, you really think there's an appreciable F/X difference between sweeping dozens of arrows out of the air vs knocking away a few? Or blocking hundreds of arrows with a 3'x2' piece of wood? 

I think that punching cracks in solid stone is just as obvious-F/X as sweeping arrows out of the air with one's bare hands; it's a question of what specific F/X you prefer, and that is, of course, an issue for individual DMs. One of the interesting _gedankenexperiments_ that Bo9S provides is working through balance when/if you decide to ditch certain schools. For instance, if you throw out Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, you've basically eliminated 99% of the obvious-F/X maneuvers. Have you maintained the same power level? If so, I'd say you're there; you've got martial abilities without sacrificing power.


----------



## mxyzplk (Jan 8, 2008)

My gaming group pretty much all has Book of Nine Swords and likes it.  Some of the folks there get everything no matter what, but others are more selective.  Sure, you always buy a PHB/DMG first, then the class books, and then Bo9S, but it's way more popular in our group than any of the other variant stuff - the races books, the incarnum stuff, dragon magic, etc.  Except for the Magic Item Compendium; everyone needs that to pimp their character out.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> No one in _Hero_ or Yimou's other movies does those things. The craziest it gets is running on water, and that's an ability that can be kept or ditched on a pure flavor basis. As Zurai said, though, you really think there's an appreciable F/X difference between sweeping dozens of arrows out of the air vs knocking away a few? Or blocking hundreds of arrows with a 3'x2' piece of wood?




There's a pretty big difference to me; largely it's in the pop western style literature and movies up until the 1990's, true, but it's still a difference of scale; even after one or two, credibility starts to be strained, and after a jump of 10 feet straight up or 20 feet standing leap ahead, that starts to get into superheroic territory. Basically, If I can see captain america doing it, it's in the zone; if I can see the incredible hulk doing it, or the flash, then it's outside that zone.




> I think that punching cracks in solid stone is just as obvious-F/X as sweeping arrows out of the air with one's bare hands; it's a question of what specific F/X you prefer, and that is, of course, an issue for individual DMs. One of the interesting _gedankenexperiments_ that Bo9S provides is working through balance when/if you decide to ditch certain schools. For instance, if you throw out Desert Wind and Shadow Hand, you've basically eliminated 99% of the obvious-F/X maneuvers. Have you maintained the same power level? If so, I'd say you're there; you've got martial abilities without sacrificing power.



And this is true; I've made that argument in the past myself. But again, the qualifications on what's magic and what's not could definitely use work in that book. I don't want to see the crusader deliver blasts of divine power or teleporting around where the cleric or wizard couldn't.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Crusaders can't teleport.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Crusaders can't teleport.



Mine can, thanks to this wonderful little feat called martial study.

(And yes, other PCs could also take martial study, but it's beside the point of maneuvers themselves no being categorized properly.)


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

Oh, and the teleportation maneuvers are Supernatural, so not usable in an antimagic field, etc.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Oh, and the teleportation maneuvers are Supernatural, so not usable in an antimagic field, etc.




Does it say that? I thought it said that unless specified, all maneuvers are extraordinary, and there are no notes under the maneuver itself. It does say (teleportation), but I don't see ny notes that it's supernatural in the maneuver overview section.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 8, 2008)

They have the [teleportation] subtype, which means anything that blocks teleportation blocks them. You're right, though; they don't have the "This maneuver is a supernatural ability" tag that every other Shadow Hand maneuver has.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> They have the [teleportation] subtype, which means anything that blocks teleportation blocks them. You're right, though; they don't have the "This maneuver is a supernatural ability" tag that every other Shadow Hand maneuver has.




Which means that this is an extraordinary ability that uses access to the astral plane. Kinda funky, huh?


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 8, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Which means that this is an extraordinary ability that uses access to the astral plane. Kinda funky, huh?




Actually, I don't think they should use the Astral Plane.

Look at the Shadowhand teleport manoeuvers (specifically, Shadow Jaunt) and you'll notice that they are blocked by BOTH line of effect AND line of sight.

That does NOT strike me as a teleport affect. 

I can see where it isn't listed as supernatural since it doesn't actually seem supernatural.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 8, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> There's a pretty big difference to me; largely it's in the pop western style literature and movies up until the 1990's, true, but it's still a difference of scale; even after one or two, credibility starts to be strained, and after a jump of 10 feet straight up or 20 feet standing leap ahead, that starts to get into superheroic territory. Basically, If I can see captain america doing it, it's in the zone; if I can see the incredible hulk doing it, or the flash, then it's outside that zone.



This is something of a disconnect, really. For many people, so long as it still resembles normal physical abilities, and is pretty much just an enhancement or extension of what is normally possible, it is not "magic", it is "martial".

I would argue that, no matter how imaginative they are, the characters from Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, are just mundane fighters. For me, at least, there is a tremendous difference between "superhuman" and "magical". Just because a mythical character does something impossible for a real person to do does not mean magic is involved. Hanuman's jump from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas in the _Ramayana_, and his return back carrying a mountain on his back, is not the product of magic; it is a product of raw physical power. Hanuman was a fighter, a martial character, and his astounding leap was not the product of magical spells or enchantments.

Fundamentally, the idea that anything beyond the bounds of the real world is the product of a wizard's spells or equivalent is a D&Dism that you can't possibly apply to real myth, legend, or even popular culture. The divide between Extraordinary and Supernatural is problematic and artificial even in D&D itself (and is a product of the single idea of "anti-magic", which is just a byproduct of that annoying D&Dism). As a whole, D&D would benefit a lot by just removing anti-magic and the entire distinction between extraordinary and supernatural entirely. In fact, I think that is happening in 4E.

Anyways, I like having fighters with abilities that can't possibly be recreated in real life. D&D is a game about legend and fantasy, and limiting the abilities of a character to what is possible in the real world is antithetical to the very genre of fantasy.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> How does he get a feat at 7th level?
> 
> 9th level for Wilder, 10th level for Psion (who does get a bonus feat then).
> 
> ...




