# Book of Nine Swords  -- okay?



## brehobit (Sep 1, 2006)

Hi folks,
Are people allowing the Book of Nine Swords into their games?  It seemed everyone's iniital feeling was that it was way too powerful.  Has that changed?  

Thoughts?

Mark


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 1, 2006)

It's just not what I'm looking for in D&D. I don't want your kung fu in my peanut butter.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 1, 2006)

I don't think it is overpowered as a 1-class character.  I think including non-adept levels does make it too appealing for multiclassing.  I'm simply going to add a limiter on total Initiator level based on adept levels to require some time in class before they get the ultra-spiffy powers.  

For campaign consistency reasons, I will probably introduce them as PrCs with low pre-reqs (BAB +5, 3 feats off the fighter list).


----------



## spunky_mutters (Sep 1, 2006)

I'm going to let the mechanics in, but probably not the classes. I foresee the fighter in my current group using feats to get maneuvers and stances (and I'll let him use his BAB as his initiator level). This way there is no recharge, he's probably just going to experiment with one of the disciplines, and we'll get to see how things go.


----------



## Soel (Sep 2, 2006)

I like the system. I do not feel it is overpowered, either. I like the ease of multi-classing, and the goodness that can come with others taking the feats to get some martial manuevers.

One of the biggest concerns that many have are the warblade's seeming replacement of the fighter. I think that it very well can replace the fighter, if you want. I don't think I'll be doing that, as I think the fighter is best relegated to the role it suits, a dip class.

Others don't like the supernatural type manuevers. I think they fit in d&d very nicely. The swordsage for instance can be an elven sword-monk, or (as I will soon play,) a psychic warrior. It depends on what flavor you wanna use.

I think you could also do some cool things by just using the manuevers and not the classes, as Spunky is doing. It could give some cool boosts to the melee classes.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Sep 2, 2006)

When I've had time to sit down and read through it, I'm really impressed by the classes and maneuvers.  IMO, it adds a really exciting twist on combat oriented classes.


----------



## Daijin (Sep 2, 2006)

I am using it, with no issues. All its really done is slow down the time it takes for them to train up a level. heh


----------



## Felon (Sep 2, 2006)

I've disallowed it based on threads I've read here. Disciplines that do stuff like "add +100 damage to your next attack don't seem to add anything I'm looking for. The warblade in particular seems over-the-top and attempts to defend the class seem lacking in merit.


----------



## The Forsaken One (Sep 2, 2006)

Works fine for me but everyone I play with are mostly powergamers so that needs to be said.


----------



## thorimar (Sep 2, 2006)

*minor complaint but I like the system*

My biggest complaint about the system is that it doesn't plug into an established game without some extra work.  Allowing everything as presented in the book could certainly create nightmarish powergaming problems.  I like the flavor it will add, but will probably not allow the classes into my current game.  I think my fighter will like the abilities enough to take feats to get stances and manuvers.  Taken this way, he should never get enough juice to qualify for the +100 damage ability.  I'm looking forward to seeing it in game.


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 2, 2006)

I liked the way it looked, but I hate the "Let's add kung-fu, videogame-ish maneuvers to D&D" stuff.  I like anime and videogames as much as the next geek, but I think it's corny to have it in a D&D game.  That and my group frowns on me using whatever the latest splatbook is because they think it's overpowered (translation:  They choose not to use it, so if I do I'm the powergaming bad guy)

Just for the record, the maneuvers that add +100 damage is a 9th level one, so that's what, 17th level?  At that level, you *should* be able to do that kind of damage.


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Sep 2, 2006)

You can also make an Iron Heroes-ish game with just the classes from that book.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 2, 2006)

> add +100 damage to your next attack




Lets be fair, this is an ability that is equal (more or less) to a 9th level spell. The system is a parallel system to the vancian 9 level magic system with (essentially) 9 levels of maneuvers. The lower level maneuvers are comparible to your general single-target caster spells of similiar levels.

That being said it's still not going to be good for every campaign. It has a nice replacement for the monk though, which is a little off-flavor for most europeanesque campaigns.

Nine Swords works very nicely in a more high powered or high magic campaign because of all the supernatural elements.
Iorn Heroes works very nicely in a more lower-magic style campaign.
None the less, both are adaptable to either styles of play.

I don't believe the Warblade would really replace the fighter. There was plenty of discussion on the WotC boards about that as well and looking over the arguements, it seems to me that sunce its debated like it is, there is likely balance there and room for both. If one is truly worried, a solution in the form of restricting some of the juicier fighter feats to fighter only is elegant.

I think the book was a great purchase, though I was disappointed in the Legacy weapons in the back, but I am *not* a fan of the legacy system where characters are penalized with main stats, skills and saves.

It does require a little bit of work to fit them into the campaign world and I don't think they are really any more or less abusable then anything else WotC puts out. I think they SEEM overpowered because for so long, our concept of fighters was more static and not fluid like that of casters. None-the-less as long as the DM doesn't give the player free reign, I don't think any grand imbalance is likely to occur.

And I see the trend with D&D moving along this lines...more parallel abilities between casters and melee so they can do appreciably more damage, with casters still having the utility, AoE and healing superority, but melee getting more combos in combat. Less downtime for resting (recharging maneuvers...faster charging spells with optional rules).

The threads here definitely put me off the book...but after alot of painstaking reading on the WotC site, my mind was changed. Now I've gotten it and read through it and I am overall, impressed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 2, 2006)

Not only do I think it's balanced, but I don't think it _necessarily_ adds a kung fu/wuxia element to the game. While many of the powers do that, a whole mess of them don't. I can easily see creating a purely "standard" (read: roughly Western) D&D character with this book, and in fact am planning to do so for an upcoming campaign.


----------



## daemonslye (Sep 2, 2006)

My general feeling, since you asked, is that this falls along the same lines as Magic of Incarnum (and, for that matter Psionics);  If you allow into your game, your campaign should have a place for these powers - NPCs, bad guys, monsters, history, background, etc.  The problem with inserting into an existing campaign is that, assuming you have an established background and direction, you must change this for the powers represented in the book.

This is not to say that your story arcs are rigid and unchanging - Change and the unexpected is the primary characteristic of the game; But that these powers, introduced mid-stream are primarily for players to add extra crunch (with appropriate backstory, plot, etc.).  If the DM initiates the change, fine - but do the work to make it credible.

A new campaign based on the new rules can be better thought out and the powers rolled into a more central theme - This (I believe) gives the DM a much better chance to balance out the powers by having the opponents, comerades and NPCs with similar powers/abilities.  Additionally, the background and history can be tooled to make them a credible part of the world (rather than inserting mid-campaign, the "valley of the lost" or "secret cabal" or "ancient discovered tome" - all of which, while they can be made interesting, they feel (IMO) somewhat forced).

Short Answer - It Depends; If you (the DM) do the work, they are balanced and can add to your campaign.  If not, you have simply added more junk to a players arsenal without modifications to the world around them (which can create unbalance).  Perhaps more important than the "powers" aspect is the loss of credibility to the campaign at large if not accomadating for the extra batman sounds during combat (Pow! Baff! Biff!).

On the positive side, by purchasing the book you support the industry.  On the negative, you are teaching the publishers which products to create in the future - and you may not agree with that direction.

~D


----------



## brehobit (Sep 2, 2006)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> My general feeling, since you asked, is that this falls along the same lines as Magic of Incarnum (and, for that matter Psionics);  If you allow into your game, your campaign should have a place for these powers - NPCs, bad guys, monsters, history, background, etc.  The problem with inserting into an existing campaign is that, assuming you have an established background and direction, you must change this for the powers represented in the book.
> ~D




Agreed.  That said, for this purpose I'm just wondering if the power-level of these classes overshadows tradiational warriors (or other characters) too badly...

Mark


----------



## DM_Jeff (Sep 2, 2006)

*x6 at first level?!*

Has it been addressed anywhere yet why or how the Swordsage class gets 6+ Int bonus x6 (SIX?!) at first level instead of x4 like every other class on the planet? I'm assuming it's a type. Just wondering if there had been any official word on it yet.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Beckett (Sep 2, 2006)

I've been using a crusader in one game I play in- nifty class, some nifty abilities, but so far (at 9th level) it doesn't seem game breaking.  And there's no kung fu to what my character does; it's a combination of divine might, inspiration, knowing where to hit and how to hit hard.

For my Age of Worms game, I've opened the book up except for the classes, so everyone is free to grab feats and pick up maneuvers that way.

When I start up my Savage Tides game (gestalt), I plan on allowing free access to the book.  My only concern is the warblade; D12 hit die, Full BAB, maneuvers, lots of special abilities, and able to grab weapon specialization at 6th.  I'm concerned about the class, but I want to give it a fair shake before I change it.  Any player who chooses Warblade will be warned that I may make changes to the class at some point, reducing HP or something.


----------



## Beckett (Sep 2, 2006)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Has it been addressed anywhere yet why or how the Swordsage class gets 6+ Int bonus x6 (SIX?!) at first level instead of x4 like every other class on the planet? I'm assuming it's a type. Just wondering if there had been any official word on it yet.
> 
> -DM Jeff




I'm pretty sure it should be x4 like every other class, and looking at the character package bears this out.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 2, 2006)

Brehobit - Whether these classes overshadow the fighter is a hotly debated topic on the WotC forums. The fact that it is hotly debated likely means there is some level of balance between them. A core only, without feats from the PHB II or Complete Warrior would definitely be overshadowed...with those additional products, I agree...its an issue of debate, much like the barbarian vs. the fighter threads...

DM Jeff - It's X4 -- Customer Service has said it will be fixed in errata.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 2, 2006)

daemonslye said:
			
		

> My general feeling, since you asked, is that this falls along the same lines as Magic of Incarnum (and, for that matter Psionics);  If you allow into your game, your campaign should have a place for these powers - NPCs, bad guys, monsters, history, background, etc.  The problem with inserting into an existing campaign is that, assuming you have an established background and direction, you must change this for the powers represented in the book.




Very well-put.  Metaphysical conflict is why Psionics are generally allowed in my campaigns but Incarnum is generally not.


----------



## Xyvs (Sep 3, 2006)

*Love the book*

I really like Nine Swords. But I also am a huge fan of martial arts. But I agree with previous posters that there is a lot in this book that isn't martial arts inspired. The Crusader and the powers in devoted spirit and white raven are perfect examples. It's a great martial-type bard/marshal hybrid.

I've never liked the supposition that D&D has to be Western and that any "Eastern" seeming elements do not belong. My main homebrew campaign includes Asian-type empires alongside traditional Western ones.

But the stuff in Nine Swords that is clearly martial arts (I feel) is really well integrated. WotC even took out all the overt Asian martial arts references specifically for the martial arts-haters.

EDIT: Did want to mention that I was surprised to see ftr BAB, d12 hp, and ftr feats for the Warblade. That alone seems very strong. Then add in the maneuvers and special abilities and I can't see why anyone wouldnt play Warblade over Fighter. I would almost change the Aptitude ability so that you calculate the Warblade's ftr level as -4 or -6, not -2. Letting the Warblade get some of the Fighter's uber feats from PHB2 is a bit much.


----------



## Felon (Sep 3, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Lets be fair, this is an ability that is equal (more or less) to a 9th level spell. The system is a parallel system to the vancian 9 level magic system with (essentially) 9 levels of maneuvers. The lower level maneuvers are comparible to your general single-target caster spells of similiar levels.



Indeed, fairness is my objective. But comparing the damage output of a warrior class that gets d10 or d12 hit dice and a host of other cool combat abilities to a 9th level spell cast by a class that gets 1d4 HD, terrible BAB, arcane spell failure in armor, and basically sells the farm to get a solid damage output, and saying "that's equivalent" does not strike me at all as fair. 

EDIT--Oh freaking hell, I almost forgot to point out that the caster is burning a slot that he only gets one of per day, while Nine-Sword munchkin gets all his slots back between battles--or even in the middle of a battle. For the warblade, it's almost literally a snap of the fingers. So, another overwhelming benefit that blows away the notion of fairness.

Sweet Christmas, so broken. Disciplines pack the sheer power of an arcanist spell with the omnipresent utility of a feat.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not only do I think it's balanced...



Kinda disappointing, Mouse, since I had placed some faith in your judgment. See above.

Like many folks, I'm just boggled at how the Warblade made the editing cut with its bevy of Int-bonus class features, maximum hit dice, generous skill points, bonus feats, and over-the-top damage output every four rounds out of five or so. If anyone was looking for the cavalier of 3e, look no farther. 

Ah well, it's one less book for me to buy, and as Book of Excessive Deeds is the only other book for me to flat-out ban, I guess WotC's is still batting a damn good average.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

Thanks for the answers folkd, I just went out and bought this.

I've by no means gotten a complete understanding of the book, but let me say:

*Dude this is so overpowered I can't believe it.*

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

A first level crusader has the following abilities (always useable)
d10 hit die, 4 skill points/level (fair list), good fort save, full BAB.  In addition he delays 5 points of damage one round.  Any round he gets hit, he gets +1 attack and +1 damage.  Finally, he can make it so that everytime he hits an opponent (one who isn't _exactly _the same alignment) he can heal any one character of 2 points of damage (martial spirit, a stance).  At this point the character is about as powerful and versital as the current 1st level warrior: the barbarian.    (Barb as 2 more hit points, better skill list, +10 movement and rage once/day vs the delayed damage, +1/+1 bonus and healing).  But the Cursader still hasn't tapped his biggest power: his maneuvers.

At 5th level, let's take the swordsage as an example.  Medium BAB, d8 hit points good ref and will saves, 6 skill points with a good/very good list.  He gets a free weapon focus (minor restrictions on weapon). He gets to add his wisdom bonus to his AC (with light armor or less) and damage (again minor weapons restrictions).  +2 on initiative.  If small (halfing or gnome), take +2 attack and +4 damage against anything medium sized and larger (Stance).  Or if you prefer just deal 5 points of flame damage to anyone that is next to you and hits you.  Finally, once per fight, if he hits his opponent he does an extra 6d6 fire damage to him.  IN ADDITION his opponent explodes in a burst (usually 10'+ radium) for the same 6d6 damage. Only once per battle, but still...  And he has lots of other options/powers to play with. 

Dude.  I'm stopping there.  Warrior classes, IME, are not at all weak at lower levels (say 6 on down).  And these two examples show a great deal of power at low levels compared to a normal warrior.  

OK, end of rant.  Does anyone feel differently about these two (hasty) examples?


Mark


----------



## Greg K (Sep 3, 2006)

I put the book back on the shelf after looking at it for fifteen to twenty minutes.   I found the  classes and mechanics to not only be inappropriate for my current game, but also not what I am looking to use for my next campaign which is inspired by certain anime and wuxia.


----------



## Felon (Sep 3, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers folkd, I just went out and bought this.
> 
> I've by no means gotten a complete understanding of the book, but let me say:
> 
> ...




Yeah, but unfortunately...*you bought the book*.   As far as Richard Baker, Matt Sernett, and Frank Brunner are considered, it's game over.



> At 5th level, let's take the swordsage as an example.  Medium BAB, d8 hit points good ref and will saves, 6 skill points with a good/very good list.  He gets a free weapon focus (minor restrictions on weapon). He gets to add his wisdom bonus to his AC (with light armor or less) and damage (again minor weapons restrictions).




Gah. 

Sory, I meant to say....*GAHH!* With emphasis.

Monks, please, it's time to get organized and write your senators...



> OK, end of rant.  Does anyone feel differently about these two (hasty) examples?




Well, it's a fairly indefensible position, requiring someone with a willingness to dig in their heels and blot out wave after wave of prima facie evidence...so yes, plenty of folks will line up to disagree.


----------



## Xyvs (Sep 3, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> EDIT--Oh freaking hell, I almost forgot to point out that the caster is burning a slot that he only gets one of per day, while Nine-Sword munchkin gets all his slots back between battles--or even in the middle of a battle. For the warblade, it's almost literally a snap of the fingers. So, another overwhelming benefit that blows away the notion of fairness.
> 
> Sweet Christmas, so broken. Disciplines pack the sheer power of an arcanist spell with the omnipresent utility of a feat.




In practical terms, though, the Warblade won't be fighting infinite encounters per day. And in general he can only use each maneuver once per encounter. So really, if we take the general rule that there will be 4 encounters per session and that the day ends when the session ends (since the casters and such will have to rest), then the Warblade will use the +100 dmg martial strike about 4 times per day. Practically, that's what happens. But yes, theoretically, the Warblade can do this an infinite number of times per day whereas the Wizard can only cast his maximized chain lightning (9th level slot) +quickened empowered scorching ray (8th level slot) 4 times per day for an avg damage of 153 (no non-Core uber cheese spells used in my hurried example or I bet I could get some more ridiculous caster dmg output for a 20th level caster).

EDIT: Oops. Forgot about the Warblade's being able to refresh a spent maneuver every round with the swift thing+attack. Meaning he could do the +100 dmg move every other round. Bit egregious perhaps, but then, I still am not convinced this is out of line with how much power an optimized wizard could wield in a single encounter and over the course of a typical session.

It's already been generally agreed upon by many that casters are ridiculously powerful at level 15+. Why is it considered overpowered if a melee character starts approaching that power at those levels? Is it that this seems to infringe too much on the burst dmg of high level casters? Or does the overpowered argument stem from comparisons to straight melee classes like the Fighter or Barbarian?  I'm genuinely curious. I can certainly see the case there, as the book makes the traditional melee classes feel very tame in comparison. But then again, hasn't that always been a major complaint by many about melee classes? That they are so outshined by casters at the high levels? I think Tome of Battle is a good attempt by WotC to rectify that.

Now the player that likes melee combat but feels underpowered when he sees the Wizard cast a Power Word Kill or Meteor Swarm has an option that makes him feel just as strong, but yet still retains the melee flavor. I see nothing wrong with that.

I feel that way, even despite some gross overpowering in the warblade and other aspects of the Tome of Battle book. Those are easily rectified though and don't taint the overall enjoyment I have with the book.

Also, this is just straight damage comparisons, and it has been pointed out here at Enworld and elsewhere that the real power of spells lies in flexibilty, utility, buffs, and save or die effects. Overall, Tome of Battle and the Martial Adept classes infringe on none of that. So again, my guess is that the overpowering comparison is against the poor, maligned fighter (and to a lesser extent the other ftr BAB classes). In that respect, I can agree there. I hate that the fighter got slightly buffed by PHB II and then Tome of Battle all of a sudden outshines him. Poor fighter...

My issues are really with the Warblade. I'd lower his hit die to d10 and not allow them to recover all readied maneuvers with a swift action. I would allow them to do so, but not make it so easy.


----------



## Xyvs (Sep 3, 2006)

*Forgot to mention something*

I will say that I play in different campaigns and have over the course of many years (decades - egads, I am old). Tome of Battle will be balanced for some campaigns but unbalanced in others.

It fits in a high magic type of campaign where the fantasy is spelled with a capital F. In low magic or more realistic campaigns, though, it just won't work. In my Dragonlance campaign, for example, I would not allow the Tome of Battle stuff because it is so out of character for the campaign and IS overpowered in such an environment.

But in my homebrew, which is more high fantasy and where ogre magi walk the streets of cosmopolitan cities beside wu jen and paladins, it fits right in, especially as the challenges I threw at my PCs were much higher CR and more fantastical than what I ran in Dragonlance (past tense since I no longer DM with my crazy work schedule).

So DMs of course should exercise caution with the book. It certainly doesnt fit in every campaign by any stretch of the imagination. But it is definitely a very evocative book with lots of cool style and high fantasy flavor that could fit in some campaigns.