Yeah, I messed up the 7th level thing. He could actually get it at level 6 (Wilder 4/Fighter 2) where it is a minimum of 5D6 versus the Warlock's 3D6, but that costs quite a few PP (and 2 powers) lost.

And, it is not plinking opponents to death. It's blasting for cheap. If he concentrates on the opponents that are already seriously damaged, he can more or less take out an opponent most rounds. Whittling down the opposition.

Even taking it at 9th level, a human Wilder can get the lesser version at level 1. 4D6 at level one (surging it is a given) is pretty nice. Sure, he can only do it 3 or 4 times a day and not too often in the same combat, but still, that's double what a Wilder not taking those two feats can do.

How many first level opponents can withstand an average of 14 points of damage? Granted at first level, it does not always hit. But when it does, it can easily take out most BBEGs at that level. Until he gets Psionic Meditation, he uses it for blasting only (i.e. at full power with full surge) except for rare cases when he knows an opponent is seriously damaged and likely to fall if hit. Then it becomes a PP saver.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> You consider 10 foot leaps to be "magical powers"?  You have quite a different opinion of what's magical than I do.  The current standing long jump record is over 11 and a half feet.  Am I missing something, or does your definition of "magical abilities unsuited for low level martial characters" include feats that have been surpassed by real world athletes?




I'm talking standing jump, 10 feet straight up, not long jump. "10 foot wall, no problem, I jump onto it." Something that is a DC 80 Jump check in 3E (DC 40 with 20 feet running start) .


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 8, 2008)

I can't make a 10' long jump - therefore me making a 10' jump _ever_ is a magical ability?

No-one can make 10' high jump - therefore anyone making a 10' jump straight up is a magical ability?

It's not an issue of scale, but of level. 

Should a 10th level Fighter be able to do stuff that is _impossible_ for anyone who ever lived to do? How about 20th level? Or 30th level?

I'm guessing that Herioc tier characters are fully human. So end you games there.
But if a 10th level Fighter has reached the limit of human potential - then what do you get for the next _twenty_ levels?

Nothing?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> This is something of a disconnect, really. For many people, so long as it still resembles normal physical abilities, and is pretty much just an enhancement or extension of what is normally possible, it is not "magic", it is "martial".
> 
> I would argue that, no matter how imaginative they are, the characters from Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, are just mundane fighters. For me, at least, there is a tremendous difference between "superhuman" and "magical". Just because a mythical character does something impossible for a real person to do does not mean magic is involved. Hanuman's jump from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas in the _Ramayana_, and his return back carrying a mountain on his back, is not the product of magic; it is a product of raw physical power.




Superhuman does have to be considered supernatural in the literal sense of the word (i.e. beyond natural). Nothing wrong with DND martial types doing supernatural abilities (using that definition, not the DND one of supernatural as magic) as long as they do not do them at low levels. As long as they gradually gain these "beyond normal" abilities, it's ok.

The problem comes in (for some of us) when they gain abilities which are not extensions of normal abilties.

The ability to instantantly heal. The ability to teleport. The ability to fly. The ability to have fire spring from a sword.

These are magical abilities. They are not enhancements of normal abilities and do not belong in the list of martial powers.

My concern is that these types of magical martial powers *will* be in the list of martial powers. Just look at Hide in Plain Sight in 3E. Effectively going Invisible is not an enhancement of Hiding. The Hiding skill itself should be boosted, the *rules* of Hiding should not be changed. IMO.

That's where 4E might have issues. The designers might not merely enhance abilities, they might change the rules for these powers (e.g. similar to Diverting Defense where you can accidently hit your ally 10 or more feet away, even though you cannot reach him at that range, it breaks the normal rules to allow the feat to work).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> I can't make a 10' long jump - therefore me making a 10' jump _ever_ is a magical ability?
> 
> No-one can make 10' high jump - therefore anyone making a 10' jump straight up is a magical ability?




Are you saying that it is a natural ability?



			
				Simon Marks said:
			
		

> It's not an issue of scale, but of level.
> 
> Should a 10th level Fighter be able to do stuff that is _impossible_ for anyone who ever lived to do? How about 20th level? Or 30th level?
> 
> ...




Low level Martial Powers should not include 10' high standing jumps straight up. IMO. It might be ok to do it at 20th level depending on where the balance of other abilities are at that level. But, the game system has to indicate that superhuman natural abilities start appearing at level X so that DMs are prepared.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 8, 2008)

For me to make a standing high jump of 10' in D&D, I would need to beat a jump DC of 80.

With a running start, it would be a jump DC of 40.  There are feats that let you count as if running, so we'll use this DC.

That's doable without magic, IF you invest as follows (and assuming you consider magical strength enhancement to be magical assistance in jumping):

12 ranks in Jump
+2 bonus from tumble synergy
+4 from Run feat
+10 from Leaping Dragon Stance, from Tome of Battle
+2 from Blade Meditation: Tiger Claw, from Tome of Battle
+5 strength bonus
+2 from acrobatic feat
+3 from skill focus: jump

Can somebody get that at a lower level than 9?

If you take out the ridiculously suboptimal feat selections (acrobatic?  skill focus jump? this character spent 4 feats on jumping), chances are no one is accomplishing this below level 15 in regular D&D, EVEN IF they use the MOST "wuxia" like character options from the most wuxia like book.

Does anyone have any reason to think this is changing?  Or is this the same hysteria that attached itself to Tome of Battle?


----------



## Fenes (Jan 8, 2008)

(Isn't there an Oriental Adventures Prestige Class that gives +30 to jump/tumble/balance checks? Blade Dancer, I think.)


----------



## Seule (Jan 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Can somebody get that at a lower level than 9?




Take a level of Barbarian for 10' increase to speed (+4 to jump) and Reckless Rage to bump Strength by another 6, or another +3.

  --Seule


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> For me to make a standing high jump of 10' in D&D, I would need to beat a jump DC of 80.
> 
> With a running start, it would be a jump DC of 40.  There are feats that let you count as if running, so we'll use this DC.
> ...
> ...




I don't think anyone has a problem with a PC designed to jump like this taking a lot of skills and feats to do so, and accomplishing this by level 15.

The problem we are discussing is to gain one non-magical Talent or Feat that allows a PC to jump straight up Wuxia style 10 feet. A single Talent or Feat that gives a DC 80 skill check. Seeing some of the abilities in Bo9S and PHBII, it makes one wonder. For example, Burning Blade. What exactly is martial and non-magical about setting your sword on fire? It's not a martial power, it's the DND equivalent of a superpower. Ditto for many of the powers. Crusader's Strike has nothing to do with a martial power. Probably more than a third of the abilities in Bo9S sound like superpowers as opposed to super martial powers.

Bo9S is pure fantasy Wuxia stuff, not DND martial stuff.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Jan 8, 2008)

It's yet D&D fantasy, just inspired of another, less common source.

About time D&D don't rehash the same old tired sources.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> It's yet D&D fantasy, just inspired of another, less common source.
> 
> About time D&D don't rehash the same old tired sources.




If it is tired for you, change it for your game.

Don't force the rest of the world to correspond to your idea of old and tired.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If it is tired for you, change it for your game.
> 
> Don't force the rest of the world to correspond to your idea of old and tired.




Same can be said in the reverse, however. 

If you prefer the old way ignore the new stuff, don't force the rest of us to miss out on new ideas.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If it is tired for you, change it for your game.
> 
> Don't force the rest of the world to correspond to your idea of old and tired.



Or the best idea, make a system that can comfort both! 

Sure, you might have to restrict some options some times (no burning sword power for you, Mr. Fighter. Take the +100 once per encounter power instead!)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 8, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Same can be said in the reverse, however.
> 
> If you prefer the old way ignore the new stuff, don't force the rest of us to miss out on new ideas.




Actually, there is a difference.

Some of us might actually want to have the new game mechanics ideas which speed up the game without the new game change fighters into WoW/Wuxia superheroes ideas. Not saying that WotC is doing this, but that does appear to be the trend.

The majority of people who play DND have Fighter types with few "superpowers" and magical abilities unless they multiclass. Making it the status quo changes it from DND to something else. Sure, have it as an option for those who like that stuff, but not as core.

Btw, many of the new game mechanics ideas are great from what I have heard. Getting rid of Prestige Classes. Great. I hated them from day one. Giving each PC a new ability at every level. Great.

I just do not want to play DND Four Color Superheroes and that is what giving martial PCs magical sounding powers leans towards. That really is not DND.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The majority of people who play DND have Fighter types with few "superpowers" and magical abilities unless they multiclass. Making it the status quo changes it from DND to something else. Sure, have it as an option for those who like that stuff, but not as core.



Except that this is not true. High-level fighters in every edition certainly have superpowers; they can jump off cliffs, wrestle giants, and wade through entire armies.*  It's just that right now, [EDIT: *some of*] those come from their stuff. Making the powers independent of magic items doesn't really change the game at all; in fact, if you like, you can just say that the powers *do* come from the hero's legendary magic sword and cloak and have done with. 

*One of the reasons I mentioned _Hero_ is that it was the first film I saw that actually created a plausible visual depiction of two people enduring hundreds of attacks and tearing through hundreds of ordinary (1st-level) warriors.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, there is a difference.




Well sure. They're the two separate sides of the same argument. They're different but the same... (oooooh I got all zen like...)



> Some of us might actually want to have the new game mechanics ideas which speed up the game without the new game change fighters into WoW/Wuxia superheroes ideas. Not saying that WotC is doing this, but that does appear to be the trend.




When did I say change them in to wuxia superheroes? 

My comment was simply that you can use the same basic argument structure to argue the other side. 



> The majority of people who play DND have Fighter types with few "superpowers" and magical abilities unless they multiclass.




Maybe because it's never been offered before?



> Making it the status quo changes it from DND to something else. Sure, have it as an option for those who like that stuff, but not as core.




Making it the status quo and offering those elements are two separate things. My guess is power selection will be similar to Bo9S selection. You can take whichever ones best fit the character image you wish to play, ignore the ones you don't. 

Put it in the core so that people who like that style of play have those options from the get go, and won't be turned off by the fact that D&D isn't a game for them.

I've never been a fan of the monk. I felt it was a weird out of place class. Do I think that it should have been done away with? No. It's easy enough to ignore it, yet allows others who might like it the ability to use it.

D&D needs to find ways to attract new players who might otherwise be tempted to play other games that include the elements they're looking for. Not trying its best to create an exclusive club of people who like a certain style of fantasy.



> Btw, many of the new game mechanics ideas are great from what I have heard. Getting rid of Prestige Classes. Great. I hated them from day one. Giving each PC a new ability at every level. Great.




Cool?



> I just do not want to play DND Four Color Superheroes and that is what giving martial PCs magical sounding powers leans towards.




Sorry you feel that way? To me it offers up more character options.

One of my favorite movies is Brotherhood of The Wolf... It made absolutely no historical sense that this native american guy was a crazy martial artist... It was still fun to watch.



> That really is not DND.




In your opinion.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 8, 2008)

The sense I get is that characters with the Martial power source will follow a "human, but better" theme.  They may be able to leap 50 or even 100 feet, but they won't be able to fly.  They may be able to crack stone with their fists, but they won't be able to change it into Jell-O.  Et cetera.  So while you may see paladins (Divine power source) healing people with their strikes, you won't see fighters (Martial source) igniting their swords.

It's worth noting that in the Bo9S, the fighter-analogue class has access to none of the "supernatural" maneuvers; its disciplines are Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven, all of which fall squarely in the "human, but better" category.  (Sure, you can pick up other maneuvers with Martial Study, but that's equivalent to multiclassing.)  The supernatural stuff belongs to the paladin-analogue and the monk-analogue, both of which have perfectly valid reasons for having it.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> For me to make a standing high jump of 10' in D&D, I would need to beat a jump DC of 80.
> 
> With a running start, it would be a jump DC of 40.  There are feats that let you count as if running, so we'll use this DC.
> 
> ...




Here's my problem with limiting martial characters to say, the Captain America level.