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 3, 2006)

I have the book and find it PERFECTLY balanced. In fact, there has been some discussion in my group that Sword Sage only getting 1 maneuver back per full round action is underpowered. We have discussed the Sword Sage getting all maneuvers back as a Full Round action.

Some of you have said that you think its unbalanced for a high level Warblade to be able to do 100 points of damage with a 9th level maneuver only available to 17th level characters. An ability that can be done once per encounter unless time is taken to recover the maneuver. At best it can be done once every other round.

How is that more overpowered than a mage who can have all sorts of spells active before a battle even starts? How is that comparable to a 17th level sorcerer who can drop 16 MAXIMIZED fireballs one right after another? Or a 17th level sorcerer casting Disjunction? "Sorry party of adventurers, all of your magic items and buffs are now GONE!"

Not to mention versatility. An arcane caster of comparable level can Fly, Teleport, Shapechange, blast armies apart, turn invisible, turn incorporeal, create impenetrable walls of force, etc. 

But no, a warrior, who has to actually get in close to his opponents and potentially get worked by multiple baddies, or simply get his ass torn apart by a powerful monster, gets a comparable attack and suddenly everything is broken.

Heck even a 20th level Rogue with the right feat can basically do 10d6 Sneak Attack damage EVERY freaking round. A 20th level Fighter previously couldn't do that even with all their feats. How is it balanced that at 20th level a Fighter isn't even the biggest melee damage dealer? 

Heck with one feat (Arcane Strike) and one spell (Tenser's Transformation), a sorcerer or wizard character can even perform in melee combat MORE capably than a comparable Fighter PC! And thats without even mentioning other buffs they could have cast prior to combat even starting like Stoneskin.

The fact is that warriors were severely UNDERPOWERED before Tome of Battle. This book goes a long way in restoring balance that should have been there from the beginning.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I have the book and find it PERFECTLY balanced. In fact, there has been some discussion in my group that Sword Sage only getting 1 maneuver back per full round action is underpowered. We have discussed the Sword Sage getting all maneuvers back as a Full Round action.
> 
> Some of you have said that you think its unbalanced for a high level Warblade to be able to do 100 points of damage with a 9th level maneuver only available to 17th level characters. An ability that can be done once per encounter unless time is taken to recover the maneuver. At best it can be done once every other round.




At 20th level I don't have a strong opinion.  I don't play those levels _and_ I agree that warriors-types appear quite weak at those levels.  However, at lower levels (1-5 say) warriors are, IME, the most powerful set of characters.  Clerics come close.   And above I showed a hastily built level 5 swordsage which is noticeably more powerful than anything warrior type (or anything else) at 5th level.  

With a 32-point buy you could have 
S14 I10 W16 D14 C14 Ch10.  Let's go halfing so S is 12 and D is 16.  Level 5 swordsage.
His standard (no stances) against medium and larger creatures is:

AC =10+4 (chain shirt) +1 (size) +3 (dex) +3(wis) = 21.
Attack=3(BAB) + 1 (STR) +1 (size) +2 (stance) +1 (WF)= +8
Damage=dX (weapon) +1 (STR) +4 (stance) +3 (Wis) or weapon +8

With magic (say +2 Wis +1 chain shirt, +1 weapon) this goes to 23 AC and +9 attack dX+10 damage.

A halforc barb in full plate with a two handed sword, 20 STR and 12 dex has:

AC 10+8 (full plate) +1 (Dex) = 19
attack +5 (BAB) +5 (STR) =+10
Damage = +7 (STR)  

With magic probably AC 21 attack +11 Damage +8.  

It is at the _least_ a close call which is better.   The 1/2 orc will have more hps.  The halfling has a much smaller armor penalty.

Now if the half-orc rages he gets +2 attack, +3 damage, -2 AC and some hitpoints.  Baring feats, he can only do this once per day.

The halfling can, *once per encounter*, do 6d6 fire damage (reflex save DC 16 for half) to a target.  That same 6d6 will hit everyohe other than the swordsage within 10' of the target.  That probably averages at +16 damage against most opponents PLUS the area of effect attack.

Plus the halfing has other maneuvers, stances and is way ahead on initiative (I think +4 advantage).  Not to mention saves.

It ain't really close.  And the sword sage appears to be the weakest of the lot.  If the halfing is fighting a small or smaller opponent, he needs to change stances.  But still...

Utterly unbalanced?  No.  Unbalanced?  Oh yeah.

Mark


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 3, 2006)

If a warblade can deliver +100 damage every other round, it makes you wonder, can a fighter deliver +50 damage about every round? It does not seem outside the realm of possibility to me.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 3, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Only once per battle, but still...
> 
> 
> Mark




Actually, he can use them more than once per battle if he uses his Recovery Method or uses the Adaptive Style feat.  Either way, it would be an every-other-round thing he could use.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 3, 2006)

If people think the martial adepts in ToB are unbalanced, I'd hate to see what they think about the Warlock from Complete Arcane...


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 3, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> At 20th level I don't have a strong opinion.  I don't play those levels _and_ I agree that warriors-types appear quite weak at those levels.  However, at lower levels (1-5 say) warriors are, IME, the most powerful set of characters.  Clerics come close.   And above I showed a hastily built level 5 swordsage which is noticeably more powerful than anything warrior type (or anything else) at 5th level.
> 
> With a 32-point buy you could have
> S14 I10 W16 D14 C14 Ch10.  Let's go halfing so S is 12 and D is 16.  Level 5 swordsage.
> ...




I think the term unbalanced can swing both ways. I see the Barbarian class as the unbalanced class. Unbalanced because it is so clearly underpowered. Nobody ever plays Barbarians in my game. They take a level of Barbarian occasionally to get +10 ft of movement. Thats about it.

I see a Half-Orc Fighter 5 using some of the assumptions you have above with the following feats:
Heavy Armor Optimization (Races of Stone)
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization (Races of Stone)
Monkey Grip (Complete Warrior)
Weapon Focus (Great Sword) (PHB)
Weapon Specialization (Great Sword) (PHB)

AC = 23 w/o magic (Full Plate Armor +10, Heavy Shield +2, Dex +1)
Attack +11 (Str +5, BAB +5, Weapon Focus +1)
Damage 2d6 + 7 (Great sword)

You are also including a vague stance bonus despite saying above that you aren't using any stances in your build. I'm not familiar with any stance that gives +2 to attack and +4 to damage. 

Your halfing's attack bonus should be +6 and damage would be +4 (+7 by adding Wisdom only when performing a strike maneuver) and you would be using a SMALL weapon that does reduced damage.

If I decided to skip the shield and drop Monkey Grip in favor of Power Attack, My AC drops to 21 (still good and the same as your sword sage build) and if I reduce my attack bonus to +6 (the same as the Sword Sage) I can do an amazing 2d6 + 19 points of damage!! (+10 from Power Attack with two-handed weapon, +7 from Strength with two-handed weapon, +2 from Weapon Specialization)

The half-orc Fighter build is clearly more powerful.

But ultimately this argument is pointless. For some of you, comparing a Fighter build to a Sword Sage build and showing the Sword Sage as more powerful is proof that those classes are overpowered. For me it is proof that the existing warrior classes are underpowered.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 3, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Indeed, fairness is my objective. But comparing the damage output of a warrior class that gets d10 or d12 hit dice and a host of other cool combat abilities to a 9th level spell cast by a class that gets 1d4 HD, terrible BAB, arcane spell failure in armor, and basically sells the farm to get a solid damage output, and saying "that's equivalent" does not strike me at all as fair.




Fairness is objective, but I was speaking specifically in relation that the ability in question was the equivilent of a 9th level spell. Power Word: Kill (kills a creature with 100 hit points or less). In that regards, it is a fair comparison. I was not making a "fair" comparison about the two classes.

Comparitavely speaking though, your example looks like like how I have seen the barbarian vs wizard often described. It's difficult to really compare casting to melee classes with a high degree of accuracy.



> EDIT--Oh freaking hell, I almost forgot to point out that the caster is burning a slot that he only gets one of per day, while Nine-Sword munchkin gets all his slots back between battles--or even in the middle of a battle. For the warblade, it's almost literally a snap of the fingers. So, another overwhelming benefit that blows away the notion of fairness.




Lets compare, because I think you are generalizing too much, 17th level:
Wizard: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1
Warblade: 6 manuevers readied for combat/4 stances known (only 1 can be used at a time, but switching between is a swift action)

Yes, he can get back his expended maneuvers with a swift action in combat, but can only make a single standard non-initiated attack in that round (or none at all). That turns out to be alot of missed DPS if I remember my fighter/barbarian comparisons correctly. Not all of his 6 combat abilities are going to be just about damage either -- there are other actions he will likely have readied involving movement or improving ally abilities, etc, nor will the rest of his damage maneuvers come close to that level of damage.

You can use recharge rules from Unearthed Arcana to simulate recovering your "spells" between combats, just like the classes in this book. So all things CAN be even there. It's like how the 9 swords in the book use Weapons of Legacy rules, it makes certain assumptions (just like most books). Even without recharge, the wizard is still far more powerful overall then the warblade. I don't agree that the class abilities giving back maneuvers for combat are really any more broken then quite a number of other class abilities given.

The wizard still has far more versatility with his spells, not to mention alot more then the warblade does with his maneuvers...outside of combat, he's pretty much just got his skills to rely on to do things. Even in combat, he still can't do the sheer damage a wizard can do with AoE, either. 



> Sweet Christmas, so broken. Disciplines pack the sheer power of an arcanist spell with the omnipresent utility of a feat.




I don't agree that is a fair or accurate representation of the maneuvers and how they work, though using combat maneuvers outside of combat is a glaring spot thats not really covered I've noticed. This book has quite a bit of errata and missed things in it. Still though, going by how something is worded, you could use these combat maneuvers (such as the ones designed for movement) outside of combat 1 time and until you get in another encounter or a day passes, they are expendted. That wouldn't seem to have the blanket utility of a feat.



> Like many folks, I'm just boggled at how the Warblade made the editing cut with its bevy of Int-bonus class features, maximum hit dice, generous skill points, bonus feats, and over-the-top damage output every four rounds out of five or so. If anyone was looking for the cavalier of 3e, look no farther.




Well, I am kind of boggled at some of the abilities of some of the classes as well, such as the "Sense Magic" (learn ALL properties of a magic item after 10 minutes of study) or the "+1 to initiative" (when Improved Initiative makes more sense) of the Swordsage got though...after all, how can a 7th level Swordsage do what a wizard HAS to use a spell for do? 

The interesting thing about the high Int-bonus class features though, is it will take away from some of the other capabilities a warblade can do. The different disciplines usually rely on different skills (like Tumble for Desert Wind or Concentration for Diamond Mind), so to be extremely effective, he is still going to have to focus his skill points and the number of disiplines he will shine in. I don't like the fact he can change his weapon specalization as a class skill though...if he can do it, I believe a fighter should be able to do it as well (and as a matter of fact, I will be allowing them to do so in my campaigns).

There ARE some disappointing factors in the book -- but like anything, cooperatively working with a DM can usually fix these things. I don't think I've ever found a book I use 100% the way written as inevitably something I want to use is too generalized or has abilities that make no sense and need to be changed, or is too underpowered/overpowered, etc.

Even fighters and barbarians with access to the newer feats in Complete Warrior and PHB II can do comparitively well against the warblade and wizards...take a gander on the WotC boards, there were quite a few comparisons there...someone did a spreadsheet even.

Though I completely agree with PHB feats alone, the melee classes are totally overwhelmed. You have to expand and use other books to keep all things, roughly, in the same categories. I was on the bandwagon about this book being completely broken...till I really started to read the threads and get it and build up some characters using the extra source materials (PHB II, Completes, etc.).

Like I said earlier though, this isn't going to be a book for every campaign. Its better suited for a high magic/high powered game. Iron Heroes is a much tamer alternative that seems better suited to those grittier or low magic campaigns. I'm sorr you feel it is so broken and unbalanced  I just don't agree...I hope I shed some light as to why I disagree. Different strokes and all, so its all good


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 3, 2006)

As an addendum to my previous post, lets examine this myth that a warrior being able to do +100 points of damage is broken.

Lets take a half-orc fighter at 20th level. No magic, since a Warblade could have magic too. And since this is a demo, we'll go for something powergamerish like the Great Falchion.

Strength 20 + 5 more over 20 levels for a total of 25. We'll also take the following feats:
Weapon Focus (Great Falchion)
Weapon Specialization (Great Falchion)
Greater Weapon Focus (Great Falchion)
Greater Weapon Specialization (Great Falchion)
Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing)
Weapon Supremacy
Power Attack
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Great Falchion)
Heavy Armor Optimization
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization
Improved Critical

That is 11 feats, basically what a fighter gets over the course of 20 levels not counting character feats. Assuming we use Power Attack to its fullest (-5 to hit +10 damage) we get the following:

Attacks +26/+21/+16/+11 (Weapon Supremacy gives an additional +5 to any one of those, and I can take 10 on one attack roll as well)

Damage 2d6 + 26 (critical 15 to 20/x2)

I get 4 chances to hit a creature with a 25% chance of a critical. Statistically speaking, that is 1 critical per round. I'm doing a minimum of 28 damage per hit without factoring in the additional damage due to a critical. Even without Power Attack, I'm still doing a minimum of 18 damage per hit and the chance of more attacks hitting goes up significantly.

Even if I switch out the Great Falchion for a more common weapon such as a Great Sword, it just reduces the crit chance a little.

My AC is not too shabby either. Assuming Full plate and Dex 12, it would be a respectable AC 23. Not bad with absolutely no magic factored in at all. If you throw in magic, your AC improves right along with your attack bonus making those power attacks much more likely to land.

So if you consider a 100 damage every other round is on par with a Fighter being able to dish out 50 points of damage per round, I think we are not too far out of alignment and I didn't even touch the additional feats a Fighter would get from their character levels. Is the Warblade a good class? Yes. Is it broken, not at all.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 3, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers folkd, I just went out and bought this.
> 
> I've by no means gotten a complete understanding of the book, but let me say:
> 
> *Dude this is so overpowered I can't believe it.*




Okay...I'll bite...

Crusader: His Martial Spirit stance isn't one he is likely to use every combat, but it isn't so different from Bardic Music granting +1 damage/attacks/some saves per round either, or some of the abilities of the barbarian.

His maneuvers are kinda hokey and complex. He can have 5 readied, but only 2 (which are randomly "Granted") are available on any given round and at least 1 of them changes every round (expended or not). So, there is a chance you'll have something you won't really be able to utilize available. 

Give the barbarian some of the feat options out of the PHB II or another expanded source book though and he has some additonal umph. The Nine classes are going to be taking beginning feats from their book most likely and will have fewer overall options to take feats that don't have some synergy between their abilities and feats.


Swordsage: Here is our monk replacement.

+2 on initiative is somewhat weak as class abilities goes. Not everyone will take a Halfling or Ghome. 

The holocaust cloak (you are unprotected if attacked with reach or range though) and burning flourish are 5th level abilities.

Wizard/Sorcerer: Melf's Acid Arrow (2d4 +1d4 for +1 round/3 levels), Flaming Sphere (2d6 fire damage), Scorching Ray (4d6 fire +1 ray/4 levles), Shocking Grasp/Burining Hands, Fireball/Lightning Bolt (5d6), etc.

Rogue: +3d6 Sneak Atack, +1d6 main attack for every attack, not just one, while flanking.

Paladin: Smite 2/day, Aura of Courage (Immune to fear), Divine Health (Immune to diseases -- all of them), 1st level spells (lets take Bless Weapon; +1 and threats are automatic crits).

Monk: Flurry (2d8), Fast movement (40'), Evasion, AC Bonus, Immune to disease, Slow Fall, best saves, attacks equal to magic. 

...and the list goes on. 

I just don't agree that these classes are really vastly overpowered and broken compared to even these core classes. The fighter and the barbarian have to be built more carefully to compete, I'll grant you, though...but thats no different from before when compared to the other core classes, to now. At least the PHB II and Complete Warrior help them out alot.


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 3, 2006)

Mike Mearls had some interesting musings on the WotC boards. I thought I would share:



> I'm glad that people like the book, and I'm also glad that people have reacted in a way that we hoped they would. Namely, that warriors need a boost compared to spellcasters.
> 
> Back when 3e first came out, the fighter class was really interesting. It got a ton of feats. Something like triple as many feats as anyone else. I clearly remember my first 3e fighter, a Beorn Battlehelm. Beorn was really fun to play up until around level 8. At that point, I figured out that I couldn't find any feats to really improve Beorn's main focus: two weapon fighting with a flail and battleaxe, with some tripping thrown in for good measure.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 3, 2006)

He's absolutely right...the boost that the more melee classes got in many of the expansion boosts helps, but this book (by far) has brought melee up to the speed of casters.

Thanks for sharing...I missed that post of his.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Okay...I'll bite...



Great!



> Crusader: His Martial Spirit stance isn't one he is likely to use every combat, but it isn't so different from Bardic Music granting +1 damage/attacks/some saves per round either, or some of the abilities of the barbarian.



At first level a bard can give +1 to attack and damage 1/day as a standard action.  At first level a crusader will always be in this stance (if he has it).  So he is handing out 2 hitpoint cures AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK.  He isn't burning an action or anything.



> His maneuvers are kinda hokey and complex. He can have 5 readied, but only 2 (which are randomly "Granted") are available on any given round and at least 1 of them changes every round (expended or not). So, there is a chance you'll have something you won't really be able to utilize available.



Sure, but I didn't even worry about his maneuvers.  And they are just bonus anyways.  Worst case is he doesn't have a useful one.  He's still hugely powerful.



> <clip -- onto swordsage>
> +2 on initiative is somewhat weak as class abilities goes. Not everyone will take a Halfling or Ghome.
> 
> The holocaust cloak (you are unprotected if attacked with reach or range though) and burning flourish are 5th level abilities.
> ...




_(One quick point, look at "death mark" (I think I have that right) not burning flurish (which is much weaker))_

A 5th level wizard, doing nothing other than casting a spell, can do 5d6 damage in a 20' radius (at a huge range on the occasions that should matter)  Perhaps up to 3/day.  The swordsage can do 6d6 damage in a 10' radius AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK.  We can debate if range is better than casting in the space next to you (and you being immune to it) but they are compatable (a wizard gets in HtH he has a heck of a time using fireball).  And the swordsage can do it EVERY encountere.  And the swordsage has more hit points, AC, BAB, saves and skills.   I really don't see how the wizard can win this (at this level).



> Rogue: +3d6 Sneak Atack, +1d6 main attack for every attack, not just one, while flanking.



At this level the rogue is either two-weapon wielding or getting only one attack.  +3d6 is nice.  Doing it every round is nice.  But IME rogues get sneak attack on no more than 1/2 of their attacks.  No flanking, undead, etc. really limit them.  6d6 1/combat in a 10' radius as part of an attack (just like the rogue) is really nice.  



> Paladin: Smite 2/day, Aura of Courage (Immune to fear), Divine Health (Immune to diseases -- all of them), 1st level spells (lets take Bless Weapon; +1 and threats are automatic crits).



+3 to attack, +5 damage is really nice for the smite.  But again, only 2/day, and limited opponents. Immune to fear is also mightly handy.  The rest are fairly weak.  Bless weapon takes an action.  Divine health has _never_ come up in a game I've played in 3.x.  



> Monk: Flurry (2d8), Fast movement (40'), Evasion, AC Bonus, Immune to disease, Slow Fall, best saves, attacks equal to magic.



I won't touch this one.  Evasion is nice, but the sword sage gets a _much_ better AC bonus.   The flurry is also nice, but a monk can't keep up with a fighter or barbarian for damage, let alone the swordsage.




> I just don't agree that these classes are really vastly overpowered and broken compared to even these core classes. The fighter and the barbarian have to be built more carefully to compete, I'll grant you, though...but thats no different from before when compared to the other core classes, to now. At least the PHB II and Complete Warrior help them out alot.




As you might guess, I'll continue to disagree.  At level 1-6 or so, fighters and barbarians are just fine powerwise.  PHBII and complete warrior don't actually help all that much at those levels.  At higher levels, I have less of a problem with these classes, as fighter-types need a lot of love and the powers seem reasonable-ish.  But at lower levels? 

Also, any fighter should take one of the +1 BAB classes at 9th level.  (get 3rd-level abilities with the multi-classing rule).  _so_ much better than anything else they could get.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If people think the martial adepts in ToB are unbalanced, I'd hate to see what they think about the Warlock from Complete Arcane...



The warlock is balanced-to-weak.  At high levels, weak.  I played one and enjoyed a lot. 

You asked


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls had some interesting musings on the WotC boards. I thought I would share:



I agree with him.  And I _love_ the whole thing.  But, IMO, the classes are too over-the-top, especially at lower levels.  

But I hope to see more of this in 4th edition.  I'd want to be able to play a competitive warrior type without all this wackiness, but I still really like this.  Just the balance is off.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 3, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> At first level a bard can give +1 to attack and damage 1/day as a standard action.  At first level a crusader will always be in this stance (if he has it).  So he is handing out 2 hitpoint cures AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK.  He isn't burning an action or anything.




If he has the stance. Perhaps that wasn't an optimal example. Its 2 hp per successful attack, of which he gets 1 until 6th level. Even the 4 hp ability is pretty nominal in the scheme of 11th/12th level, but at least he gets more attacks then. Sneak Attack +1d6 at first level is more powerful in comparison.



> He's still hugely powerful.




I never said he wasn't powerful. All the classes in the book are powerful...just not necessairly overpowered compared to the core classes. Building a regular melee comparable to one of these classes would require expanded source books, not just core material.



> _(One quick point, look at "death mark" (I think I have that right) not burning flurish (which is much weaker))_
> 
> A 5th level wizard, doing nothing other than casting a spell, can do 5d6 damage in a 20' radius (at a huge range on the occasions that should matter)  Perhaps up to 3/day.  The swordsage can do 6d6 damage in a 10' radius AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK.  We can debate if range is better than casting in the space next to you (and you being immune to it) but they are compatable (a wizard gets in HtH he has a heck of a time using fireball).  And the swordsage can do it EVERY encountere.  And the swordsage has more hit points, AC, BAB, saves and skills.   I really don't see how the wizard can win this (at this level).




There is no burning flourish, I made that up by accident, I beg pardon. LOL. I meant Fan The Flames (6d6 touch attack; no save) vs Death Marl (6d6 save reflex 1/2 variable area, most likely 10') -- Blistering Flourish is no comparison to these two abilities, which are still on par with a wizards spells.

He's not going to be doing damage to the wizard at range, the wizard is going to be doing lots of rangers and/or AoE damage to his meager 5d8 hp. I agree, in a melee combat, the wizard is toast. Also, it doesn't have to focus on Fireball, there are lower level spells like Melf's Acid Arrow which are perfect potent for a single target or Lightning Bolt for multiples. So I still see very well how a wizard could easily compete against a virtually rangeless opponent (except thrown weapons...vs fly for instance or blink).

I'll grant you that if the campaign focuses on 10 combats a sesson, the classes in Nine Swords will seriously leave behind every other class in the game. But the paradigm is 4 combats a session and within that, they seem decently balanced. If you have more then that, you should considering changing the mechanics of casters and other classes relying on x/day abilities.



> At this level the rogue is either two-weapon wielding or getting only one attack.  +3d6 is nice.  Doing it every round is nice.  But IME rogues get sneak attack on no more than 1/2 of their attacks.  No flanking, undead, etc. really limit them.  6d6 1/combat in a 10' radius as part of an attack (just like the rogue) is really nice.




I agree, constructs, undead, etc. do limit them, but at the same time...there are mobs that are flame resistant or immune as well and that will cut out alot of the swordsages advantages too, so I think that equals out, so to speak. I agree, both abilities are really nice and I think on par with each other. Additionally, the rogue could be sneak attacking from range as well. 



> +3 to attack, +5 damage is really nice for the smite.  But again, only 2/day, and limited opponents. Immune to fear is also mightly handy.  The rest are fairly weak.  Bless weapon takes an action.  Divine health has _never_ come up in a game I've played in 3.x.




I've had Divine Health come up more then a few times...I suppose its in all the style of play, but style of play can nominalize ALOT of class abilities and options...the desert campaign where everything is fire resistant hurts the swordsage alot more then the wizard or the fighter. My point here was, these paladin abilities can very well mimic what the swordsage has in comparitave power.



> I won't touch this one.  Evasion is nice, but the sword sage gets a _much_ better AC bonus.   The flurry is also nice, but a monk can't keep up with a fighter or barbarian for damage, let alone the swordsage.




I disagree, the monk gets a better AC Bonus overall. The swordsage gets it in light armor, but his never improves -- the monk's improves. The swordsage does get evasion (later), so they kinda cancel each other out in my example. Well the swordsage won't be able to keep up with the fighter or barbarian overall either, unless its a very, very short fight...he doesn't have the ac or hit points for it...like the monk, he is more of a skirmish character, moving in, attacking and moving out...he just has more damage capability then the monk (i.e. not relegated to the trip/grapple schtick).



> As you might guess, I'll continue to disagree.  At level 1-6 or so, fighters and barbarians are just fine powerwise.  PHBII and complete warrior don't actually help all that much at those levels.  At higher levels, I have less of a problem with these classes, as fighter-types need a lot of love and the powers seem reasonable-ish.  But at lower levels?
> 
> Also, any fighter should take one of the +1 BAB classes at 9th level.  (get 3rd-level abilities with the multi-classing rule).  _so_ much better than anything else they could get.




Yes, and I will continue to disagree with you as well 

I'm not saying (again) these classes aren't powerful...and that (especially) compared to the fighter and barbarian two have to work really hard to keep up. I agree these are at the upper part of the power curve, I just don't agree they are overpowered and broken, even at lower levels when I look across the abilities granted to the various classes. 

I'll grant, I haven't compared everyone at level 20 in actual play though, so perhaps they leave everyone behind once they get in that direction. Thats a good idea about the fighter dipping into the classes as well...but then, I think most people generally agree that a 20th level fighter is a rare thing and most go PrC, which also indicates a problem with that class design, overall (though, you can say the same of Wizard & Bard as well...I never see a straight 20 Wizard or Bard).

Added:

And for 4th edition -- to give all the classes the comparitative 9th level progression of abilities and fix the way casters regain spells...thats an exciting prospect if this is the way the whole thing is going.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

> I'm not saying (again) these classes aren't powerful...and that (especially) compared to the fighter and barbarian two have to work really hard to keep up. I agree these are at the upper part of the power curve, I just don't agree they are overpowered and broken, even at lower levels when I look across the abilities granted to the various classes.



Out of curiosity, do you feel fighters and barbs are weak at lower levels?  I've always found the barb to the the single most powerful low-level class.  This might be underling our disagreement.  I look at "more powerful than a barb at low levels" as saying the bar has been raised.  I think you look at it as saying "more powerful than a kinda weak class".  



> And for 4th edition -- to give all the classes the comparitative 9th level progression of abilities and fix the way casters regain spells...thats an exciting prospect if this is the way the whole thing is going.



I want to see fighters NOT have magicy abilities and still be reasonable levels 1-20.  Not sure it can be done, but it's what I want 

Thanks for the discussion!  Now back to work....


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 3, 2006)

> I've always found the barb to the the single most powerful low-level class.  This might be underling our disagreement.  I look at "more powerful than a barb at low levels" as saying the bar has been raised.  I think you look at it as saying "more powerful than a kinda weak class".




And see, I've not found the barbarian or fighter to be more powerful then the rest of the classes (in 3.x anyway). In fact, I have generally found them to be weaker in regards to the fact if you don't map out your progression and choose exactly the right set of feats, they end up being hamstrung moreso then other classes.

I do agree the barbarian is more powerful then the poor fighter though.



> I want to see fighters NOT have magicy abilities and still be reasonable levels 1-20.  Not sure it can be done, but it's what I want
> 
> Thanks for the discussion! Now back to work....




I agree with you here. I'd love ot see fighters have a progression of abilities that were not obviously supernatural (fire, wind, shadow, etc.) and more grounded. With the creative minds thatrt exist...I think it could be done and hope it will be done for 4th edition.

And thank you for the dicussion...I've really enjoyed it.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 3, 2006)

Yesterday my group ran some tests of the ToB character classes.  My regular campaign is at 20th level so I'm concerned about the multiclassing aspects.  With Initiator level = MA + 1/2 other levels, I figured we'd run some 10th level characters through combat since they have the kinds of maneuvers my players could acquire.  

Net result: an incredibly entertaining session with multiple martial adepts creating a kind of "feedback loop" where they boosted eachother's damage output or defenses.  At one point two crusaders had Iron Guard Glare going (-4 to anyone who attacks an adjacent ally, each), and the sword sage's Isle of Blades meant there was a *lot* of flanking.  It was one of the most enjoyable _tactical_ sessions I've been part of for quite some time.  

*However,* it did highlight some issues.  The strikes (those maneuvers that do +6d6 or +100) limit you to 1 attack/round and if you miss it goes *poof.*  Several of the maneuvers either augment crits or create sneak-attack situations that become quite useless around uncrittable creatures (elementals, undead, constructs, etc).  Most Adepts are likely going to burn the majority of their feats, at least up to 10th level, on maneuver-type feats.  This means that they really don't have much combat flexibility; disarming or grappling can slow some of them down.  

Their damage output was also rather surprising as the 10th level characters generally managed to do 25-70pts of damage each, every round.  The average was probably closer to 40 than 50 and would have been higher but one critical round the warblade went total Power Attack (+10) and managed to miss two out of three hits (his own strike missed as well as another attack granted by White Raven Tactics from one crusader, and a the third from the other crusader's Flanking Maneuver that finally landed).

I think that the Martial Adepts are a viable way to balance high level melees against high level mages.  Casters have the advantage while fighting groups thanks to AE spells and have plenty of special effect spells for single targets (enervation, disintigrate, etc) plus the joy of battlefield control (flight, _wall_ spells, summons, etc.).  The trick comes into having something acceptable over the entire gaming spectrum.

Sorceror/wizard 1-4 sucks mostly.  At around 5th level (fireball levell as we call it) they start getting some respect from the fighters since the caster can now nuke multiple foes with a reasonable amount of pain, albeit with a painfully thin magazine.  At around 8th level, the casters have enough high level slots to dedicate to offensive spells that the low level slots are freed up for utility.  Only the mage's frailty relative to the fighter makes it comparable since an 8th level mage can still be dropped by a crit from a raging 3rd level barbarian or even a 1st level fighter with a strength bow.  A 12th level mage probably has enough defensive gear and/or spells to survive the inslaught and begins relying on the fighter to deal with the "nuisances" and by 20th level the mage is doing the bulk of the party's damage output with the fighters being a meat-wall more than an offensive threat.  

Clerics usually fare pretty well due to their decent hp, BAB, & armor use even when out of spells and no one with a brain ever disregards the value of a rogue.  Druids, non-shifter druids at least, require a bit more finesse and planning to play as effectively but shifter druids are a great thing IMO.  Psions are living warheads and are balanced as long as the game tends to have more than one target that needs nuking.

Monks will probably not be bothered by the existence of the Adepts.  Their focus tends to be either machine-gun attacks or "juggling" (e.g. grappling, tripping, disarming, etc) combined with some powerful defenses.  The Martial adept is, for all intents and purposes, a European "martial artist" in the classic sense; they know they art of making war.  It is _possible_ that a Setting Sun-focused sword sage could start intruding on that turf but I doubt it.  The monk's flurry of blows, speed, SR and supernatural abilities dovetail in pretty well with the martial adept. 

Games that have warlocks, spirit shamen, scouts, and psions will probably merge well with the martial adepts.  "Core Class" games won't fare as well, as the new adepts will likely dominate the battlefield tactics and start taking some of the shine away from the casters and making the classic melees look like girly-men.  

My game, which is a primarily core class game, will allow them but as PrCs.  I'm not horribly impressed with the epic feats for fighters and think the Martial Adepts will provide an excellent way for the melees to remain relevant without becoming casters.  I'm not so sure if I'd be willing to introduce them into my game if it were at lower levels but it fits an itch I have right now.  

YMMV.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 3, 2006)

There is a lot to like about Bo9S, but I find the mechanic for adding maneuvers and stances a little unneccasrily complicated. I'm not sure why they decided to make these more like spells than class abilities, in that you memorize them and then expend them.

It seems odd to me that someone could know a maneuver and then suddenly "forget" it after using it once in an encounter.

Also, some of the higher level maneuvers are significantly overpowered IMHO. A 60 ft blast of fire that deals 100 points of damage (Dragon Ball Z anyone?), a weapon blow than inflicts +100 damage, no save?

I'm also a little concerned about the complexity of some of the maneuvers - to be honest, the mechanics of combat already eat away a significant chunk of the time in our gaming sessions - if you had a combat involving a few martial adepts on either side, I can see combat seriously bogging down while people count squares, crunch numbers etc.

To sum up, I like the flavour of the book, and some of the new character concepts, but I just can't see myself using any of the new classes in my own games.


----------



## Victim (Sep 3, 2006)

Man, everybody is all over the +100 damage one.  After seeing what high level fighter types can do on a full attack, +100 damage when making only one attack seems pretty reasonable.  Not to mention it evens the wide (almost crippling for some characters) disparity between and single and full attacks.

Now the top Diamond Mind power that basically doubles your full attack seems insane.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 3, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Man, everybody is all over the +100 damage one.  After seeing what high level fighter types can do on a full attack, +100 damage when making only one attack seems pretty reasonable.  Not to mention it evens the wide (almost crippling for some characters) disparity between and single and full attacks.
> 
> Now the top Diamond Mind power that basically doubles your full attack seems insane.



Agreed on both, however the +100 damage when you wouldn't normally get a full attack (because you had to move) is huge.  Really really huge.

Thurbane: Dragonball Z is a great analogy!



Mark


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 4, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> There is a lot to like about Bo9S, but I find the mechanic for adding maneuvers and stances a little unneccasrily complicated. I'm not sure why they decided to make these more like spells than class abilities, in that you memorize them and then expend them.




Sort of.  Crusaders have a continuous stream of maneuvers and warblades can refresh their (meager) pool of maneuvers pretty easily.  Sages do have something of a hard time in combat, though.  



> It seems odd to me that someone could know a maneuver and then suddenly "forget" it after using it once in an encounter.




Any weirder than forgetting a spell?  Or unlearning one as a bard/sorceror?



> Also, some of the higher level maneuvers are significantly overpowered IMHO. A 60 ft blast of fire that deals 100 points of damage (Dragon Ball Z anyone?), a weapon blow than inflicts +100 damage, no save?




Meh.  Firestorm trumps the fire effect most times and there are several no-save, ranged touch spells out there.  



> I'm also a little concerned about the complexity of some of the maneuvers - to be honest, the mechanics of combat already eat away a significant chunk of the time in our gaming sessions - if you had a combat involving a few martial adepts on either side, I can see combat seriously bogging down while people count squares, crunch numbers etc.




We tried this the other day.  Two of us had read the book pretty extensively, the other two had merely browsed.  We built characters and ran them through a couple of combats.  Yes, there was more page flipping but no more than for someone who plays a character with a new spell selection.  Once people figured out their maneuvers it was actually pretty straight forward and probably no more disruptive than using tactical feats.  Actually, the use of sunder on the part of a monster slowed the game down more than anything else since we had to look up the target weapon's hit points & hardness.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Agreed on both, however the +100 damage when you wouldn't normally get a full attack (because you had to move) is huge.  Really really huge.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark




A properly built "charger" can easily surpase this amount of damage, and cover twice the distance.

I am surprised no one mentioned Strike of Righteous Vitality.  Level 9 maneuver that grants the heal spell on you if you make a succesful attack.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Xyvs said:
			
		

> EDIT: Oops. Forgot about the Warblade's being able to refresh a spent maneuver every round with the swift thing+attack. Meaning he could do the +100 dmg move every other round. Bit egregious perhaps, but then, I still am not convinced this is out of line with how much power an optimized wizard could wield in a single encounter and over the course of a typical session.




As I've previously stated, I find it highly specious to think that disciplines should be "in line" at all with what a wizard's spells can do. The wizard has nothing going for him but his spells. The discipline classes get more hit points, better armor class, and raw, inexhaustible combat prowess. 



> It's already been generally agreed upon by many that casters are ridiculously powerful at level 15+. Why is it considered overpowered if a melee character starts approaching that power at those levels?




See above. It's quite rudimentary. Should we just go ahead and give the wizard full BAB and d12 HD and the ability to cast in armor? I mean, how stupid is it to player within this paradigm that's being used to justify the ToB's over-the-top output?



> Now the player that likes melee combat but feels underpowered when he sees the Wizard cast a Power Word Kill or Meteor Swarm has an option that makes him feel just as strong, but yet still retains the melee flavor. I see nothing wrong with that.




See above again. You have missed out on some very fundamental wrongness with that. The melee combat gets the satisfaction of knowing he can shrug off damage that would annihlate a mage. Meat shield, meet nuker. 



> My issues are really with the Warblade. I'd lower his hit die to d10 and not allow them to recover all readied maneuvers with a swift action. I would allow them to do so, but not make it so easy.




That might just have been sane, but this book was not about balance. It was about giving munchkins wet dreams for weeks on end.


----------



## Andor (Sep 4, 2006)

Something that seems to be missed by the OMG WTF WERE THEY THINKING!?!?! crowd is this: A fireball or lighting bolt WILL hurt you unless you have evasion and roll well or are simply immune to that energy type. A Sword Sage still has to hit with a melee attack for that Death Mark to work, with his monk-like BAB, in melee combat, with MAD, and the baddie THEN gets a save. Oh, and the maneuver is still expended if you miss. Oh, and you cannot prepare more than one of any given maneuver. Oh, and it doesn't happen as part of a regular attack, it happens in place of a regular attack, goodbye iteration. Oh, and unlike the mage you don't get to place it where you want it. Better hope the rogue wasn't flanking or he gets toasted just like the baddies.

Powerful? Yes. Overpowered? Only if you ignore the downsides.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Some of you have said that you think its unbalanced for a high level Warblade to be able to do 100 points of damage with a 9th level maneuver only available to 17th level characters. An ability that can be done once per encounter unless time is taken to recover the maneuver. At best it can be done once every other round.




...and once every other round is too much. Thanks for playing. 



> How is that more overpowered than a mage who can have all sorts of spells active before a battle even starts? How is that comparable to a 17th level sorcerer who can drop 16 MAXIMIZED fireballs one right after another? Or a 17th level sorcerer casting Disjunction? "Sorry party of adventurers, all of your magic items and buffs are now GONE!"
> 
> Not to mention versatility. An arcane caster of comparable level can Fly, Teleport, Shapechange, blast armies apart, turn invisible, turn incorporeal, create impenetrable walls of force, etc.
> 
> But no, a warrior, who has to actually get in close to his opponents and potentially get worked by multiple baddies, or simply get his ass torn apart by a powerful monster, gets a comparable attack and suddenly everything is broken.