At level 9, a wizard casts the spell jump (which lasts for 9 minutes at this time) and gains a +30 enhancement bonus to their jump check. At level 9, a wizard could make 2 scrolls of every 1st and 2nd level spell and still have enough money left over for most of the essentials (this is also another example of people ignoring the main problem, the power of magic in that the Xmas tree effect is pretty much a non-issue for casters. Strip a 20th level caster of his magic items and you don't affect him in the slightest. His stamina goes down but actual capability? No change)

This is where I disagree with both Karinsdad and Henry. Its nice and well to want martial characters to be equivalent to Captain America but the only reason Captain America works in the Avengers with people like Thor and Dr. Strange is that the writers "dumb-down" the other characters to make Captain America seem useful.

Hell, there was once a comic book story where Thor even admits that he holds back when he's around mere mortals but high level D&D magic users have better than average odds beating characters like Thor and Superman into the ground and players aren't going to nerf themselves when playing a class.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Here's my problem with limiting martial characters to say, the Captain America level.
> 
> At level 9, a wizard casts the spell jump (which lasts for 9 minutes at this time) and gains a +30 enhancement bonus to their jump check.



Wins the thread. In 3E, a first-level spell is equivalent to a ton of skill points, feats, and class abilities for a non-magic character, and that's OK, because it's MAAAAGIIIIC (said in a Doug Henning voice).  I think the concept of the 'martial' power source as something equal in power to the 'arcane' and the 'divine' is a great idea, and I'm looking forward to it quite a bit.  If one guy can bend the rules of reality with his mind, and another with his heart, I don't see why a third can't do it with his muscles.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 8, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that in the Bo9S, the fighter-analogue class has access to none of the "supernatural" maneuvers; its disciplines are Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven, all of which fall squarely in the "human, but better" category.  *(Sure, you can pick up other maneuvers with Martial Study, but that's equivalent to multiclassing.)*  The supernatural stuff belongs to the paladin-analogue and the monk-analogue, both of which have perfectly valid reasons for having it.




D'oh! *Head Smack*

I just realized that this is probably roughly how the "Class Training" feats in 4e work.

Sorry for the derail, but it never occurred to me until now. I suspect that Martial Study might even have been there partially to test that mechanic.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 8, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yeah, I messed up the 7th level thing. He could actually get it at level 6 (Wilder 4/Fighter 2) where it is a minimum of 5D6 versus the Warlock's 3D6, but that costs quite a few PP (and 2 powers) lost.



 Fighters don't get [Psionic] bonus feats. How is he getting both Psionic Meditation and Greater Psionic Shot at 6th level?



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, it is not plinking opponents to death. It's blasting for cheap. If he concentrates on the opponents that are already seriously damaged, he can more or less take out an opponent most rounds. Whittling down the opposition.



 At 9th level, 5d6 damage with a Close ray isn't all that. Not for the price of four feats.

(And of course [Reserve] feats do the same thing, but cheaper, better, and without draining any resources.)



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Even taking it at 9th level, a human Wilder can get the lesser version at level 1. 4D6 at level one (surging it is a given) is pretty nice. Sure, he can only do it 3 or 4 times a day and not too often in the same combat, but still, that's double what a Wilder not taking those two feats can do.



 Sure. Wilders are like that. I don't encourage them in my games... but that's a totally different argument than your original "free 5d6 all day" argument. It's more like the whole reason for Wilders to exist.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 8, 2008)

Is 'more-than-human' ok if it's not available until after 10th level? Even for fighters?

See, this is how I see it;

Heroic Tier Fighter
Above Average -> Human limit (Batman)

Paragon Tier Fighter
Human Limit -> 'Low-power' superhero

Epic Tier Fighter
Mythic Warrior ->  Near Godlike.

Heroic tier are 'fully human', but above 10th characters are no longer representative of 'human potential'

Don't like it? Don't run past 10th.

I'm fine with it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 9, 2008)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Fighters don't get [Psionic] bonus feats. How is he getting both Psionic Meditation and Greater Psionic Shot at 6th level?




Killjoy. You ruin all my fun and force me to look stuff up instead of making stuff up.  



			
				Nifft said:
			
		

> At 9th level, 5d6 damage with a Close ray isn't all that. Not for the price of four feats.




5D6?

The 5D6 isn't that much. But 8D6 (range 45) with a Surge for a single Power Point is pretty nice at 9th level. That's 50%+ of most opponent's hit points for 1 PP. If it is a tough opponent, he can boost this to 16D6 (range 85 for 9 PP and typically a save versus massive damage) which will take out most opponents in a single shot. Even if a BBEG survives such an attack (and a spell casting BBEG probably will not), do you really think he wants to stick around for a second dose?

At this same 9th level, the Warlock is doing 5D6 plus an Eldritch Blast. Nice, but not overwhelming. The Essences have saving throws, so they may or may not do anything more than the 5D6. The 5D6 has Spell Resistance, so it may or may not do anything at all. A tough opponent would probably laugh at such an attack.

The main defense to the 8D6 is a miss chance. Otherwise, at 9th level it is a near automatic hit (in a different thread last year, we figured out the touch AC of most creatures and it averages 11 and rarely gets above 14). No spell resistance. No save. And when it is done on multiple rounds, some latter rounds get +1 more to hit and damage. The only opponent with a decent defense against this is a Monk.

Compare that to a 9th level archer who gets three attacks per round with Rapid Shot, but for less damage and less chance to hit and DR.

Human 9th Wilder Feats: (Point Blank Shot, Psionic Shot, Postpone Enervation, Psionic Meditation, Greater Psionic Shot). The advantage over the Warlock is that the Wilder is doing more damage per combat at the lower levels (hence, has a better chance to survive).

Sure, a different 9th level Wilder could surge a 10D6+10 Empowered Energy Bolt against multiple targets for a single feat. This Wilder (as built) would have to wait until 12th level to do such an Empower and could only do a 12D6+12 Energy Bolt at level 9. At higher levels, Empower does do more damage. But, at lower levels, Psionic Shot allows the Wilder to survive easier.


Such a PC would give most DMs fits as their carefully crafted adventures end up with 3 round combats instead of 5 round ones due to the Wilder blowing away most opponents that the other PCs injure. It can really save party resources by picking opponents off quicker. 4D6 at levels 1 and 2, 5D6 at levels 3-6, 6D6 at levels 7 and 8. For one PP a shot. It becomes real nice at level 12 if he uses a feat to acquire Schism and can injure opponents with his standard action and pick one of them off with a 1 PP shot with a swift action most rounds.

I do not necessarily consider this broken, but I do consider it problematic for DMs. At low levels when most players are rolling one die of damage for most attacks, the player of this PC is rolling 4+. If the DM increases the difficulty of encounters to account for this one PC, then a series of bad rolls can quickly lead to a TPK.


Note: Sure the Wilder will not make the Concentration roll to regain the ability every round with Psionic Meditation. With a 14 CON, he'll be successful 55% of the time at level 6. This just means that it is not an every round action. More like one round in three at level 6 (he will not always be just doing this, he'll still need move actions for other things) and one in two at level 9. Some rounds, he will do less damage with his Surged Crystal because it cannot use the Psionic Shot with it. He just has to be smart and pick the most damaged opponent to finish off those rounds.

The real aspect of psionic PCs is that they can Nova, but they burn out their PP quickly if they do so. The advantage of this type of build is that the guy rarely uses a lot of PP (while still doing a lot of damage), so he has plenty of PP to spare when it IS time to Nova.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 9, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Heroic Tier Fighter
> Above Average -> Human limit (Batman)
> 
> Paragon Tier Fighter
> ...




So am I. Your model appears fine. My concern is with low level.


----------



## Gunpowder (Jan 9, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So am I. Your model appears fine. My concern is with low level.




and I have to ask what is causing this concern? You mentioned self-healing, teleportation and flaming blades in another post. Are these the things that you think martial classes can or should not be able to do at low level or at all? If so then I really don't see a problem. 
The latter two are only available to the swordsage and the book specially calls them  "blade wizards who use knowledge of the sublime way to unlock abilities that are overtly supernatural or magical in nature." So the class that is trying to be the mystic wuxia magic guy succeeds at being the mystic wuxia guy. The monk done right if you will. 

On self-healing, I am glad that healing is no longer tied solely to positive energy. From John McClaine to Conan, allowing fighters to reach down and tap an inner source to get back up to kick arse is a good thing.


----------



## Fenes (Jan 9, 2008)

I don't have any problem with self-healing, since I do prefer the Star Wars d20 explanation for hitpoints: You don't get hit for real until the last few blows that take you down (do wound damage). Up until then, you get bruised, nicked, tired from dodging, use up your luck, etc.

That way, I don't see a fighter suddenly close his wounds (half a dozen arrows sticking in his shoulders and thighs, arm and belly slashed open twice) with magic, I see a battered fighter, whose sword arm is slowing down from exhaustion finding the strength to get a second wind.

My suspension of disbelief would be much harder if I did take all those "hits" to mean actual hits from arrows, swords and claws.


----------



## Zurai (Jan 9, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The 5D6 isn't that much. But 8D6 (range 45) with a Surge for a single Power Point is pretty nice at 9th level. That's 50%+ of most opponent's hit points for 1 PP. If it is a tough opponent, he can boost this to 16D6 (range 85 for 9 PP and typically a save versus massive damage) which will take out most opponents in a single shot. Even if a BBEG survives such an attack (and a spell casting BBEG probably will not), do you really think he wants to stick around for a second dose?



Very few things at CR9 and above have less than 80-100 hit points. 8d6 only averages to 28 damage. 16d6 averages to 56. Even a level 9 wizard (which is hardly a BBEG to a level 9 party) with 14 con will have 42 hit points on average.


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 9, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I don't have any problem with self-healing, since I do prefer the Star Wars d20 explanation for hitpoints: You don't get hit for real until the last few blows that take you down (do wound damage). Up until then, you get bruised, nicked, tired from dodging, use up your luck, etc.




This has mostly been the true since 1st ed AD&D.




> Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Players Handbook; Page 34:
> CHARACTER HIT POINTS
> 
> Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit point represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to fill four large warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of it points are a symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
> ...




My emphasis.

In my opinion, there is no real debate. 2ed doesn't mention it at all, mind. 1st and 3.x both explicitly call out that HP are abstract and represent Luck, Skill and Magic.


----------



## Henry (Jan 9, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> Wins the thread. In 3E, a first-level spell is equivalent to a ton of skill points, feats, and class abilities for a non-magic character, and that's OK, because it's MAAAAGIIIIC (said in a Doug Henning voice).  I think the concept of the 'martial' power source as something equal in power to the 'arcane' and the 'divine' is a great idea, and I'm looking forward to it quite a bit.  If one guy can bend the rules of reality with his mind, and another with his heart, I don't see why a third can't do it with his muscles.




I don't know if it "wins the thread", because I never said I was totally happy with the proliferation of magic items in D&D anyway.  If he has to spend a spell to do it, that's one thing: it's one of his vaunted slots for things like magic missile, shield, etc. But if it's on a scroll he just made for 12 gold and a single XP,  or if he's got tons of scrolls to make up for his slots spent, then it is a little too much utility magic bang for the buck. There was a time when a wizard would rather french-kiss a mind flayer than try to make a scroll. 

But the imbalance's solution, in my opinion, is not just "turn the non-magical guy loose with magic powers that you don't call magic." To me, it looks darned silly and throws the sense of believability out the window.

What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jan 9, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.



And here we are at the exact same disconnect...

If you looks at things other than D&D, such as myth, legend, and various other kinds of fiction, you do _not_ need magic in order to do amazing things. Things that we consider supernatural would be allowable within the base physics of the world. Many people are just advocating the physics of D&D be changed from being overly slavish to real world physics, and more like mythical physics.