You got it, Dblade. It's bee-roken. You conveniently omitted all the parts where it can really suck to play a mage, and how that class gets a lot of the same penis-envy over how much damage warrior classes can dish out without expending any resources, as well as how much damage they can suck up. Truth is, the wizard and sorcerer give up *plenty* to get what they get. 

D&D is a game where characters assume certain roles in the party. Not everyone is intended to be the major damage dealer. What the warrior gets is that the ability actually survive closing in with opponents and get worked over by baddies, and to attack ad infinitum without regard to consuming resources. This is a major case of people who want to eat their cake and have it to, thinking they should get the damage output in the wizard's ballpark while getting d12 hit dice. 



> Heck even a 20th level Rogue with the right feat can basically do 10d6 Sneak Attack damage EVERY freaking round. A 20th level Fighter previously couldn't do that even with all their feats. How is it balanced that at 20th level a Fighter isn't even the biggest melee damage dealer?




Are you simply incapable of seeing a class's value in terms of anything other than damage output? The rogue lacks the hit points and base attack bonus of warriors--modest defense, modest attack, heavy damge. The fighter is heavy defense, heavy attack, modest damage (gasp! what a crime!).



> The fact is that warriors were severely UNDERPOWERED before Tome of Battle. This book goes a long way in restoring balance that should have been there from the beginning.




As stated, the only thing that seems to be self-evident is you consider anyone who isn't doing as much damage as everyone else to be underpowered, completely despite whatever other assets they may possess. There are many roles in a party.


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm confident that I have thoroughly debunked the myth of brokenness. If you can't see that, any further debate is pointless. I obviously won't change your mind and you won't change mine.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If a warblade can deliver +100 damage every other round, it makes you wonder, can a fighter deliver +50 damage about every round? It does not seem outside the realm of possibility to me.




Of course, the warblade has access to feats like Power Attack and Improved Critical as well. There is no feat a fighter can have that a warblade can't. He just gets all that as the opening act to his +100 maneuver. 

Kinda sinks this whole comparison.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> So if you consider a 100 damage every other round is on par with a Fighter being able to dish out 50 points of damage per round, I think we are not too far out of alignment and I didn't even touch the additional feats a Fighter would get from their character levels. Is the Warblade a good class? Yes. Is it broken, not at all.




See above.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

Except that a fighter can take a full attack, whereas the +100 maneuver cannot be used during a full attack. So maybe it's not really that great.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Of course, the warblade has access to feats like Power Attack and Improved Critical as well. There is no feat a fighter can have that a warblade can't. He just gets all that as the opening act to his +100 maneuver.
> 
> Kinda sinks this whole comparison.




How many feats do they get?


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Of course, the warblade has access to feats like Power Attack and Improved Critical as well. There is no feat a fighter can have that a warblade can't. He just gets all that as the opening act to his +100 maneuver.
> 
> Kinda sinks this whole comparison.




Nevermind your conveniently ignoring the fact that the Warblade gets 7 feats over 20 levels and the Fighter gets 18. It makes a difference.

But yes, I would say that at high levels, the Warblade does edge out the straight fighter. But since I believe the fighter is underpowered already, I have no problem with that.

And as far as mages go, their tradeoff is insignificant at high levels. AC, Attack bonus, all of that doesn't really matter when you can turn incorporeal, invisible, fly, and drop multiple maximixed fireballs every single round. All without magic gear. And once the mage casts disjunction, the poor warrior class (fighter or warblade) doesn't even have magical gear anymore.

You want to talk broken. Spellcasters ARE broken. ToB helps to restore the balance.


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> How many feats do they get?




The Warblade gets a few bonus feats from a restricted list. Nothing that boosts attack or damage output, so I consider their influence on damage dealing comparison's negligible. You can get things like Diehard, or Endurance.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Lets compare, because I think you are generalizing too much, 17th level:
> Wizard: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1
> Warblade: 6 manuevers readied for combat/4 stances known (only 1 can be used at a time, but switching between is a swift action)
> 
> Yes, he can get back his expended maneuvers with a swift action in combat, but can only make a single standard non-initiated attack in that round (or none at all). That turns out to be alot of missed DPS if I remember my fighter/barbarian comparisons correctly.




Hang on. Where does it say a warblade can't make iterative attacks? The warblade can recover his maneuvers as a swift action followed immediately by an attack, *or* he can wave sword around as a standard action. Don't mix the two up.



> Not all of his 6 combat abilities are going to be just about damage either -- there are other actions he will likely have readied involving movement or improving ally abilities, etc, nor will the rest of his damage maneuvers come close to that level of damage.




You're absolutely right. We really shouldn't make this kitchen-sink cake-n'-eat-it-too nature of ToB is all about taking top place as party nuker. We should also point that disciplines hog other roles as well, including buffing and healing. Total overlap everywhere with no burnout. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. So broken.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The Warblade gets a few bonus feats from a restricted list. Nothing that boosts attack or damage output, so I consider their influence on damage dealing comparison's negligible. You can get things like Diehard, or Endurance.




In other words, someone was tossing out a smelly fish of a crimson hue.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Nevermind your conveniently ignoring the fact that the Warblade gets 7 feats over 20 levels and the Fighter gets 18. It makes a difference.




I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that he can take Power Attack and whatever other choice feats he wants. Since the whole contention about fighters being underpowered is that they run out of good feats to take, the warblade getting fewer feats shouldn't be a huge delimiter, just as long as he's got the good ones. 



> But yes, I would say that at high levels, the Warblade does edge out the straight fighter. But since I believe the fighter is underpowered already, I have no problem with that.
> 
> And as far as mages go, their tradeoff is insignificant at high levels. AC, Attack bonus, all of that doesn't really matter when you can turn incorporeal, invisible, fly, and drop multiple maximixed fireballs every single round. All without magic gear. And once the mage casts disjunction, the poor warrior class (fighter or warblade) doesn't even have magical gear anymore.




So many glaring, flawed generalizations. Where to begin? Hit points always matter, as does AC. Please explain "multiple maximized fireballs every round". If they're quickened, then we're talking 9th-level spells, which a wizard cannot in fact casually toss ad infinitum. And finally, all high-level characters have the means to fly or turn invisible; that's nothing special.



> You want to talk broken. Spellcasters ARE broken. ToB helps to restore the balance.




ToB allows fighters to point at mages and say "look, I can match your damage output, and I can buff and heal, and I can do it all day long, and I can tank better than I ever could--at last, I'm your *equal*!". Some folks have a weird definition of balance.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> The Warblade gets a few bonus feats from a restricted list. Nothing that boosts attack or damage output, so I consider their influence on damage dealing comparison's negligible. You can get things like Diehard, or Endurance.





			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> In other words, someone was tossing out a smelly fish of a crimson hue.



First off, I think it's interesting that Dblade's assessment is that since the warblade's bonus feats don't directly boost attack or damage output, they're no big whoop.

Second, pawsplay: you don't even know what the list actually is, just taking Dblade's assessment on face value, so kindly spare me your hasty aspersions. 

Third, last I checked, ToB classes still get feats at 1st and every 3rd level, allowing them to co-opt Power Attack, Improved Crit, and any of the other feats that were cited as allowing a fighter to do 100 pts of damage per round.

Fourth, allow me to point out the circle of sophistry at work here. When ToB is described as overpowered, there's a bit of self-serving shifting back and forth. One minute, it's not overpowered because a fighter already has capabilities that match a +100 damage maneuver--sheer child's play! The next minute, it's not overpowered because warrior classes were so underpowered to begin with and ToB's power boost finally allows them to inflict decent damage. Would you guys mind breaking up into separate camps, please?


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Nevermind your conveniently ignoring the fact that the Warblade gets 7 feats over 20 levels and the Fighter gets 18. It makes a difference.
> 
> But yes, I would say that at high levels, the Warblade does edge out the straight fighter. But since I believe the fighter is underpowered already, I have no problem with that.
> 
> ...




Spellcasters do jack for single target damage, and vs foes warded with basic low level spells, their area damage isn't so great either.  Oh no, 60 damage!  Wait, if they save 1/2 the time, then it's 45 damage.  Minus energy resistance; the 2nd level spell Resist Energy provides 30! resistance at 12th level.

IIRC, there was some debate in the other thread about whether or not the warblade using a swift action to recharge was allowed to take multiple attacks - I suspect differing opinions on this matter may result in differing opinions on the overpoweredness of the warblade.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Spellcasters do jack for single target damage,




Except they can instantly kill people with certain spells w/o having to make a "to hit" roll.

And I would hardly consider Disintegrate "jack" in terms of damage.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 4, 2006)

Wow, that's a lot of venom and vitriol spilling out up there.  Jeez folks, careful you don't get any bile on the keyboard. 

Look, fighters get shafted at high levels vs. casters.  ToB Adepts are much more in line with the kind of fighter you would expect to be comparable to a high level caster.  BUT, Adepts are also much more flavorful and probably more effective than a straight fighter.  The Warblade is probably comparable to a barbarian between DR, movement, uncanny dodge, and greater/rage. Crusader and Paladin are basically comparable though less directly.  The SwordSage is actually more monkish than fighter but lacks the really good specials of the monk class.  

The problem is that they really do beat out a fighter for everything but flexibility and qualifying for PrCs.  I think if you'd never seen a "fighter" then you'd think the Martial Adepts were the bees knees at keeping melees relevant to casters.  However the martial adepts are as overpowered compared to fighters as Warmage is to sorceror.  

Those who feel the Adepts bring melees in line with casters, feel good about being right.  Those who feel the Adepts are out of line with fighters, feel good about being right.  Now, secure in your own position, you should be able to discuss things without as much vehemence.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 4, 2006)

I think some people are missing a major point in the caster vs. meleer deabte here. Are casters more powerful than meleers at high levels? Yes, probably. But conversely, they are much, MUCH weaker than meleers at low levels.

At low - medium levels, a fighter can kick six different shades of sh*t outta a wizard or sorcerer, with their pathetic AC and low HP. I defy anyone to tell me that ALL classes are balanced at all levels. It's basically impossible for them to be, unless every class is the same.

Comparing a high level wizard and a high level fighter is like comparing a guy with a sniper rifle and a guy with a baseball bat. The sniper completely owns the baseballer in most situations, but in certain cicrumstances, like when he is out of ammo or up close and personal, the sniper is gonna get the tar beaten out of him.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Comparing a high level wizard and a high level fighter is like comparing a guy with a sniper rifle and a guy with a baseball bat. The sniper completely owns the baseballer in most situations, but in certain cicrumstances, like when he is out of ammo or up close and personal, the sniper is gonna get the tar beaten out of him.




Jump on Halo2 and I can show you a sniper that is good up close


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hang on. Where does it say a warblade can't make iterative attacks? The warblade can recover his maneuvers as a swift action followed immediately by an attack, *or* he can wave sword around as a standard action. Don't mix the two up.



Followed by a standard action to attack. He can't make a full attack during the round when he recovers his maneuvers.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 4, 2006)

If you think that fighters don't really measure up to the warblade at high levels, here's a simple fix: give fighters of 4th-level and up an initiator level of fighter level -2 for martial maneuvers, and allow them to take the Martial Study feat one extra time for every six fighter levels. This means a 6th-level fighter can know up to 4 maneuvers with an initiator level of 4 (up to 2nd-level maneuvers and stances), a 12th-level fighter can know up to 5 maneuvers with an initiator level of 10 (up to 5th-level maneuvers and stances) and an 18th-level fighter can know up to 6 maneuvers with an initiator level of 16 (up to 8th-level maneuvers and stances).

Under these rules, a fighter who delays the acquisition of his sixth maneuver until 20th level (he can use his fighter bonus feats to take Martial Study) will have an initiator level of 18 and can take Strike of Perfect Clarity or Time Stands Still as well (assuming he meets all the other prerequisites).


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Wow, that's a lot of venom and vitriol spilling out up there.  Jeez folks, careful you don't get any bile on the keyboard.




Hehe. Personally, I find all of the fallacies being tossed around to be pretty outrageous, and that's hard to conceal. I thought party roles were well-understood. Some guys have a defensive role, some an offensive, and some support the two in some fashion. But now I hear that's not the case; anybody who doesn't do as much damage as everybody else is underpowered, period. The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.

Then I read Mike Mearls absurd quote expressing his pleasure that ToB has received unanimous praise, and giving it a big fat pat on the back because all that praise confirms some half-baked notion that warriors need a boost. He cites as an example a 2WF fighter build that won't get better no matter how many feats he layers on. Which is damned odd, because there are a number of feats that improve 2WF builds. A fighter could keep tacking'em on darn near forever. Yes, you need more books. How's that special? Until the Spell Compendium came out, wizards also had to stuff their bags--and even after that, there's now the PHB II.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.



Actually, I think a decent barbarian build will do as much damage or more against a single target as a wizard will, given a full attack.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hang on. Where does it say a warblade can't make iterative attacks? The warblade can recover his maneuvers as a swift action followed immediately by an attack, *or* he can wave sword around as a standard action. Don't mix the two up.






			
				ToB:TBoNS said:
			
		

> "...You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round. You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers"




I wasn't saying he couldn't make any other attacks, but that he could *initiate* any *maneuver* based attacks. If I worded it confusingly, I apologize. Sometime what I post is clear to me, but muddy to others.



> You're absolutely right. We really shouldn't make this kitchen-sink cake-n'-eat-it-too nature of ToB is all about taking top place as party nuker. We should also point that disciplines hog other roles as well, including buffing and healing. Total overlap everywhere with no burnout. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. So broken.




They by no means replace party buffers, healers or top nuker spots. None of their disciplines can be used in the manner with which it would even be capable of completely replacing clerics or wizards or rogues. Could they stand in the fighter spot? Certainly...but again, there are other classes in the game which can stand in the spots of traditional roles as well. With all the new classes Wizards has put out, there is an overlap of ALOT of roles...and thats been common throughout the history of the game as well as more classes were added.

Powerful? no doubt. overpowered and broken? matter of opinion. One in which I obviously don't share...one thing I've seen pointed out here and on the WotC boards is that when so many people are so well divided across lines like this, it often indicates its pretty well balanced for a standard style campaign (which by no means indicates it is good for everyones campaign).


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> Followed by a standard action to attack. He can't make a full attack during the round when he recovers his maneuvers.




It does not in fact say "followed by a standard action to attack". Here's a quote from the class description:



> You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon).




All it says that you have to follow the recovery up with a melee attack, which certainly doesn't abridge the ability to make a full round of attacks.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

> However the martial adepts are as overpowered compared to fighters as Warmage is to sorceror.




You just made me cough! Sorcerer versus Warmage? Get out of town! Let's see a warmage turn invisible and fly. 

Let me position myself in this debate, since Felon has requested.

I believe:
- Fighters are modestly powered, but not underpowered, and are the best at what they do, which is to say, take a greatsword up against a dragon and not die.
- Barbarians are pretty nice, but take a power dive after level 10 or so relative to other character, including fighters. BAB is only so much, and linear increases will only take you so far. To stay in the game, you need self-buffs, or you need feats.
- Melee characters don't need to be powered up to be a competitive choice with casters. Powerful as casters may be, they simply need "meat shields." The term meat shield exists simply because it is so easy for a fighter to disproportionately provide protection for a caster based on their combat focus. Conversely, spellcasters are sometimes called long-range artillery, fire support, and such. There is no way to conceptually balance "utility" spells with non-magical abilities; normal people don't turn invisible. If you decide to be a fighter, you decide that spells are something you won't be providing for the party.
- There is nothing, to me, intrinsically undesirable about Street Fighter style high damage output melee characters, and I think the Nine Swords classes can and should be considered on their own terms, and can and probably are roughly balanced (but perhaps could be balanced better, hard to say at this point). 
- However, I wouldn't want Nine Swords classes in 90% of the games I run, simply because I prefer a more traditional swords-and-sorcery style game. Anime-kabooms are nice in their place, and for me, that place is RPGs other than D&D, unless I have something specific in mind. I like grim axe-wielding dwarfs, not battle maidens shooting fifty feet through the air and slicing granite blocks in half.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> It does not in fact say "followed by a standard action to attack". Here's a quote from the class description:
> 
> 
> 
> All it says that you have to follow the recovery up with a melee attack, which certainly doesn't abridge the ability to make a full round of attacks.



Hm...I guess when I read it I thought something different. I suppose you're right about that part.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> Actually, I think a decent barbarian build will do as much damage or more against a single target as a wizard will, given a full attack.




It's certainly wouldn't be anything to sneeze at, making the assertion by Mearls and others that warriors need a boost rather questionable.

The only thing they need to do to help warriors is get that notion out of their head that moving more than five feet in a round should impose a huge detriment on a warrior's capabilities.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> However, I wouldn't want Nine Swords classes in 90% of the games I run, simply because I prefer a more traditional swords-and-sorcery style game. Anime-kabooms are nice in their place, and for me, that place is RPGs other than D&D, unless I have something specific in mind. I like grim axe-wielding dwarfs, not battle maidens shooting fifty feet through the air and slicing granite blocks in half.



How do you differentiate someone moving his or her sword in a predetermined manner and a huge explosion of fire erupting(Maneuver) from someone who moves his or her sword in a predetermined manner and casting a spell to cause a huge explosion of fire(Spellsword)?


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

Considering how often targets that our sorcerer attempted to Disentegrate saved, I'd have to consider its actual damage yield to be less than spectular.

Yeah, save or dies are pretty nice.  However, their presence tends to encourage lots save boosting effects to minimize the chance of death - thus making save or dies AND all the other save based attack spells less effective.

Besides, a high end fighter getting a full attack on a wizard is often a no save and die situation.  Granted, a wizard shouldn't exactly be standing around to take it.  

Of course that leads us back into a melee character's heavy dependence on full attacks, which are often easily avoided.  And they also can make combat devoid of manuever, since the rewards of full attacking are too great.  Some nasty standard action tricks for fighters are sorely missed, IMHO.

--------------------------

Warmages more powerful than sorcerers?    What will they come up with next?


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There is nothing, to me, intrinsically undesirable about Street Fighter style high damage output melee characters, and I think the Nine Swords classes can and should be considered on their own terms, and can and probably are roughly balanced (but perhaps could be balanced better, hard to say at this point).




To be balanced, there has to be give and take. It doesn't have to be in perfectly equal proportions, but there has to be some. A warblade has enormous damage output, constant damage output, and is as much of a meat shield as any warrior that ever shrugged off a meteor swarm. Takes and takes, but never gives.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Except they can instantly kill people with certain spells w/o having to make a "to hit" roll.




Spell penetration is effectively an attack roll for casters. They just don't get to add an ability modifier to the roll (or much of anything else besides their caster level). And as a wizard approaches higher levels, he finds that damn near everything worth tossing a save-or-die at has SR.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> How do you differentiate someone moving his or her sword in a predetermined manner and a huge explosion of fire erupting(Maneuver) from someone who moves his or her sword in a predetermined manner and casting a spell to cause a huge explosion of fire(Spellsword)?




One of them yells "Hadoken!"


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> To be balanced, there has to be give and take. It doesn't have to be in perfectly equal proportions, but there has to be some. A warblade has enormous damage output, constant damage output, and is as much of a meat shield as any warrior that ever shrugged off a meteor swarm. Takes and takes, but never gives.




I believe we have established they don't have anything like a fighter's feat progression, right?


----------



## daemonslye (Sep 4, 2006)

> I like grim axe-wielding dwarfs, not battle maidens shooting fifty feet through the air and slicing granite blocks in half.




*high-five*


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 4, 2006)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I liked the way it looked, but I hate the "Let's add kung-fu, videogame-ish maneuvers to D&D" stuff.  I like anime and videogames as much as the next geek, but I think it's corny to have it in a D&D game.  That and my group frowns on me using whatever the latest splatbook is because they think it's overpowered (translation:  They choose not to use it, so if I do I'm the powergaming bad guy)
> 
> Just for the record, the maneuvers that add +100 damage is a 9th level one, so that's what, 17th level?  At that level, you *should* be able to do that kind of damage.




I recommend reading the novel "Cartomancy" by Michael Stackpole.  It has a regular fantasy world, with warriors very similar in nature to the swordsage or warblade, and it seems to work.  

Correct on the +100 damage thing.  It's 9th lvl....*and* it uses up all your actions for the round.  How much damage can an 18th lvl fighter reliably do in a round?

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Until the Spell Compendium came out, wizards also had to stuff their bags--and even after that, there's now the PHB II.




Question about this statement, Felon....what's so special about Spell Compendium?  does it have much in the way of magic that's new?  Or is it all stuff recycled from other books?  If it's all recycled, I've probably got a lot of it already...but if there's new magic, maybe it's worth taking a look at..

Banshee


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

> How much damage can an 18th lvl fighter reliably do in a round?




I don't have the PHB II, but here goes. Feel free to comment on his equipment choices. I will  try to be conservative but well-tuned.

I'm assuming an enemy AC of 35 or so. He has +18 BAB, a Str effectively of around 24 or so (+6), a +4 flaming burst longsword, and numerous feats, including weapon focus (longsword) and weapon specialization (longsword). His to hit is around +30 or so before buffs. Assuming he takes -5 to hit with a power attack, his damage is 1d10+17+1d6 (avg 28), and on a crit, 1d10+34+1d6+1d10 (avg 48.5). With Improved critical, his threat range is 17-20, or 20% of his rolls. I'm going to assume he confirms, either because of Power Critical or oil of bless weapon or somesuch.

His first attack is about even odds to hit, his second has about one in four, and his third and fourth hit only on a 20 but always threaten. So his main attack averages 14 damage, with even odds to threaten, so average 21 points. His next attack is about half that, so we're at 30 points. His remaining attacks add just about five each on average.

So for a relatively vanilla longsword specialist fighting one-handed, we're looking at nearly 40 points a round of damage per full attack.  Using a two-handed weapon could likely take that through the roof.

It would appear to me that +100 damage wins, but only just.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Spell penetration is effectively an attack roll for casters. They just don't get to add an ability modifier to the roll (or much of anything else besides their caster level). And as a wizard approaches higher levels, he finds that damn near everything worth tossing a save-or-die at has SR.




Not everything has Spell Resistance.  However, everything DOES have an Armor Class you need to hit.  There are also ways to get around SR (just as there are ways to get around AC, such as touch attacks).

Certainly there are ways to boost up saves, just as there are ways to boost up AC and Damage Reduction.  It is give and take.

Also, why are we comparing just damage here?  There are plenty of things casters can do that melee can't that have nothing to do with dealing damage.  Why hasn't this been brought up and discussed yet?  How is the +100 damage warblade going to do that damage to a flying, greater invis'd creature?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hehe. Personally, I find all of the fallacies being tossed around to be pretty outrageous, and that's hard to conceal. I thought party roles were well-understood. Some guys have a defensive role, some an offensive, and some support the two in some fashion. But now I hear that's not the case; anybody who doesn't do as much damage as everybody else is underpowered, period. The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.




I think you are the only one making that claim.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> Then I read Mike Mearls absurd quote expressing his pleasure that ToB has received unanimous praise,




Weird, I don't remember him saying it was unanimously praised?  Just that they got mostly good feedback from it.  Embelish a little do we?



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> and giving it a big fat pat on the back because all that praise confirms some half-baked notion that warriors need a boost.




Compared to *spellcasters* (as he put it) they did.  How can you dispute that?  Higher level base "warrior" classes (Fighter/Barb/Monk/Paladin/Ranger) are out damaged, out shined and out played by casters of the same level (again, talking high levels here).



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> He cites as an example a 2WF fighter build that won't get better no matter how many feats he layers on. Which is damned odd, because there are a number of feats that improve 2WF builds. A fighter could keep tacking'em on darn near forever. Yes, you need more books. How's that special? Until the Spell Compendium came out, wizards also had to stuff their bags--and even after that, there's now the PHB II.




He goes into a little more detail then that.  From what I read, he mostly compares the fighter, whose class feature is bonus feats.  And (most) feats don't get better no matter what level you attain them.   Most of them do not scale as you level.  The new system in ToB makes it so you have abilities that do scale.  And suddenly the TWF has a lot more options open to them than TWF, ITWF, and GTWF.

I think the arguement at this point is SHOULD a level 18 melee class be on par (in terms of damage and area-effect damage) as a caster of the same level?  And we can't even compare non-damage (utility) abilities of the martial adepts vs. casters as they really don't get any (Shadow Jaunt/Stride/Blink are the only ones I can think of off hand).  So the casters STILL surpass meleer's in this category (as well they should).


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

+18 BAB, +8 Str(16+4 levels+6 enhancement(probably a manual, but whatever)), +5 Vicious Flaming Shocking Frost Keen Falchion(DMG expects half the gold on one item, 200k is less than half an 18th level character's expected wealth)=+31 before feats
Feats:
1odge
1:Mobility
1:Weapon Focus(Falchion)
2ower Attack
3:Spring Attack
4:Weapon Specialization(Falchion)
6ower Attack
6:Improved Buckler Defense
8:Greater Weapon Focus(Falchion)
9:Cleave
10:Melee Weapon Mastery(Slashing)
12:Greater Weapon Specialization(Falchion)
12:Shield Specialization
14:Slashing Flurry
15:Great Cleave
16:Combat Expertise
18:Whirlwind Attack
18:Weapon Supremacy(Falchion)

Attack:31+2(Greater Weapon Focus)+2(Melee Weapon Mastery)-1(Buckler)+1(Boots of Speed)=34-5 Slashing Flurry=29
Damage:2d4(5)+12(Str)+5(Enhancement)+5d6(Flaming, Shock, etc)(17.5)+4(Greater Weapon Specialization)+2(Melee Weapon Mastery)=45.5 damage

You guarantee your first attack by taking 10, then your second attack(haste) has a 75% chance, as does your third(Slashing Flurry). Add +5 to your fourth attack for a 75% chance of success, then your fifth attack has a 25% chance and your last has a 5% chance of hitting.
Before crits, you have (100+75+75+75+25+5)/100*45.5=161.525 damage.
Edit: Sorry for the miscalculation. Even higher damage.


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

Just plugging a level 18 fighter using a +5 flaming (or whatever) Greatsword with 28 STR (half orc, 16 base, +6 Belt, and +4 from levels) with Greater Spec (and the requirements) and Improved Critical shows about 140-135 (depending on whether or not optimal PA is used) damage per full attack against AC 35 while hasted.  It'd be easy to do better with non core stuff, barbarian levels, an inherent STR bonus, etc.  Switching out for 4 barbarian levels for rage and using Slashing weapon mastery and Slashing Flurry from PHB2 pumped damage up to 196.

Forty points vs 140.  The difference between our numbers probably explains all the different opinions about fighters.  Of course, plugging pawsplay's numbers into my spreadsheet shows that his longsword fighter did about 80 damage per full attack without power attacking (although it also has greater focus and spec).  Power Attacking isn't so great for 1 handed weapons, especially on full attacks.

If the warblade never learned to deal with invisible and/or flying creatures, then how'd he get to be 18th level?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

Sithob1's build includes buffs for haste, and takes 1d6 damage per hit delivered. And like I said, I was being conservative. I didn't even bother to come up with 18 levels of feats, I just stuck with the basics.  I don't see a huge disparity.... I think we have now covered a reasonable pole at each end.

Does anyone still feel +100 damage every other round is overpowered? If so, I can start on a goliath psychic warrior and see what I can come up with...


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> If the warblade never learned to deal with invisible and/or flying creatures, then how'd he get to be 18th level?




1) He has the Run feat?
2) Because of the valueable contributions by his party members.  Casters can dispel invis numerous ways.  They can also dispel flight OR make the warblade flying.  The point is, the warblade would have to rely on his allies for these things, just as they have to rely on him to take and deal the damage.  See, class synergy.  This is why martial adepts are not overpowered or unbalanced compared to spellcasters  There is still a need for spellcasters after all.  Everyone is happy .


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 4, 2006)

The haste came from boots of speed, which every respectable full-attack dependent character should have before level 10.


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 1) He has the Run feat?
> 2) Because of the valueable contributions by his party members.  Casters can dispel invis numerous ways.  They can also dispel flight OR make the warblade flying.  The point is, the warblade would have to rely on his allies for these things, just as they have to rely on him to take and deal the damage.  See, class synergy.  This is why martial adepts are not overpowered or unbalanced compared to spellcasters  There is still a need for spellcasters after all.  Everyone is happy .




Yeah, relying on teammates is a valid tactic, assuming you've got reliable ones. 

However, I don't think class interdependence = class balance.  Some people may not have wanted to play the warblade's targeting and delivery system or other support roles.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Upon further examination, the +100 damage manuever does seem somewhat overpowered.  At level 20, +100 seems okay since the extra wealth at those levels can add quite a bit to a fighter's damage.  But at 18th, it should probably be somewhat less, perhaps 70 or so.  Then it can scale up to 100.  Of course, I can't recall any other manuever that scales directly with character level, they seem to be pretty flat (excepting their use of attack, damage and skills).  So maybe a flat 85 would be okay.  On the other hand, +100 damage is a nice round number, and sounds pretty neat, even if it is a little too powerful when first available.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 4, 2006)

My sketch pad math suggests +75 damage for vanilla attackers. I can live with +100, though. A well-tuned fighter can certainly outperform a mediocre one to a much greater extent than one +100 damage guy can out do another.


----------



## Xyvs (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> That might just have been sane, but this book was not about balance. It was about giving munchkins wet dreams for weeks on end.




Yo Felon,

I think we can agree to disagree. No harm in that.    But surely we can have a friendly debate without the munchkin aspersions.  

I think what is part of the issue is that it seems you feel party roles should be very clearly defined and that any crossover is not good. Tanks should be tanks. Healers should be healers. Blasters should be blasters. And so forth. But there are definitely parties where the tank wants to do more than just park in front of the mage and take hits. Tanks sometimes want the spotlight too (some see tanking as the "menial labor" of adventuring). And clerics very clearly want to do more than just heal. Now we have healers (i.e. druids and clerics) that can tank, blast, and melee. And ToB is giving us some stylized melee classes that can do some cool stuff without having to sit still and full attack. I love that the idea of a mobile melee class is now doable and balanced with the mobility and firepower of other classes. Even then, casters (especially wizards) still have the utility department all sown up.

As an aside, I tend to agree that if people are arguing vociferously for and against then things are probably balanced. (Voiced by someone else here whose name I have just forgotten  )


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Sithob1's build includes buffs for haste, and takes 1d6 damage per hit delivered. And like I said, I was being conservative. I didn't even bother to come up with 18 levels of feats, I just stuck with the basics.  I don't see a huge disparity.... I think we have now covered a reasonable pole at each end.
> 
> Does anyone still feel +100 damage every other round is overpowered? If so, I can start on a goliath psychic warrior and see what I can come up with...



It isn't the +100 points every-other round that is broken.  It is the 100 points of damage as a standard action.  BIG difference.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

I agree with Felon.  The notion that a full-bab, d12 type can "keep up" with a wizard in terms of special abilities and area attacks and the like is crazy.  Why play he wizard?  You'd basicly be stuck throwing buffs and dispelling stuff.

ToB is very overpowered.  It makes other warrior classes basically useless.  At higher levels, maybe that is needed/justified.  But at lower levels?  Would anyone really take a 5th level barb, or fighter over a 5th level swordsage or warblade?  Anyone?

Mark


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> It isn't the +100 points every-other round that is broken.  It is the 100 points of damage as a standard action.  BIG difference.




How is it a big difference?  The balancing factor is how often you get to do it, not the action type it takes.  It could be a move action, free action or swift action for all it matters, as long as it is balanced by being only useable once a round (since we demonstated a vanillar fighter can do that much in one round) or every other round (as it currently works).

Again, why do you think the fact that it is a Standard Action to perform is the part that makes it "unbalancing"?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> I agree with Felon.  The notion that a full-bab, d12 type can "keep up" with a wizard in terms of special abilities and area attacks and the like is crazy.  Why play he wizard?




Fly, Invis, Haste, Polymorph, Wish, Animal Buffs (Bull's Str), Dispel Magic, Wall of X, Teleport/Dimension Door, ability to have the right spell in the right situation, and so on...



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> You'd basicly be stuck throwing buffs and dispelling stuff.




Throwing buffs and dispelling is PART of what spellcasters do.  What is the big deal in that?  And damage is ALWAYS useful no matter who is doing it.  Just because a Warblade is doing damage doesn't mean the Wizard (or any other class for that matter) is prohibited from dealing damage.

Why is everone so insistant that the moment a melee class deals damage, there isn't anything left for the spellcasters to do?  I don't get it.  If you think in a standard party of 4 characters (Warblade, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) that the Warblade is going to deal enough damage and kill all the enemies on the battlefield and leave none for the Rogue, Wizard or Cleric, then you must play in totally different games than I do.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> ToB is very overpowered.  It makes other warrior classes basically useless.  At higher levels, maybe that is needed/justified.  But at lower levels?  Would anyone really take a 5th level barb, or fighter over a 5th level swordsage or warblade?  Anyone?
> 
> Mark




I think if you are comparing straight class builds (level 1-20 Warblade vs level 1-20 Fighter) then you are correct.  But this book was built with multiclassing in mind.  It is evident by the character level = 1/2 initiator level.  Seriously, when is the last time anyone has played a straight "warrior" base class all the way through from levels 1 to 20?  It doesn't happen very often.  People dip a level or two into Fighter for the bonus feats, people dip into other classes (including prestige classes) for their class features which compliment what they can already do.

Finally we have some classes in ToB that are great for a few level dips, or great to play all the way through w/o multiclassing.  How is that broken or unbalaced?


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> How is it a big difference?  The balancing factor is how often you get to do it, not the action type it takes.  It could be a move action, free action or swift action for all it matters, as long as it is balanced by being only useable once a round (since we demonstated a vanillar fighter can do that much in one round) or every other round (as it currently works).
> 
> Again, why do you think the fact that it is a Standard Action to perform is the part that makes it "unbalancing"?



The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack.  If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack.  But the WB can still do the same amount of damage.  BIG advantage in my experiance.

Mark


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Finally we have some classes in ToB that are great for a few level dips, or great to play all the way through w/o multiclassing.  How is that broken or unbalaced?




A warblade with d8 HD, 2 skillpoints/level and 3/4 BAB would still be very very playable. (I'd say about right actually).    That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Mark


----------



## comrade raoul (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack.  If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack.  But the WB can still do the same amount of damage.  BIG advantage in my experiance.



This is absolutely correct. Moreover, people are comparing pretty optimized fighters against very standard warblades. A warblade built for dealing damage--with Time Stands Still, say, improved by some of the Tiger Claw boosts that give extra attacks--will quickly outstrip any traditional melee build I can think of.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

Xyvs said:
			
		

> As an aside, I tend to agree that if people are arguing vociferously for and against then things are probably balanced. (Voiced by someone else here whose name I have just forgotten  )




That would be me...glad someone noticed lol.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack. If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack. But the WB can still do the same amount of damage. BIG advantage in my experiance.




You're also assuming the warblade will use his swift action every other round to regain this ability and that might also not be possible (maybe he saves it for another ability, maybe he blows it using an immediate action on something else). It might also not be what he does, choosing to save his swift action for another use. So it may not be such a BIG advantage afterall.

If you are going to start throwing variables in there "well the fighter may have to move" well, in all fairness...something may prevent the warblade from saving that swift action for reclaiming spent maneuvers.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> A warblade with d8 HD, 2 skillpoints/level and 3/4 BAB would still be very very playable. (I'd say about right actually).    That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
> 
> Mark




Not as a front line figher really, that would be relgating him to the side lines as a skirmisher, not the warrior he is supposed to be.

Just because something is playable, doesn't mean its a good class...we have lots of examples of things that are "playable" but absolutely suck to play and aren't any fun.

So no, I don't think that, in a nutshell, is the problem...



			
				comrade raoul said:
			
		

> This is absolutely correct. Moreover, people are comparing pretty optimized fighters against very standard warblades. A warblade built for dealing damage--with Time Stands Still, say, improved by some of the Tiger Claw boosts that give extra attacks--will quickly outstrip any traditional melee build I can think of.




I don't necessairly agree we are talking about "very standard warblades" The comparison was against +100 damage (+ normal melee damage) every other round. I'd be interested to see an actual set of builds for comparison between a well made fighter, barbarian and warblade. I'm not sure I'd agree the warblade would quickly leave the other two in the dust either from what I have seen so far.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> That would be me...glad someone noticed lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Many of the martial adept abilities require swift actions.....if the warblade has some of them readied, they may not be able to reclaim their spent maneuvers because they're using their swift actions to use counters, or something like that.

I tend to agree with your statement above.  This thread has seen strong arguments on both sides of the issue.  That would seem to imply that it's balanced.  I *wanted* to dislike the book, as I'm not a big anime fan.  And I still dislike the more mystical abilities, such as throwing fire, etc.  But the abilities that come with Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and even in some cases Tiger Claw are not as overtly mystical as others.

Instead, they seem to be able to portray a combat-focused character who is not simply a brawler, but one with strong focus and dedication to their path, who treats it more as an art than your ordinary fighter does.....and when you start taking into account that many of the abilities use up the character's actions for the round, preventing a full attack, then it starts seeming not as bad.

I wonder if this will be similar the initial arguments about the Mystic Theurge when the 3.5 DMG was released....that on paper it looks horribly unbalanced, but in play, isn'?  That was an example of a fix to a multiclassing issue I'd noticed before 3.0 was released, when they were revealing all the "preview" info about how it would work.

Banshee


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> It does not in fact say "followed by a standard action to attack". Here's a quote from the class description:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe the key phrase is "a melee attack."  There are multiple actions that can yeild "a melee attack."  A standard action - standard attack.  A full round action: Charge & coup de grace.  As long as you limit yourself to making "a melee attack."   It would seem rather contradictory to allow you to make a full attack action when it specifically prohibits a double move ("use a standard action to do nothing else").


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Sep 4, 2006)

I personally think people are too concerned with balance issues.  Sure, there are obviously stronger or weaker class and abilities, but isn't the game supposed to be about  fun?


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I wonder if this will be similar the initial arguments about the Mystic Theurge when the 3.5 DMG was released....that on paper it looks horribly unbalanced, but in play, isn'?  That was an example of a fix to a multiclassing issue I'd noticed before 3.0 was released, when they were revealing all the "preview" info about how it would work.
> 
> Banshee



I will get to see soon.  Our group will have a swordsage shortly.

I still claim anyone who gets a +2 attack +4 damage bonus (at 5th level!) against anything bigger than them (it's a stance) has a pretty broken set of abilities.  Throw in the exploding opponent and other maneuvers and it gets crazy fast.

I really do like these classes.  A lot.  I just think the fighters, barbs, rangers, monks and paladins of the world have been replaced.  And to an extent the clerics and wizards have had their toes stepped on.

Mark


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

> As an aside, I tend to agree that if people are arguing vociferously for and against then things are probably balanced.





			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with your statement above.  This thread has seen strong arguments on both sides of the issue.  That would seem to imply that it's balanced.




So, if one side is arguing that something's broken and another side is arguing that something's balanced, and you deem them both to have strong arguements, then the latter must be right? Please explain the rationale behind that implication.