More importantly, the current situation in D&D where magic is required to make fantastic physical feats possible means that the average bookworm wizard is better at fantastic physical feats than a 20th level Fighter. A wizard with no training or physical strength can just cast a single low-level spell on himself and surpass the abilities of the finest athletes in the world In other words, the Wizard is better then the Martial classes at a distinctly Martial ability set. It is nothing but dilution of archetype and enforcement of the supremacy of magic-users of others, and hurts the game.

At this point, though, I think the two groups are just bashing our skulls together with different definitions of "magic" and ideas on how the basic physics of D&D should operate. As a whole though, if people don't need magic to do incredible things in D&D, I will be much happier.


----------



## rkanodia (Jan 9, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I don't know if it "wins the thread", because I never said I was totally happy with the proliferation of magic items in D&D anyway.  If he has to spend a spell to do it, that's one thing: it's one of his vaunted slots for things like magic missile, shield, etc. But if it's on a scroll he just made for 12 gold and a single XP,  or if he's got tons of scrolls to make up for his slots spent, then it is a little too much utility magic bang for the buck. There was a time when a wizard would rather french-kiss a mind flayer than try to make a scroll.



Magic item frequency is kind of a separate issue, though I see your point.  But I disagree that it's 'OK' from a balance perspective if he has to spend a spell to do it.  Sure, at low level, that would represent a significant investment on his part.  But then again, when that fighter spent 12 skill points and 2 feats on non-combat abilities, isn't THAT quite a significant investment on his part also?  Those skill points and feats will still be a significant investment when both characters reach 20th level.  The first-level spell slot?  Not so much.


			
				Henry said:
			
		

> But the imbalance's solution, in my opinion, is not just "turn the non-magical guy loose with magic powers that you don't call magic." To me, it looks darned silly and throws the sense of believability out the window.



I think this really is a matter of aesthetics.  I personally think that it's 'darned silly' that my fighter can win a bare-knuckle fight with an elephant, and yet requires a rope to jump a 10' wall.


			
				Henry said:
			
		

> What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.



I agree with you that this is a significant departure from the previous editions.  I guess I just don't see D&D as being 'the real world, plus magic'.  In my view of a fantasy world, fantastic things happen all the time, and whether they were 'magic' or not doesn't really matter.  At this point, though I think the thread has gone downhill enough, and it's clear that nobody (myself included) is going to find their own subjective sense of aesthetics changed by a forum post, so I'm pretty much done with it.  I hope you find a way to make 4E a little more comfortable


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 9, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> A wizard with no training or physical strength can just cast a single low-level spell on himself and surpass the abilities of the finest athletes in the world In other words, the Wizard is better then the Martial classes at a distinctly Martial ability set. It is nothing but dilution of archetype and enforcement of the supremacy of magic-users of others, and hurts the game.



Yeah. It works provided the PCs are down a dungeon having 12 encounters a day, with the wizard only doing something in about 4 of them. That's the environment the classes 'evolved' to fit back in 1974. The whole thing breaks as soon as they leave that environment.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 10, 2008)

Right.  D&D is made to resemble stuff in mythology to some extent, and D&D heroes should be akin to mythological heroes at the very least.

Sure, Hercules was a half-god, but almost every mythological hero was superhuman in some way, if they were even human at all to begin with.

A D&D Fighter should match Hercules' strength when he reaches a sufficient level, even if he was just an ordinary human to begin with; while Hercules may've been that strong at 1st-level because he has the Half-God Template or somesuch thing, a D&D Fighter should be able to fight Hercules mano-a-mano and win if the Fighter's just been training hard and fighting hard for a long enough time, while Hercules went into retirement and spent the past decade or two just boozing and shmoozing.

Fighters in D&D should be able to match or exceed mythological heroes like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Cuchulain (sp?), Sigurd the Volsung, Beowulf, and their ilk.  Of course they'll need to work their way up to it, but they shouldn't need magic or divine birthright to do it.

'Course, I'm in the camp that says a 1st-level Fighter should just be a talented rookie (while a 1st-level Warrior is an untalented rookie), and shouldn't be all superhuman-heroic-like yet.  But he should be looking like Captain America when he's 5th or 10th level, and lookin' like Hercules when he's 11th or 15th level or so, and movin' on up from there as he continues to train himself in martial prowess and feats of physical strength, stamina, and speed.


----------



## Henry (Jan 10, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> At this point, though I think the thread has gone downhill enough, and it's clear that nobody (myself included) is going to find their own subjective sense of aesthetics changed by a forum post, so I'm pretty much done with it.  I hope you find a way to make 4E a little more comfortable




I agree, it's just two different ways of looking at the level of heroics expected of D&D, and the time for an impasse has come.  but I'll find a way to be comfortable, even if it means leaving a game I've followed for 25 years as my primary means of "D&Ding."

Wulf Ratbane, you getting those ideas for Grim Tales 2 ruminating in your head?


----------



## Henry (Jan 10, 2008)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Right.  D&D is made to resemble stuff in mythology to some extent, and D&D heroes should be akin to mythological heroes at the very least.
> 
> Sure, Hercules was a half-god, but almost every mythological hero was superhuman in some way, if they were even human at all to begin with.




That's one I've always differed with, because D&D was originally not developed with hercules et. al. in mind so much as Conan, Elric, and his generation (the pulp fantasy heroes and villains). It's cool too, but that all D&D PCs should be superhuman at the very least is one I disagree with for reasons of play style.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 10, 2008)

But then, OD&D had a lower level cap than the later D&D books, y'know.  So sure, it's _original_ incarnation was strictly low-level low-fantasy fare.  But then it *grew*.

That doesn't mean that the other 10-20 levels or so that were added _later_ need to stick with that low-fantasy, Conanesque degree of martial ability.

(quick edit: especially since the magic-users quickly grew beyond the pulp fantasy level of power as well, and yet the fighting men lagged behind and stayed just as limited in strength as they had been in the first place, just scaling upward a little bit)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 10, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Very few things at CR9 and above have less than 80-100 hit points. 8d6 only averages to 28 damage. 16d6 averages to 56. Even a level 9 wizard (which is hardly a BBEG to a level 9 party) with 14 con will have 42 hit points on average.




What you say is true. But, somewhat besides the point nonetheless.

Say you have a BBEG with 152 hit points against 9th level PCs (say, a young adult Black Dragon). There are 4 PCs. Most of them will ignore the mooks (if they exist) and attack the BBEG if possible. So, the Wilder does 56 points of damage. The BBEG is now 37% damaged and only one PC has attacked it so far. There are still 3 other PCs, itching to take him down.

Say after round one, the BBEG is down 70%. 1 PC did 37%, 3 PCs did an average of 11% each (17 points each, not outside the realm of average 9th level damage in a round). In round two, the Wilder will kill it if he does the same attack. Knowing how much damage the Wilder did, the BBEG might attack him fighting to his last breath. Or, the BBEG might run away.

The point is that the BBEG might not last two rounds with such a PC in the group. It becomes worse for the CR9+ creatures you mentioned with only 80 - 100 hit points.

I didn't say that 16D6 was going to kill any given NPC opponent at level 9. I said that it is enough damage to take out most opponents. Not necessarily kill them outright, but either kill them with same round help from fellow PCs or force them to flee (assuming your DM does not play all monsters as fighting to the death).

Even the 8D6 at level 9 as a constant cheap go to the well power is nothing to sneeze at.


Note: The 9th level PC Sorcerer with his Big Gun Empowered Scorching Ray only does 42 points of damage. The 9th level PC Wilder can do a 16D6+12 (i.e. 12D6+12 + 4D6) Energy Ray for 68 points instead of the 16D6 Crystal Shard if he thinks the opponent does not have Spell Resistance and do more than 50% more damage than an Empowered Ray by the Sorcerer.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jan 10, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> (Bunch of stuff about psionics)




Not to be pedantic, but what does all this have to do with how popular _The Book of Nine Swords_ is?

Or is this thread totally played out?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 10, 2008)

So, has anyone been able to offer any real evidence that Bo9S's popularity was a myth?


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 10, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> That's one I've always differed with, because D&D was originally not developed with hercules et. al. in mind so much as Conan, Elric, and his generation (the pulp fantasy heroes and villains). It's cool too, but that all D&D PCs should be superhuman at the very least is one I disagree with for reasons of play style.




I'm curious about something that Henry mentions and this is directed at everyone in this thread.

What was the cultural influence/ideal/hero that (A)D&D magic-users is based on? Sure, we know the system comes from Vance, but what type of hero was Gygax et al trying to emulate when they decided on the feel of what a wizard/cleric should be?


----------



## Nifft (Jan 10, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Killjoy. You ruin all my fun and force me to look stuff up instead of making stuff up.



 Yeah yeah, if you didn't like it you wouldn't keep bringing up Psionics. Face it, you're a psychomasochist. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 5D6?
> 
> The 5D6 isn't that much. But 8D6 (range 45) with a Surge for a single Power Point is pretty nice at 9th level. That's 50%+ of most opponent's hit points for 1 PP. If it is a tough opponent, he can boost this to 16D6 (range 85 for 9 PP and typically a save versus massive damage) which will take out most opponents in a single shot. Even if a BBEG survives such an attack (and a spell casting BBEG probably will not), do you really think he wants to stick around for a second dose?



 It's interesting that you bring up "second round" and yet ignore the fact that the Wilder acting as you describe only has an 85% chance of participating. The real cost of that 8d6 is: 1 pp + (9 pp * 0.15) + (1 round * 0.15). How much is your next round's action worth? An extra action via _temporal acceleration_ costs 11 power points; let's call it 11 pp until someone comes up with something better, and IMHO 11 pp is quite low, since actions have been called the most precious commodity in D&D.

That 8d6 cost you: 4 feats + your Move action + 1 pp + 15% enervation.
(0.15 * 9 pp = 1.35 pp)

So the cost is AT LEAST 2.35 pp + 15% of your next round, with this latter bit being hard to price.

Even for a Wilder, I find Greater Psionic Shot far more tempting without using a Wild Surge. I'd only be taking those four feats to conserve PP, and blowing an extra *nine* of them would not be in my plan.

This is also why I prefer comparing Psions vs. arcanists rather than throwing Wilders in. See, once you allow the meta-cap to be broken, I have to bring up Rods of Metamagic... and then it's game over for Psionics. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only opponent with a decent defense against this is a Monk.



 Actually, look at the Wilder's Elude Touch special ability. Goose, gander, good, etc. 



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Compare that to a 9th level archer who gets three attacks per round with Rapid Shot, but for less damage and less chance to hit and DR.



 At 9th level, every archer should be under the effect of _haste_ in a big fight.  (But I'm not sure why you bring up archers -- the Rangers in my game have always been able to keep up in terms of damage, and I've seen builds for Cleric Archers which are terribly strong.)

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Clavis (Jan 10, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I'm curious about something that Henry mentions and this is directed at everyone in this thread.
> 
> What was the cultural influence/ideal/hero that (A)D&D magic-users is based on? Sure, we know the system comes from Vance, but what type of hero was Gygax et al trying to emulate when they decided on the feel of what a wizard/cleric should be?




Gary himself would be the best one to answer this. IMHO, however, it seems that the AD&D Magic User was pretty clearly modeled on Vance's wizards, and not just mechanically. The AD&D Magic User is a perfect fit for Vance's feuding, petty, pretentious wizards. Read the Dying Earth stories and you'll see what I mean.

As for Clerics, they seem to have been inspired by the various legends of fighting Bishops and Popes from the Middle Ages. It's may be hard for modern Christians to understand, but the Medieval Church was a political institution, and Bishops were often noble landowners with feudal obligations to fight and provide soldiers for their sovereigns. The Pope was King of central Italy, and could lead troops into battle. The various medieval orders of fighting monks (such as the Templars) seem also to have been an inspiration for the AD&D Cleric class.

Remember, the Cleric class was originally meant to represent fighting and adventuring clergy, NOT necessarily a description of the average village priest.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> What was the cultural influence/ideal/hero that (A)D&D magic-users is based on?