I gotta ask you guys, if you're shopping for a home and you have it inspected by two separate professionals, and one tells you it's okay and the other says it's a deathtrap, is your default conclusion that the house is okay? Or how about reading wildly disparate movie reviews? Some negative review and some positive reviews tend to mean the movie's probably good?


----------



## wayne62682 (Sep 4, 2006)

The only thing I can see that may be an issue is that the Warblade can recover all his maneuvers as a Swift action.. so that means he can use the neat ones (I did not check which ones he gets, however, so it may not be the +100 damage one) every other round.  That seems a little much to me, but still cool.  

After reading more through Tome of Battle (although I will not buy it yet because I wouldn't be allowed to use it without getting branded a munchkin), it does seem like a very neat addition to the game.


----------



## brehobit (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> brehob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But he'd still be very playable, even as a front-line fighter.  At level 5 or 7 he'd be able to keep up with the figher.  Better?  Nope.  At Level 15-20 he'd still be flat-out better I think.  As a front-line fighter, in addition to in other roles (depending on abilities selected).


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I believe the key phrase is "a melee attack."  There are multiple actions that can yeild "a melee attack."  A standard action - standard attack.  A full round action: Charge & coup de grace.  As long as you limit yourself to making "a melee attack."   It would seem rather contradictory to allow you to make a full attack action when it specifically prohibits a double move ("use a standard action to do nothing else").




I don't see what you're getting at. As you say, a melee attack can be part of a full-round attack. There is no prohibition of a double-move if you make a melee attack. The reference to using a standard action and "do nothing else" is a reference to using a standard action to recover the maneuvers by twirling a weapon in the air; it's a way to recover maneuvers if it's not possible to actually make an attack.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

Brehobit - I'd love to hear how it goes with the swordsage in your game.

I'd also love to hear more of your thoughts about the warlock class (in another thread though). It's one that's always interested me, but one I've never seen played.



> But he'd still be very playable, even as a front-line fighter. At level 5 or 7 he'd be able to keep up with the figher. Better? Nope. At Level 15-20 he'd still be flat-out better I think. As a front-line fighter, in addition to in other roles (depending on abilities selected).




I don't agree he would be able to be up there as a front line fighter or that he would be flat out better at 15+. Second string? sure, like the monk or cleric can be second string, only somewhat more effective _if he hits/i], which he wouldn't be doing as often. At that point, he'd almost become a replacement for the poor bard...and actually be along the lines of what an EQ bard was, running around in plate..._


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Not as a front line figher really, that would be relgating him to the side lines as a skirmisher, not the warrior he is supposed to be.




Well, I'd suggest "re-supposing" it as something reasonable and balanced.    It's not a class that created specifically to embody some fantasy archetype like knight or scout, after all; this class is a shill for a set of mechanics. If giving the character heavy offense means softening it up somewhere else, then so be it.


----------



## Gargoyle (Sep 4, 2006)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> I personally think people are too concerned with balance issues.  Sure, there are obviously stronger or weaker class and abilities, but isn't the game supposed to be about  fun?




Unbalanced games are usually less fun for somebody in the group.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Well, I'd suggest "re-supposing" it as something reasonable and balanced.    It's not a class that created specifically to embody some fantasy archetype like knight or scout, after all; this class is a shill for a set of mechanics. If giving the character heavy offense means softening it up somewhere else, then so be it.




Except I don't agree it is unreasonable and unbalanced as you suggest.

Your statement about the class being a "shill for a set of mechanics" is your opinion, not fact like you present it and I disagree with it. As well, I believe they embody the fantasy spirt the monk was made in as well, embodying holy, mystical and straight out warrior aspects of that class without the eastern flavor.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Sep 4, 2006)

I guess it depends on the group.  We're just in it for fun.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

Xyvs said:
			
		

> I think what is part of the issue is that it seems you feel party roles should be very clearly defined and that any crossover is not good. Tanks should be tanks. Healers should be healers. Blasters should be blasters. And so forth. But there are definitely parties where the tank wants to do more than just park in front of the mage and take hits. Tanks sometimes want the spotlight too (some see tanking as the "menial labor" of adventuring). )




Well, I've built my share of warriors, so I certainly empathize that warriros want to bring on the pain. However, warriors were fully capable of incapable inflicting major carnage before ToB. I certainly have done plenty of cleaving in my day. 

So, I'm sufficiently secure in my role to not resent the wizard for outclassing me once it's time to blow the lid off. He sat back and let me do my thing quite a bit, tossing a crappy little magic missile or scorching ray here or there, while my greatsword routinely outdamages either on a typical swing. I've got the armor, and I've got the hit points. I'm rational enough to accept that a caster being the best at blowing stuff up doesn't emasculate the warrior by any stretch.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Why is everone so insistant that the moment a melee class deals damage, there isn't anything left for the spellcasters to do?



"I think you are the only one making that claim."

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to throw that little line back at you.


----------



## Felon (Sep 4, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Also, why are we comparing just damage here?  There are plenty of things casters can do that melee can't that have nothing to do with dealing damage.  Why hasn't this been brought up and discussed yet?  How is the +100 damage warblade going to do that damage to a flying, greater invis'd creature?




The bottom line is, wizards and sorcerers get the short end of the stick in so many areas--hit dice, skill points, BAB, armor class, supplemantary class features, et al--that in order to be a compelling character choice they warrant a major asset to call their own, namely nuking. Warriors have staying power, mages have firepower. That's always struck an easy balance. Now, if their role is rewritten so that they're not the primary damage dealer, but rather relegated to serve as "miscallaneous utility provider", then bump all of the aforementioned up and let them wield some martial weapons so that they'll have some staying power in combat. But that isn't the case. 

I'll also point out (again), that a warblade that has a +100 damage attack also probably access to flight and anti-invisibility items. Most spells can be duped with wondrous items. Some items help compensate for low HP or low AC, but they don't come close to briding the gap.


----------



## Question (Sep 4, 2006)

Im interested in the tome of battle but i dont think many DMs will allow the stuff in it......i can just see it now.........

Me : "Yea the warblade has a level 9 maneaveur, you do +100 damage with one attack."

DM : "Wtf no way!"


----------



## Nail (Sep 4, 2006)

Stepping away from the +100 hp damage argument for a moment, and back to an earlier point:


			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Mike Mearls had some interesting musings on the WotC boards. I thought I would share...



I played in a campaign that went from 1st to 23rd, using (mostly) 3.5e.  We had Fighters.....and they were _never_ irrelevant.  In fact, at high levels our fighter(s) became even more useful, not less.

It's all in how you play.  

A "power-up" book for fighters is fine; but it should retain the concept of balance, as reflected in the core rules.

IMHO.


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

I think full BaB is pretty important for the way a warblade is supposed to fight - not to mention that they start to look like a swordsage with 3/4ths.

However, a d12 HD is pretty gratuitous; dropping to a d10 or even d8 might not be a problem.  Losing some skill points also makes sense.  Sure, warblades need some extra skills compared to fighters, but they also have INT influencing several of their abilities.  They can sink those extra points into their skills, just like how wizards use their INT to make up for their 2 skill points and mandatory skills.

I'd expect a well built Warblade to be pretty brutal, especially if based around Time Stands Still.  I wouldn't expect them to be too far behind a well built fighter type in terms of full attack damage, so dropping 2 full attacks in one action would be nasty.  I seem to recall warblades being able to get the top manuevers from two discs by level 20, so that could lead to a vicious cycle of the +100 move (can't recall the name) on the approach, Time Stands Still on the full attack, and then a recharge as the character finishes off that foe or sets up for the next sequence.  The Diamond Mind discipline is loaded with counters, so the character could be using his other available moves while using his heavy hitters, or another nice attack manuever (depending on the situation) could lengthen the sequence.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Now, if their role is rewritten so that they're not the primary damage dealer, but rather relegated to serve as "miscallaneous utility provider", then bump all of the aforementioned up and let them wield some martial weapons so that they'll have some staying power in combat. But that isn't the case.




Their role isn't being re-written, just the gap narrowed. The sorcerer is still going to be a magical cannon, the wizard will still be ranged firepower/utility. Now the bad guys are going to be in qunadry...before, they could *ingore* the melee to go kill the casters, now to ignore the melee means incredible peril...who to take out first? In every game I've played or DM'ed, I go for the spellcasters first -- they are the real threat, not the melee. Take out burst, aoe and healing and then deal with melee. That paradigm isn't written in stone now.



> I'll also point out (again), that a warblade that has a +100 damage attack also probably access to flight and anti-invisibility items. Most spells can be duped with wondrous items. Some items help compensate for low HP or low AC, but they don't come close to briding the gap.




And the wizard probably has Dispel Magic and Disjunction that will neatly take care of these issues so that brings us around full circle again.

Question -- so then I guess Power Word: Kill is out for your wizard, since it does 100 damage as well  -- its an ability not gotten till 17th level, just like the wizard spell. Of course, it can't be used at range like the spell can.

Nail -- and thats the whole debate thing here...some of us think it is balanced, some of us think it is broken.


----------



## Urbanmech (Sep 4, 2006)

I don't know why everyone is up in arms about the Adepts, the maneuvers help bring the marital classes up to some of the abilities of a spellcaster.  As D&D currently stands fighters require quite a lot of magic to stay competive with the spellcasters and monsters you encounter at higher levels.  So what if the Warblade can deal +100 damage every other round on 1 attack.  At the same time a Sorcerer could Time Stop and drop successive delayed blast fireballs dealing massive damage to everyone in the area.  

The Warblade has high hit points because it has to be in the thick of things to deal damage.  A wizard can be shapechanged into some flying/incorporeal etc form and drop death from 400'+ away, or just Forcecage the Adept and be done with it.  Spellcasters I've seen at higher levels usually do a lot better using debilitating spells and then letting the melee folks pound the snot out of the enemies.  Hell even at lower levels Glitterdust is a fight ender, blind enemies tend to be pretty easy to kill.


----------



## Victim (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The bottom line is, wizards and sorcerers get the short end of the stick in so many areas--hit dice, skill points, BAB, armor class, supplemantary class features, et al--that in order to be a compelling character choice they warrant a major asset to call their own, namely nuking. Warriors have staying power, mages have firepower. That's always struck an easy balance. Now, if their role is rewritten so that they're not the primary damage dealer, but rather relegated to serve as "miscallaneous utility provider", then bump all of the aforementioned up and let them wield some martial weapons so that they'll have some staying power in combat. But that isn't the case.




I tend to see the main advantage of arcane spellcasting as the ability to attack the weak points of an encounter.  Someimes, such as when the party is confronted with large numbers of weak guys, nukes are the way to hit the weak spot.  But other encounters may demand different solutions.  Trolls deprived of their claw/claw/bite/rend attack combo via Slow aren't so tough.  Crippling a big bad melee type with an Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is nice.  And then there's battlefield control stuff.  

A wizard could find an exploitable weakness in pretty much anything.  Fighters or warblades would have to do ALOT more damage to render a caster's multitude of attack modes irrelevant.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 4, 2006)

After wading my way through this thread, here's my question: has anyone actually had a character from this book in play? There are a lot of different character options that seem to be either too powerful or too restrictive, but when you see them in play, they work out just fine.

I'd like to hear some actual examples rather than just rehashing "100 HPs! OMG" and "here's how my fighter can do the same thing..." comments.

Anyone?

--Steve


----------



## shilsen (Sep 4, 2006)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on the group.  We're just in it for fun.



 So are most people. It's just that your definition of fun isn't everybody else's, and (as Gargoyle pointed out above) unbalanced classes and games affect many people's enjoyment of the game.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

brehobit said:
			
		

> A warblade with d8 HD, 2 skillpoints/level and 3/4 BAB would still be very very playable. (I'd say about right actually).    That, in a nutshell, is the problem.
> 
> Mark




Not really, because they are meant to take damage.  d8 hit points won't cut it.  That's like saying a Monk should be the main damage soaker.  2 skillpoints/level won't cut it either because a lot of maneuvers rely on specific skills such as Tumble, Concentration, and Jump.  The reason they get so many skill points is precisely for that reason.  They put the skill points into the skills which maneuvers rely on.  The 3/4 BAB I could go either way on.  Since they are meant to be an "up front" fighter type, I see why they have full BAB.


----------



## Andras (Sep 4, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You just made me cough! Sorcerer versus Warmage? Get out of town! Let's see a warmage turn invisible and fly.




My Halfling WarMage/Arcane Trickster could turn invisible and fly thank you.



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Correct on the +100 damage thing.  It's 9th lvl....*and* it uses up all your actions for the round.  How much damage can an 18th lvl fighter reliably do in a round?
> Banshee




I don't know about straight fighters, but my Barb12/Occultslayer5/F2 was doing 300-500 points a round with full attacks, and 240 points on the charge, not counting extra attacks from cleave/great cleave. 

Of course, in the last battle of that group (this past Saturday) my contribution was rolling a 1 on the charge attack against the Balor. Fortunately, the Cleric miracled a Disintegrate and vaporized the Lich.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 4, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> The bottom line is, wizards and sorcerers get the short end of the stick in so many areas--hit dice, skill points, BAB, armor class, supplemantary class features, et al--that in order to be a compelling character choice they warrant a major asset to call their own, namely nuking. Warriors have staying power, mages have firepower. That's always struck an easy balance. Now, if their role is rewritten so that they're not the primary damage dealer, but rather relegated to serve as "miscallaneous utility provider", then bump all of the aforementioned up and let them wield some martial weapons so that they'll have some staying power in combat. But that isn't the case.
> 
> I'll also point out (again), that a warblade that has a +100 damage attack also probably access to flight and anti-invisibility items. Most spells can be duped with wondrous items. Some items help compensate for low HP or low AC, but they don't come close to briding the gap.




If you really think this, then you've really been playing spellcasters a LOT differently than most folks here.  Wizards/Sorcerers can not only deal the most damage with spells, they can deal it to mulitple opponents at once.  Something a melee character has never been able to do (unless they took WWA, which is limited in use).  Not only that, a Wizard/Sorcerer has several spells that make them BETTER melee combatants than Fighters or any other melee class.  Maybe if you look at more than the Evocation school, you'll see what spells I am talking about.

If you just lump Wizards/Sorcerers into the "nuker" class, that is your own short-sightedness and only you are at fault of that.  Get out of the EverQuest mentality and look up some spells other than Fireball and Meteor Swarm.


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> So, if one side is arguing that something's broken and another side is arguing that something's balanced, and you deem them both to have strong arguements, then the latter must be right? Please explain the rationale behind that implication.
> 
> I gotta ask you guys, if you're shopping for a home and you have it inspected by two separate professionals, and one tells you it's okay and the other says it's a deathtrap, is your default conclusion that the house is okay? Or how about reading wildly disparate movie reviews? Some negative review and some positive reviews tend to mean the movie's probably good?




I might get a third opinion.  But I wouldn't necessarily place more weight on the argument of the guy who says it's a deathtrap than I do on the guy who gives it a good recommendation......I know that many people confuse shouting louder, and making more extreme statements with effectively arguing a position....especially on Internet message boards .  That is not a specific statement about any single person, so much as a general observation from the various message boards

If *everyone* said something in the game is unbalanced, then yeah, I'd start to worry.  But for everyone screaming that it's unbalanced, I'm finding someone else pointing out that there are reasons that maybe it's not so unbalanced afterall.  The idea behind that decision being that there are people fighting both sides of the issue.  And they're both bringing up valid points.  So the answer must be somewhere in the middle.  It's likely the abilities of the new martial adept classes are on the higher end of the power scale, but I doubt they're really "broken".  Any class can be "broken" if a player sets the character up properly, or is lucky on the dice.  I've had more character deaths or near character deaths from having the party fighter get dominated and turn against the other PCs than just about any other combination of events.  Fighters are lethal characters...I think moreso than some of the people claiming "unbalanced" in this argument, are giving them credit for.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Brehobit - I'd love to hear how it goes with the swordsage in your game.
> 
> I'd also love to hear more of your thoughts about the warlock class (in another thread though). It's one that's always interested me, but one I've never seen played.




The warlock in our game was fairly powerful, in a straight-forward kind of way.  In the end, not as powerful as the single-classed mage, but when he started combining his blasting with feats to allow him to hit multiple opponents etc. he was pretty dangerous.  However, he *was* basically a one-trick pony, and I know that the player started getting tired of him before too long.  He was being played from about lvls 8 to 11.

A class with a wide variety of things he could do, this was not.

Banshee


----------



## Felon (Sep 5, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If you just lump Wizards/Sorcerers into the "nuker" class, that is your own short-sightedness and only you are at fault of that.  Get out of the EverQuest mentality and look up some spells other than Fireball and Meteor Swarm.




EDIT--Retorting with insults like that only makes your position look all the more bankrupt.


----------



## Felon (Sep 5, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Not really, because they are meant to take damage.  d8 hit points won't cut it.




Ah, so by that logic, if WotC just designs a class called "uberblade", and say he's meant to do everything better than everyone, then that giving him a mear d12 hit dice, all good saves, full BAB, and 8 skill points per level might not "cut it". He might need some more compensation.

It's already been said, but if someone's goal is to reign in the warblade, and that conflicts with what the class is "meant to be", then change the meaning. As it stands, that really doesn't pose that great an obstacle, as there is really isn't much meaning to the warblade except that he is solely to the art of hacking and slashing things. He's both a brash front-line fighter and a sneaky skirmisher who gets extra damage when attacking a flanked or flat-footed opponent.


----------



## Felon (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Their role isn't being re-written, just the gap narrowed. The sorcerer is still going to be a magical cannon, the wizard will still be ranged firepower/utility. Now the bad guys are going to be in qunadry...before, they could *ingore* the melee to go kill the casters, now to ignore the melee means incredible peril...



Is it being suggested that a power-attacking barbarian with greater rage is such an impotent joke that he can just be ignored? Sorry, that's a tough sell.



> who to take out first? In every game I've played or DM'ed, I go for the spellcasters first -- they are the real threat, not the melee. Take out burst, aoe and healing and then deal with melee. That paradigm isn't written in stone now.



It wasn't all that great a strategem before (see above), except that the arcanists are the guys who'll have 60 hit points or so at a level where characters can suffer 60 hit points of damage even after a successful save. You go for the arcanists because they're the squishiest targets, not because keen holy greatswords hit like wet rags. 

Now, we've got martial adepts that are as tough as any warrior class that's come before them, if not tougher, plus they do a ton more damage. Their gap that you perceive as being filled served a purpose, just as the hit-point gap and AC gaps between warriors and mages do. Give and no take.

But the whole "I'm better than you, but that means I draw more bad guy aggro" has always been a pretty weak sophism in gaming (q.v. those 1e cavaliers).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 5, 2006)

Hello, folks.  It seems to me that there's some butting of heads going on here, leading to rising tempers.

Please remember that in the end, you're talking about an enertainment.  It is better to agree to disagree than to escalate into cheesing people off.  Try to avoid making things personal - deal with the logic of positions, rather than the person or what you perceive to be the mindset of other posters.  And thanks for helping keep this place pleasant for people to discuss things.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 5, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Is it being suggested that a power-attacking barbarian with greater rage is such an impotent joke that he can just be ignored? Sorry, that's a tough sell.
> 
> It wasn't all that great a strategem before (see above), except that the arcanists are the guys who'll have 60 hit points or so at a level where characters can suffer 60 hit points of damage even after a successful save. You go for the arcanists because they're the squishiest targets, not because keen holy greatswords hit like wet rags.




Well, good thing I am not trying to sell you anything. I never said fighters or barbarians were impotent jokes, I said they were not as big of a threat as the mages and healers in a fight where its gonna be close -- a well placed AoE or well timed heal can change disaster into victory and rarely is it the melee alone that manage to turn the tide. 

The fact they are such soft targets and have powerful healing or arcane might capable of changing defeat into victory is precisely why taking them out very quickly is a very standard and good strategy. You can read through the story hours and see it implemented time and time again.



> Now, we've got martial adepts that are as tough as any warrior class that's come before them, if not tougher, plus they do a ton more damage. Their gap that you perceive as being filled served a purpose, just as the hit-point gap and AC gaps between warriors and mages do. Give and no take.
> 
> But the whole "I'm better than you, but that means I draw more bad guy aggro" has always been a pretty weak sophism in gaming (q.v. those 1e cavaliers).




I don't think they do a ton more damage...seems to me, they do burst damage, which can often make them seem more threatening then someone pounding away with steady damage, but very little big burst damage. The adept classes are still giving and taking, just not by the same exact formula thats been previously used to death. 

Being better then someone has nothing to do with drawing agro....its perception of threat that does in rpgs, that perception usually centers on the arcane casters first, then healers, then melee...when you blur the line it changes the standard and accepted tactics of the game.  That weak sophism usually only works reliably in computer games.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 5, 2006)

I think we've proven that the martial adepts _don't_ deal more damage than a decently-built fighter, so there's not much difference, especially if you take into account the fact that a fighter is considered to be on the weak end.


----------



## Victim (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> I don't think they do a ton more damage...seems to me, they do burst damage, which can often make them seem more threatening then someone pounding away with steady damage, but very little big burst damage. The adept classes are still giving and taking, just not by the same exact formula thats been previously used to death.




I don't really see warblades as giving up sustained damage to go along with their burst damage; they can have pretty much all the damage adding feats a fighter has, just not the special tricks.  How exactly are crusaders or warblades shorted on sustained damage?

While melee characters don't have tide turning tricks, I think it's often their actions that establishes what the tide is.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm really okay with an 18th level warblade doing 50% more damage than an 18th level fighter. The fighter has so many combat options; nothing except something like a psychic warrior or OA samurai can even come close to touching a fighter in terms of always having something to do in a fight. Just breathing funny around some fighters can draw an attack of opportunity, others are as much a threat in ranged as in melee. Some of them can boost their AC to insane levels. Others can throw buckets of d20s, waiting for those automatic 20s to stick. I think the fighter and the warblade can co-exist.

That said, I still would prefer they didn't, just because I don't dig the 9 swords stuff.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 5, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't really see warblades as giving up sustained damage to go along with their burst damage; they can have pretty much all the damage adding feats a fighter has, just not the special tricks.  How exactly are crusaders or warblades shorted on sustained damage?




Sure, they can take fighter feats -- but thats not to completely serve them as well as taking feats designed for martial adept classes in a number of examples, especially with regards to prereq's for tactical feats. They get alot fewer feats then fighters do overall and really have more to spend them on.

You're twisting my words, I enver said anyone was "shorted" on sustained damage, but the potential for the martial adept classes and burst damage is better then your averagely designed fighter (probably not your optimally designed fighter, but I don't know for certain; but I've never really seen 'burst' style damage fighters). At least thats my opinion, based on what I have read and seen examples of so far. 



> While melee characters don't have tide turning tricks, I think it's often their actions that establishes what the tide is.




Never did I say anything of the sort...I was pointing out why they are often not taken out first as a standard tactic like arcane casters and healers.


----------



## Felon (Sep 5, 2006)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> I think we've proven that the martial adepts _don't_ deal more damage than a decently-built fighter



This has not been in fact been proven.



> especially if you take into account the fact that a fighter is considered to be on the weak end.



Considered by whom? Many have asserted in this thread that a properly built fighter is capable of fantastic damage. Enough, apparently, to make the +100 damage discipline look tame--or so I'm told.


----------



## Felon (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> You're twisting my words, I enver said anyone was "shorted" on sustained damage, but the potential for the martial adept classes and burst damage is better then your averagely designed fighter (probably not your optimally designed fighter, but I don't know for certain; but I've never really seen 'burst' style damage fighters)




If by "burst" fighter you mean a fighter that deals much more damage in one round than another, then I submit that two-weapon fighters or anyone else who relies on multiple attacks qualifies as a burst fighter. Do a ton of damage one round, then chug up to the next enemy and make a single attack.


----------



## Alceste (Sep 6, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> After wading my way through this thread, here's my question: has anyone actually had a character from this book in play? There are a lot of different character options that seem to be either too powerful or too restrictive, but when you see them in play, they work out just fine.
> 
> I'd like to hear some actual examples rather than just rehashing "100 HPs! OMG" and "here's how my fighter can do the same thing..." comments.
> 
> ...




My only exp with characters from the book is with a crusader in my Saturday game. The other fighter type in the party is a paladin. Both are 12th level (the crusader being a replacement). So far, the crusader seems to be more about helping fellow party members setup attacks/defend with the paladin being better at straight damage dealing (divine might, divine sac, etc). 

My exp with well built high level dps fighters/barbs around 17 to 18 level is that 175 points a round is easily reachable with moderate armor classes with haste. With a bard helping out the numbers will reach much higher. Unfortunately high level bards are pretty rare.   

Even so, the warblade feels overpowered based on his d12 die type and his too easy method of recovery. I can not see a reason that an intelligence based fighter needs a d12. The warblades method of recovery means that each opponet will likely face his entire arsenal of powers. Imho, the warblade needs a nerf to bring him back into line with the other classes in the book.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 6, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> If by "burst" fighter you mean a fighter that deals much more damage in one round than another, then I submit that two-weapon fighters or anyone else who relies on multiple attacks qualifies as a burst fighter. Do a ton of damage one round, then chug up to the next enemy and make a single attack.




That is essentially what I mean by a burst fighter, but I don't agree that a fighter just making multiple standard attacks or attacking with a second weapon really qualifies as burst damage.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 6, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It's just not what I'm looking for in D&D. I don't want your kung fu in my peanut butter.



Best-quote-ever!   

Personally, I blame it on a combination of Pepsi-max, extreme sports and Dragon Ball Z...


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 6, 2006)

Alceste said:
			
		

> Even so, the warblade feels overpowered based on his d12 die type and his too easy method of recovery. I can not see a reason that an intelligence based fighter needs a d12. The warblades method of recovery means that each opponet will likely face his entire arsenal of powers. Imho, the warblade needs a nerf to bring him back into line with the other classes in the book.




The dfferent 9 Disciplines require different sets of skills...the warblade can master 2 to 9th level, so thats 2 skills that need to be kept maxed out, plus if he chooses to work in another disipline or two, thats more skill points required...he would basically not be able to utilize his range of maneuvers without the bump up in skill points. 

Like the mystic theurge, I think this is a class that looks more powerful on paper then it actually plays out to be, though, as I have said before, I think this is the most powerful of the 3 and is probably at the top of the melee power curve. The D12 with heavy armor and all those skill points is tough to swallow, but I intend to give it a fair shake before I swing the nerf bat, if its necessary.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 6, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> The D12 with heavy armor and all those skill points is tough to swallow, but I intend to give it a fair shake before I swing the nerf bat, if its necessary.




It's a fairly minor nitpick, but warblades don't get heavy armor proficiency.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 6, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's a fairly minor nitpick, but warblades don't get heavy armor proficiency.




Yeah...I really do know that...I had a brain cramp...allergies are killing me today. Thanks for catching it...I'd hate for people to see that and seriously freak out lol


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 6, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Yeah...I really do know that...I had a brain cramp...allergies are killing me today. Thanks for catching it...I'd hate for people to see that and seriously freak out lol




Gosh, I can't imagine what, in this thread, would make you think that people might freak out over something so minor.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 6, 2006)

Slightly O/T, but I want to ask a couple of questions about the whole caster vs. fighter debate.

- If the worth of character is measured entirely on damage potential, where do characters like Bards or Beguilers fit in?

- Isn't it true, especially at higher levels, that a fighter can pick up magic items that let him be better at "wizard stuff" like nuking, gathering info, warding etc. moreso than a wizard can pick up items that allow him to be better at "fighter stuff" like dishing melee damage and soaking up damage? For instance, it would be far easier for a fighter to pick up an item that lets him shoot fireballs than for a wizard to get an item that will put him on a par with a fighter's BAB, HP and AC...


----------



## Dragonblade (Sep 6, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> So are most people. It's just that your definition of fun isn't everybody else's, and (as Gargoyle pointed out above) unbalanced classes and games affect many people's enjoyment of the game.




Except as evidenced by this thread the term "unbalanced" seems subjective. Everyone clearly has different opinions on what is or is not balanced. Just because Felon and some others believe that the ToB is unbalanced, does not make it so. Likewise, just because I think the book is fine for my game, doesn't mean that its fine for you at your table.

I suggest reading the book and judging for yourself whether it is appropriate for your game.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 6, 2006)

Alceste said:
			
		

> My only exp with characters from the book is with a crusader in my Saturday game. The other fighter type in the party is a paladin. Both are 12th level (the crusader being a replacement). So far, the crusader seems to be more about helping fellow party members setup attacks/defend with the paladin being better at straight damage dealing (divine might, divine sac, etc).
> 
> My exp with well built high level dps fighters/barbs around 17 to 18 level is that 175 points a round is easily reachable with moderate armor classes with haste. With a bard helping out the numbers will reach much higher. Unfortunately high level bards are pretty rare.
> 
> Even so, the warblade feels overpowered based on his d12 die type and his too easy method of recovery. I can not see a reason that an intelligence based fighter needs a d12. The warblades method of recovery means that each opponet will likely face his entire arsenal of powers. Imho, the warblade needs a nerf to bring him back into line with the other classes in the book.



Thanks Alceste! I am not allowing these characters in my Shackled City game, but I expect to do so when I run Age of Worms again as a followup. I suppose by then we'll have all the errata spelled out (either that or be in 4th Ed!) 

So it looks to be another case of something that may seem to be over powered, but in actual play turns out to be better. Still, if you wouldn't mind posting a bit more as your group levels up, I'd certainly appreciate it! We will obviously have to see about the Warblade, since they seem to be the consistently most mentioned as being over the top.

--Steve


----------



## SteveC (Sep 6, 2006)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Except as evidenced by this thread the term "unbalanced" seems subjective. Everyone clearly has different opinions on what is or is not balanced. Just because Felon and some others believe that the ToB is unbalanced, does not make it so. Likewise, just because I think the book is fine for my game, doesn't mean that its fine for you at your table.
> 
> I suggest reading the book and judging for yourself whether it is appropriate for your game.



Isn't that the truth!

I typically try and read for posts from people who seem to have similar play styles to mine and see how they're doing. D&D is a very...diverse game, with a lot of different play styles contained within it.

As I'm looking at these rules, I think I see a trial balloon for rules for 4E. I have a feeling that it is still too soon to implement something like this in a broader sense, but I like the ideas behind them.

--Steve


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 6, 2006)

To be brutally honest, I wish I had have bought another book rather than ToB...I actually went into my game store with the intention of buying Complete Divine, but when I saw that ToB was out I thought "what the hey, that looks pretty cool". I am convinced that CD would have had a lot more stuff that is usable in my games than ToB. the last book I bought was PHBII which I found about 500% more relevant and useful to my group than ToB...

I can't blame anybody else, though, I should have done my homework before I bought it. I'm not saying the book is fundamentally bad, just that it really doesn't suit the style or flavour of my own gaming group.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 6, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Gosh, I can't imagine what, in this thread, would make you think that people might freak out over something so minor.




Call it psychic intuition LOL.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> - If the worth of character is measured entirely on damage potential, where do characters like Bards or Beguilers fit in?




I don't think a character is entirely measured by just damage potential. I think it just tends to be the easiest way to judge, since it can provide concrete numbers to work from.



> - Isn't it true, especially at higher levels, that a fighter can pick up magic items that let him be better at "wizard stuff" like nuking, gathering info, warding etc. moreso than a wizard can pick up items that allow him to be better at "fighter stuff" like dishing melee damage and soaking up damage? For instance, it would be far easier for a fighter to pick up an item that lets him shoot fireballs than for a wizard to get an item that will put him on a par with a fighter's BAB, HP and AC...




I don't really know that its true, I would think between spells and magic its probably easier for the caster to simulate being a fighter, at least for a very short span of time. There are items both can pick up that allows them to work in the realm of the other...I suppose that ultimately depends on what rulebooks are being used and whats being allowed in. But even picking up alot of these items aren't going to allow you to function as the other class, save for maybe a couple of rounds and even then, the highest level spells wouldn't be available to the fighter, nor the same shee melee power of the fighter available to the wizard.


----------



## Victim (Sep 7, 2006)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> The dfferent 9 Disciplines require different sets of skills...the warblade can master 2 to 9th level, so thats 2 skills that need to be kept maxed out, plus if he chooses to work in another disipline or two, thats more skill points required...he would basically not be able to utilize his range of maneuvers without the bump up in skill points.




The disciplines have thematic links to certain skills.  But the skills are by no means required for most manuevers.  Just like they don't really need to use discipline weapons.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 7, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> The disciplines have thematic links to certain skills.  But the skills are by no means required for most manuevers.  Just like they don't really need to use discipline weapons.




I see related skills for some feats, tactical feats and for some maneuvers as well, so I'm sorry...its not at all like the weapons or just a thematic requirement. I suppose if you don't want to put skill points in the related discipline and use those maneuvers, that is a players choice and they just limit themselves even moreso.

Except for the swordsages, the other classes don't get a large maneuver base as it is, but if someone doesn't want to optimize their character, thats a fair choice.


----------



## satori01 (Sep 7, 2006)

What I find funny here is Felon does not even own the book, and yet is making impassioned argurements of TOB's merits.

It is perfectly fine to not like the style of the book, BUT web enhancements and Internet Message boards does not get you the the many fine points of balance that exsist in this book.

Bre has the book, but keeps on making statements like Warblades being as effective as Spellcasters with AOO spells.    Yet of all the Disciplines that Warblades get I do not see any that give these vaunted AOO.  White Raven gives some super charge powers and lots of inspirational abilities.  Iron Heart and Stone Dragon let you hit hard for xtra damage.  Tiger Claw lets you leap around, and Diamond Mind does what it does.

With signifigant feat expenditure, which could be done more easily with a Fighters bonus feats, a Warblade could probably pick up some of the nifty Burning Wind Manuevers, but most of the really cool manuevers of all of the Disciplines require pre-reqs of 2-4 other manuevers of the same school.  Warblade disciplines focus on getting close to something and hitting it once for extra damage, for the most part, pure combat monkey schtick.

A Warblade knows 13 manuevers at 20th level.  A Warblade simply does not know enough manuevers to be the super cool do everything character that Bre and Felon make out.  Moreover,   the number of manuevers readied by a 20th level Warblade is 7.

Each of the character classes in TOB can be used to model a wide range of archetypes and personalities, which to me is a key of good design, these are not like the "samurai' in Complete Warrior.
I think a player playing these classes will have fun, I think they can make an interesting character with a lot of flavor, and I think all of the classes can perform some aspect of the melee monkey role.

I also think that comparing the classes only to Wizards is silly.  Monte Cook came out and said the designers of 3.0 recgonized that d4 hp was to little to effectively adventure, but kept it as a sacred cow.  The days of the Wizard being the only effective high level spell caster are gone.  
Druids (d8 hp, Armor, 2 good saves) with Spell Compendium quite possibly have as good damaging spells as Wizards/Sorc.  Druids certainly have the most ability damage spells, and most of their AOO have secondary conditions like rubble and so forth

Clerics (d8 hp, heavy armor, heavy shields, 2 good saves) have some decent attack spells,(Harm, Inflict), and are the best buffers in the game. 
Every cleric I have seen has the best AC in the game through heavy armor, shield and self buffing

Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warlock (d6 hp, 1-2 good saves, 2-6 skill points, light armor): enough said, not d4 hit points, can wear armor.

All of the above classes have 3/4 BAB.

The only recent addition to the spell casting ranks with d4 HP is the Archivist.  Frankly I would say d4 HP, poor BAB progression is the exception, rather than the rule with spellcasters.  Compare a Swordsage without Manuevers to a cleric without spells and you will probably not find much difference...the Swordsage through feat selection and some class abillities will probably be a little better than the cleric, but not by much.  Shouldnt we be saying that spellcasters that can melee are steping on the toes of Meleeist...or should we say the fault lies in the design of the melee capacity of the Wizard/Sorcerer...throw backs to an earlier design philosophy that punished the player of a Wizard until fireball level.


----------



## Felon (Sep 7, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> What I find funny here is Felon does not even own the book, and yet is making impassioned argurements of TOB's merits.




It ain't that big of deal, as I do have access to the book. I have a player that came to me all excited about playing a warblade, and couldn't explain where the give-and-take was himself (to his mind, WotC had signed off on the class, making it official--what more is required?).



> A Warblade knows 13 manuevers at 20th level.  A Warblade simply does not know enough manuevers to be the super cool do everything character that Bre and Felon make out.  Moreover,   the number of manuevers readied by a 20th level Warblade is 7.




Thirteen's plenty for a warblade to know, and seven's certainly plenty for a warblade to have ready (considering how little "ready" means for this class).  

Warblades are super-tough thanks to their d12 hit dice, have a generous allotment for skills, some spiffy bonus feats, and oodles of other dandy little class features, and on top of that they can deal a megaton of damage thanks to their disciplines. If that's a description of a "super-cool, do-everything character" then there you have it.



> I also think that comparing the classes only to Wizards is silly.  Monte Cook came out and said the designers of 3.0 recgonized that d4 hp was to little to effectively adventure, but kept it as a sacred cow.  The days of the Wizard being the only effective high level spell caster are gone.




Sorry, I don't see where anything you say here or go on to say cements your opinion that comparing damage output between casters (i.e. resource-burning characters) and warriors (i.e. unlimited resource characters) is silly. Btw, Wu Jen also have d4 hit dice.

By and large, new caster classes are just easier to play, not tougher, or better warriors. For instance, the increase in a beguiler or warmage's hit dice to a stalwart d6 is just a mild compensation for losing access to the false life spell, and of course access to light armor just replaces a casting of mage  armor. They're more attractive to play for some folks due to their straightforwardness, but certainly they're not getting a marked increase in HP or AC that contends with a warrior. 

Divine casters are, of course, designed to look great on paper because they provide the party with support. Even so, I would certainly say without reservation that druids can step all over the toes of warriors when and if they want to. But you know what they say about two wrongs...


----------



## Victim (Sep 7, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> A Warblade knows 13 manuevers at 20th level.  A Warblade simply does not know enough manuevers to be the super cool do everything character that Bre and Felon make out.  Moreover,   the number of manuevers readied by a 20th level Warblade is 7.




13 Manuevers is enough to pick up the top moves from two separate disciplines.  Since the warblade can use his stances to fill manuever requirements, he could have some decent moves in a 3rd tree as well.  Yeah, so the warblade can only ready 7 moves (plus his 4(?) stances.  That's half his total moves known, and probably the more useful half at that.  And he can recover his expended moves trivially, or switch out readied moves in a few minutes if he somehow screwed up his selection.  By spending a feat (available as a bonus warblade feat, IIRC), they can switch out as full round action.  Only 7 moves readied is hardly a real downside, especially since their non manuever attacks will be quite effective.