Originally? I'd say the cannon, the mortar and the gas canister.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So, has anyone been able to offer any real evidence that Bo9S's popularity was a myth?



No, not yet.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Originally? I'd say the cannon, the mortar and the gas canister.



Exactly. Gary was tapping into the mythic resonance of old-fashioned field artillery (not that there's anything wrong with that).


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 10, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> No, not yet.



Yeah, but it's only been eleven pages.

I bet we get some _really _ compelling evidence around page 15 or so.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 10, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I bet we get some _really _ compelling evidence around page 15 or so.



I'll take that bet. Does this site support online gambling?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 10, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I'll take that bet. Does this site support online gambling?




Send your money to me and I will hold it for you


----------



## Scribble (Jan 10, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> But the imbalance's solution, in my opinion, is not just "turn the non-magical guy loose with magic powers that you don't call magic." To me, it looks darned silly and throws the sense of believability out the window.
> 
> What you call bending reality with his mind, I call bending reality with the D&D equivalent of Physics. What you call bending with his heart, I call phoning in to have someone more powerful do it for you. Just like in real life a person can't move a ten-ton block by hand, but requires physical principles or technology, in D&D a person can't high-jump a hut without turning to magic or magical beings. Until now, at least.




We've all heard the stories of people under amazing stress doing incredible things due to adrenalin. 

To me, most of the powers in the Bo9S are sort of like taking this idea and "D&Ding" it up a notch. The warrior that has trained himself to tap into his inner strength and accomplish acts that most would consider super human. (Like those guys that pull buses with their teeth...)

Some of the supernatural stuff, as other have said seem more like the eastern ideas of Qi and such. The warrior that taps into spiritual power, and creates mystic like powers.

But in 3.5 we didn't really have the concept of "power source."  Thought it might have been there hiding under the "inferred text" it wasn't/isn't yet part of the game.

I'm guessing in 4e, the powers that could be explained by a highly trained warrior amped up on adrenalin D&D style will fall into the martial power source. The ones that exhibit supernatural trappings will fall into another power source like Qi


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 10, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has a problem with a PC designed to jump like this taking a lot of skills and feats to do so, and accomplishing this by level 15.
> 
> The problem we are discussing is to gain one non-magical Talent or Feat that allows a PC to jump straight up Wuxia style 10 feet. A single Talent or Feat that gives a DC 80 skill check. Seeing some of the abilities in Bo9S and PHBII, it makes one wonder. For example, Burning Blade. What exactly is martial and non-magical about setting your sword on fire? It's not a martial power, it's the DND equivalent of a superpower. Ditto for many of the powers. Crusader's Strike has nothing to do with a martial power. Probably more than a third of the abilities in Bo9S sound like superpowers as opposed to super martial powers.
> 
> Bo9S is pure fantasy Wuxia stuff, not DND martial stuff.



1: "What exactly is martial and non-magical about setting your sword on fire" is a ridiculous thing to say when the maneuver that sets your sword on fire is a supernatural ability.  It says so right in the maneuver's description.  You will find similar notes in almost every entry under the Desert Wind discipline.

2: The Devoted Spirit discipline might help you make a better case.  The maneuvers in this discipline are not called out as supernatural.  However, they're described as supernatural in the flavor text (constant references to channeling divine energy, auras of light surrounding you, etc), and the discipline is designed to mimic a paladin.  I'm inclined to think that these were intended as supernatural, but that this note was left out by oversight.

3: We can test your theory, which as I read it, is that the crazy wuxia nature of Bo9S gives us information on what we're likely to see for martial powers in 4e.  We can test it by referencing the martial, non supernatural, non supernatural flavored options in Tome of Battle.  Since jumping has come up, lets look at Bo9S options that improve your ability to jump.

4: The option that improves your ability to jump is a Tiger Claw stance that grants +10 on jump checks, and lets you count as if you're running.  Its called "Leaping Dragon Stance," and while it has a name that makes a lot of ENWorlders cry, its not supernatural.  The +10 is typed as an enhancement bonus, too, so you can't stack it with most magical gear.

So, that's it.  +10, and count as running.  Counting as running dramatically increases your standing high jump, so this stance does give you a very large boost to your jump height.  But, EVEN WITH that very large boost, you aren't likely to be doing anime jumps any time soon.

A decent character that uses the Tiger Claw discipline might have a pretty good jump check.  While I gave an example character (plausibly a tiger claw user, since my example character had the Leaping Dragon Stance) that accomplished a 10' standing vertical by level 9, that character was unrealistic because it devoted every feat option it had to improving its high jump- an unlikely choice.  So lets consider what a reasonable Tiger Claw using Warblade might have for jump checks.

He needs to be able to achieve a +39 (he can roll a 1 and jump 10').

19 Ranks
+10 Leaping Dragon Stance
+2 Blade Meditation: Tiger Claw (a reasonable choice for this character)
+2 synergy from Tumble
+6 strength bonus (starts with 18 strength, lucky guy)

That's a more plausible build for a nonmagical guy who doesn't use magic items that enhance his jumping skills.  He'd need to be level 16 to accomplish this.

For comparison, a level 16 fighter without armor on can and with similar stats, but no feats invested, is going to have a jump check of +25 (19 ranks, +6 strength), letting him jump six and a half feet straight upwards, if he has a running start.

*All of this angst over three and a half feet, and no running start?*

I've practically forgotten the point of this by now, but basically, if you want to use Bo9S to make the case that D&D is turning into a superhero game, you're going to need to come up with better arguments.  Using jumping as your example is a nonstarter.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jan 10, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone has a problem with a PC designed to jump like this taking a lot of skills and feats to do so, and accomplishing this by level 15.



Here's the absurdity of this discussion in a nutshell. You're suggesting that being 15th level and making a huge skill and feat investment should be necessary for a D&D character to... _jump long distances_. Never mind that a 5th-level character can fly with essentially *no* investment of resources, or that a 15th-level character who invests pretty much no sunk costs can turn invisible and undetectable, teleport himself to a location, and then fly around while raining army-killing destruction without being detectable or assailable in any way. 

Sounds like a fun game for the fighter.


----------