> I also think that comparing the classes only to Wizards is silly.  Monte Cook came out and said the designers of 3.0 recgonized that d4 hp was to little to effectively adventure, but kept it as a sacred cow.  The days of the Wizard being the only effective high level spell caster are gone.
> Druids (d8 hp, Armor, 2 good saves) with Spell Compendium quite possibly have as good damaging spells as Wizards/Sorc.  Druids certainly have the most ability damage spells, and most of their AOO have secondary conditions like rubble and so forth
> 
> Clerics (d8 hp, heavy armor, heavy shields, 2 good saves) have some decent attack spells,(Harm, Inflict), and are the best buffers in the game.
> ...




The super specialists don't have 3/4ths base attack.  While they do have d6 HD and light armor, they also lack much of a wizard's defensive options.  Warmages have less defense than wizards, IHMO.  Beguilers do have some decent defensive spells, but their class features also encourage them to be in melee combat.  The warmage seems so more screwed until it gets fireball than a wizard, since it doesn't have the disabling spells to fall back on.  Also, since most of the super specialists use more than 1 stat for their powers, they can't focus as much on Con as a pure wizard or sorc, and thus should end up with similar HP.

Clerics and Druids seem to be designed with the assumption that many of their powers will be used to support (mainly by healing) other characters, thus they need an extra helping of class features to make sure that there's something worth playing besides that.  Instead having some people feel forced into being the cleric, the idea seemed to be that offering incentives would lead to enough people naturally picking clerics.

On the other hand, I think comparing to spellcasters kind of silly as well, especially since most moves substitute or modify melee stuff, plus the basic frame of the classes seem to be PHB melee guys.



			
				Thanatos said:
			
		

> I see related skills for some feats, tactical feats and for some maneuvers as well, so I'm sorry...its not at all like the weapons or just a thematic requirement. I suppose if you don't want to put skill points in the related discipline and use those maneuvers, that is a players choice and they just limit themselves even moreso.




IIRC, most of the skill using manuevers are Diamond Mind powers, which all use Concentration.

Warblades don't really have the feat or manuever base to go whole hog on all their disciplines anyway.  They could easily support the disciplines they do focus on with 2 skill points per level since they have a wide class list and are supposed to pack a good INT anyway.  The way I see it optimizing my character would involve NOT maxing out most discipline skills, and instead putting those points where they'd do the most good regardless of any thematic associations.

And its not like initiator feats are the only ones that require skills.  Feats requiring skills isn't a justification for increased skill points.  Otherwise no class would have 2 skill points.

------------------------------------------

Really, my problem isn't with melee guys doing damage.  I think this thread and numerous others have established that fighters and barbarians can crank out some nasty hits.  But warblades aren't really going to lacking in that area either.  So while using a standard action manuever in place of a full attack will usually be subpar (I'd expect many full attack substitute moves to be less painful than a straight up full attack as well), on pure standard attacks (while closing) warblades are almost certainly going to come out ahead.  And full action moves that augment a character's full attack will take that high damage and boost it further.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 8, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Really, my problem isn't with melee guys doing damage.  I think this thread and numerous others have established that fighters and barbarians can crank out some nasty hits.  But warblades aren't really going to lacking in that area either.  So while using a standard action manuever in place of a full attack will usually be subpar (I'd expect many full attack substitute moves to be less painful than a straight up full attack as well), on pure standard attacks (while closing) warblades are almost certainly going to come out ahead.  And full action moves that augment a character's full attack will take that high damage and boost it further.




You can kind of consider maneuvers as a sort of "super" feat, which do more damage and have added effects than your standard feats do (weapon spec, power attack, melee weapon mastery, battle jump, leap attack, etc.) but at the expense of only being useable once every other round (less actually, since at level 20 there is no way to use all 7 maneuvers in one round).  Where as feats that help damage (like the ones I just mentioned) or help hinder an opponent (Improved Trip/Sunder/Disarm etc.) can be used every round.

So what is the difference between a Fighter using his bonus feats to help him deal more damage in a full attack, and a Warblade using his maneuvers to deal more damage in a full attack?  A fighter can take advantage of his bonus feats all the time, where as the most a warblade can take advantage of his maneuvers is every other round.  And while I admit, there are several maneuvers that enhance damage more than most feats will, I think it balances out since they can only be used every other round.

This isn't meant to necessarily help either side, just a comparrison, but FWIW...

Fighters get a total of 7 character level feats + 11 bonus feats = *18 total*

Warblades get a total of 7 character levle feats + 4 bonus feats (which are limited and none of which really add to damage) = *11 feats* + 7 maneuvers readied = *18 total*.  So that is 11 that can be used all the time (as standard feats) and 7 that can be used every other round, and since there is no way you could expend all 7 maneuvers in the same round (due to the limits on standard/full/swift actions) it is spread even more thin.

This is of course assuming we are optimizing our characters for damage output here.


----------



## satori01 (Sep 8, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Warblades are super-tough thanks to their d12 hit dice, have a generous allotment for skills, some spiffy bonus feats, and oodles of other dandy little class features, and on top of that they can deal a megaton of damage thanks to their disciplines. If that's a description of a "super-cool, do-everything character" then there you have it.
> 
> 
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Victim (Sep 8, 2006)

My mistake: the feat that lets initiators change out manuevers quickly is not on the warblade bonus list.

Riga, I have 4 basic problems with that argument.

1. Not all feats that a fighter takes add to damage - many of them expand his options in combat without adding to damage, and others are basically controls placed on damage (do less damage to make the opponent do less to you).  Many of the feats that do add damage are very situational, such as Cleave, Combat Reflexes, etc.

2.  Warblades have access to the same pure damage increasing feats, and will probably be able to take some of the better situational ones.  They can also get some of the weaker damage adding feats on their bonus list, like Combat Reflexes.  Even using say PHB2 addons for the fighter, the warblade will be able to grab the best stuff.  With a 1 or 2 level dip in fighter, they can even get Weapon Supremacy.

3.  The magnitude of high level manuevers seems to massively outweigh that of feats.  How many feats is the ability to get 3 full attacks every 2 rounds worth?  Will a warblade really do 75% of the damage of a fighter on a full attack, considering that they have full base attack and access to the weapon specialization line?  That's just a Warblade using Time Stands Still every other round.  I'd certainly evaluate that ability as worth more than 1 feat, just as I'd consider Pounce to be outside the bounds of feats as well.

Let's take a sample fighter type with Greater Specialization, Weapon Supremacy, Power Attack, Slashing Flurry - if it's a direct, always on damage booster, he's got it.  As in my example before, he's weilding a +5 flaming greatsword with haste.  Against AC 35, he does about 150 damage with a full attack.  Using the exact same stats, but no feats except proficiency (and Power Attack - you can't remove it on the damage calculator I'm using, but the AC is high enough that optimal PA is zero anyway), he does about 90 damage with a full attack.  Let's drop his STR by 2 as well, since warblades need more INT than most fighters.  Now we're talking about 75 damage.

So these feats helped a lot, adding a bit more than 50% to the fighter's damage.  But I only used up 9 feats.  Some of those feats the warblade can't get (Weapon Supremacy), and others can be replaced by items (stupid no Imp Crit/Keen stacking).  If our warblade focuses on the specialization line (but not Supremacy or Imp Crit), he's back up to about 113 with his reduced STR.  For the purposes of comparison, he doesn't have keen stuff either.

Since we're looking at roughly 50% more full attack damage from Time Stands Still, the warblade has a slight edge in damage now.  The fighter has another 8 or so feats to spend, while the warblade has 11 more moves plus 4 stances - yeah, you ignored the stances in your pseudo feat analysis.  One easily damage add would be Cleave for the fighter, plus he can take stuff like CQF to avoid nasty Imp Grab monsters.  Improved Toughness narrows the HP difference to a single point on average.  On the other hand, the warblade could have some choice boosts and could replace all his saves with Concentration checks or grab a reroll for saves, etc.  This is pretty close right now, I think, especially since we're on a two round cycle with the specials.  Unless we make leadership one of the fighter's feats.  

But just running that one move makes up for alot of damage - Time Stands Still doesn't quite eliminate the gap between the weapon master fighter and the one with the same STR but no feats, but it's pretty close.

4.  The warblade has other significant class features like weapon retraining, more skill points, bigger HD (altough Imp toughness evens that out, mostly) their INT based stuff.  They get their INT bonus when confirming crits, which is kind of like Power Critical (not that that counts for much though). The ability to add INT as insight bonus to attack and damage vs flanked or flatfooted combatants seems like it'd help quite a bit damage wise.  

So if you add the two Stances a level 20 warblade can run plus two of their INT based features (flanking and anti-special move) as effective feats, then they're up to 22 feats.

Plus I think warblades would have an advantage on rounds when the characters can only take a single attack.

------------------------------------------

Of course, after looking at the math, I have to say that things are much closer than I thought they'd be.  While the warblade is only using 1 manuever, I can't think of something I'd rather spam than TSS.  Perhaps the warblade isn't as egregiously overpowered as I thought.  A fighter barb mix with the right PHB2 feats might be able to hold up to a warblade.

Dang, now I don't have as much of a reason not to get ToB.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 8, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Of course, after looking at the math, I have to say that things are much closer than I thought they'd be.  While the warblade is only using 1 manuever, I can't think of something I'd rather spam than TSS.  Perhaps the warblade isn't as egregiously overpowered as I thought.  A fighter barb mix with the right PHB2 feats might be able to hold up to a warblade.
> 
> Dang, now I don't have as much of a reason not to get ToB.




I still don't think comparing maneuvers to feats is really the right one to make. Maneuvers were meant to be more akin to spells then feats, if ya try to fit them in a feat mold, they are grossly overpowered compared to feats.

Taking even 1 level in fighter will eliminate the warblades ability to get 2 9th level maneuvers and I think that is probably a big sacrifice overall. Also, using TSS every other round assumes you don't use your swift action to change stances, use a boost or use a counter (which, by not using a counter, you could end up having some combat effect happen that prevents you from using it TSS anyway), which is one of those reasons I think it looks more powerful on paper then in actual play.

Incidentally, its funny you mentioned Leadership, as I do give that to fighters along with the landlord feat -- providing it is part of their character concepts, as part of a prerequisite for them.

I really don't like their whole ability to re-train their weapon specialities...that one doesn't sit well with me, so I now allow fighters to do the same thing.

Anyway, thanks for providing that feat chain build...I'm not really good at optimizing fighter types and it was enlightening.


----------



## Victim (Sep 8, 2006)

Well, I didn't come up with the feat comparison basis, I was just using it in my argument.

The warblade could still use one counter or boost in the same round he uses TSS.  Also, if the warblade is using additional moves or stance changes instead of refreshing TSS, then it seems obvious that the value of those moves is perceived to be greater than cycling his best move faster.  Otherwise he'd simply ignore his extraneous manuevers to focus on his big gun.  Either the warblade is making a mistake, or the extra moves are increasing power (having a 9th level move ready to use doesn't do much good if he's taken out by a failed save), not decreasing it.

Leadership is great for fighters, since they can get a lot of benefit from magical support.  Taking Leadership gives the fighter's player a lot more control over that support.  It's like vertical integration.  It also helps that they can pay the feat for it more easily.


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 9, 2006)

I know, there's alot of feat comparison going on, but really maneuvers are more balanced against spells then feats.

Depending on the nature of how combat is progressing, its entirely possible the use of a boost, counter or stance switch will be more useful or allow some other option if he can't use a full round option to set up TSS. A big gun is not alway the most useful attack to use. Maybe he has to move, change his attack style due to opponents shifting tactics, adjust for new foes entering combat, adjusts to deal with a spell effect, etc. So it doesn't mean he is making a mistake or some other moves are increasing his power at all. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't -- maybe its something more situationally useful in a given round.

I agree, leadership is a great feat for fighters and has a natural synergy with the class.


----------



## Marshall (Sep 10, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> Of course, after looking at the math, I have to say that things are much closer than I thought they'd be.  While the warblade is only using 1 manuever, I can't think of something I'd rather spam than TSS.  Perhaps the warblade isn't as egregiously overpowered as I thought.  A fighter barb mix with the right PHB2 feats might be able to hold up to a warblade.
> 
> Dang, now I don't have as much of a reason not to get ToB.





All of the Warblades extras make it an infinitely more _playable_ class. He actually has the skills to be more than a liability outside of combat. The player can do more than just say "Wake me when the next combat starts." 

Does that make it better than the Fighter? Yes. 
Is that because its overpowered or because the FTR isnt anything more than a dip class?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 10, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> My mistake: the feat that lets initiators change out manuevers quickly is not on the warblade bonus list.
> 
> Riga, I have 4 basic problems with that argument.
> 
> 1. Not all feats that a fighter takes add to damage - many of them expand his options in combat without adding to damage, and others are basically controls placed on damage (do less damage to make the opponent do less to you).  Many of the feats that do add damage are very situational, such as Cleave, Combat Reflexes, etc.




I could probably come up with a good list of feats that purely effect damage.  It would take awhile, but they are out there.  Of course, this assumes the DM allows feats from other D&D books like the various FR or Eberron ones.  My main point was, if we are mainly building characters for pure damage output, while the Warblade can certainly take many of the same feats the Fighter can, the Fighter will be able to take even more.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> 2.  Warblades have access to the same pure damage increasing feats, and will probably be able to take some of the better situational ones.  They can also get some of the weaker damage adding feats on their bonus list, like Combat Reflexes.  Even using say PHB2 addons for the fighter, the warblade will be able to grab the best stuff.  With a 1 or 2 level dip in fighter, they can even get Weapon Supremacy.




True, but not as many.  And if you want to get technical, the Fighter can take feats to give himself maneuvers and stances (and I think they do count as bonus Fighter feats).



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> 3.  The magnitude of high level manuevers seems to massively outweigh that of feats.  How many feats is the ability to get 3 full attacks every 2 rounds worth?  Will a warblade really do 75% of the damage of a fighter on a full attack, considering that they have full base attack and access to the weapon specialization line?  That's just a Warblade using Time Stands Still every other round.  I'd certainly evaluate that ability as worth more than 1 feat, just as I'd consider Pounce to be outside the bounds of feats as well.




Even when comparing one feat to another, some feats are just better than others.  A Druid can take a wild feat to gain Pounce in Complete Divine.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> So these feats helped a lot, adding a bit more than 50% to the fighter's damage.  But I only used up 9 feats.  Some of those feats the warblade can't get (Weapon Supremacy), and others can be replaced by items (stupid no Imp Crit/Keen stacking).  If our warblade focuses on the specialization line (but not Supremacy or Imp Crit), he's back up to about 113 with his reduced STR.  For the purposes of comparison, he doesn't have keen stuff either.




Sure, the Warblade can pick up items that help him in areas he'll be lacking.  He can get items to mimic feats and what not.  But the fighter can do the same thing, so this seems to balance out IMO.



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> 4.  The warblade has other significant class features like weapon retraining, more skill points, bigger HD (altough Imp toughness evens that out, mostly) their INT based stuff.  They get their INT bonus when confirming crits, which is kind of like Power Critical (not that that counts for much though). The ability to add INT as insight bonus to attack and damage vs flanked or flatfooted combatants seems like it'd help quite a bit damage wise.




While "not a big deal", I will give you this, I would consider the INT bonus to confirm crits as much credability (best word I could think of at this time of night) as Power Critical feat.  So feel free to factor that into the equation.  Of course, the Warblade would need an Int bonus to take advantage of this.

I don't know about the skill points, I don't seem them as much of an advantage I guess.  They are basically pre-assigned to specific skills which are required for specific maneuvers.


----------



## Kshnik (Sep 11, 2006)

First, I just back into DnD about 2-3 months ago after not playing for 20 years, so please excuse my lack of knowledge.  I came back due to lack of online games (Tried EQ, WoW, SB and etc but lost interest due to various reasons) and waiting til Darkfalls comes out.  So instead of all my time playing on the computer I have been trying to read up and play. 

Warblade > Fighter/Barbarian is the arguement?   

In the 3 months ,I have never seen either fighter or Barbarian taken past level 6.

I also have read that Warblade is more powerful at lower levels.  I recently bought the book, read through it but chose this character, see below, over warblade/swordsage/crusader for a quick lvl 1 - 2 stint.

Goliath Barbarian 1 - 22 str (18 + 4 racial) - sub level mountain rage and EWP Goliath Greathammer.  

I also have a human cleric, combining domains and feats allows me to have:
Extend spell, extra turning, Persistant spell, Divine Metamagic (persistant spell)

This cleric is pretty tough and I cant see any of the three being more powerful.

Has anyone played 6 levels of a typical fighter along side  level 6 warblade in a game as a comparison?

I believe the typical fighter at level 6 would be something like:
Fighter 1/Combat expertise, Imp. Trip
Fighter 2/Power Attack
Fighter 3/improved Sunder
Fighter 4/Imp Bull Rush
Fighter 5
Fighter 6/Combat brute, Shock Trooper

It should be easy enough to do a comparison. 

How about a changling fighter with a level of warahpering vs a warblade?

What are your views concerning duskblade versus warblade?

How about a fighter with a bunch of levels of Frenzied Berserker versus Warblade?

There are so many prestige classes for a fighter to take, are those of you against the Tome of Battle truly believe that Warblade > fighter 4/PrC 16?

I just cant see it, but again, that maybe due to my lack of knowledge.


Edit: I just registered today and this is my first post here, so please dont be to harsh on me.


----------



## Leugren (Sep 11, 2006)

To really understand why melee combat specialists suck at high levels, you need to understand two key things:

1) *The average damage per level for melee combatants increases at a geologic rate relative to the average hit points of opponents with a CR equivalent to the melee combatant's level.*  At low levels, melee combatants are often dropping their opponents with a single hit.  At high levels, however, it can frequently take a melee combatant many rounds to drop an opponent with a CR equivalent to his or her character level.  The frustration can really start to build when you've focused yourself entirely on melee specialization, but you're doing around the same amount of damage per round at 15th level as you did at 10th level.  Especially when your smarmy little wizard buddy has just decimated an entire tribe of frost giants in the same amount of time that it took you to drop a single one-armed frost giant grandma.  Simply put, damage output for melee combatants scales very poorly relative to the opposition's ability to take the damage.  To circumvent this problem and keep pace with other characters, the melee combatant is forced to pursue strategies like AoO specialization, uber-charging, etc.  An extra 100 points of damage from a single hit by a 17th level warblade is generally just enough to make a CR 17 monster take notice of you, as opposed to ignoring your puny blows and focusing exclusively on the far more dangerous spellcasters.  From this perspective, abilities like Strike of Perfect Clarity do nothing more than correct a gross imbalance in the game.

2) *Performance in combat is everything to a melee combat specialist*  I've seen posts that try to debunk the validity of cross-class damage comparisons by invoking the specious "different party roles" argument.  If you take a look at the Fighter class,  you will see that this class sacrifices _every other aspect of the game_ to be effective in combat.   Inter-personal skills?  Nope. General problem-solving skills? Nope.  Utilitarian class abilities? Nope. Simply put, the fighters' job begins when the combat starts, period.  It's really frustrating to specialize so severely in one thing, and then contribute so little when the real action starts.  Sure, at low levels, the melee classes rock, but who wants to peak at 8th level? All this cr-p about the high HP, the high AC, etc. is so much bunk.  High-level spellcasters don't need these things because they have umpteen-million ways to avoid being engaged in combat, to avoid all forms of damage, and to deal death from afar.

I speak as a person who has foolishly attempted to play a melee combat specialist (a fighter)from levels 1 through 20.  The frustration as we got to the higher levels eventually became completely unbearable!  The other members of the party actually starting referring to me as their "porter" or "palanquin bearer"! For everyone who has ever loved the thought of engaging your enemies up close and personal, but who knew that your character would start to blow after about 12th level, the ToB is an absolute Godsend! Thank you, WOTC!


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 11, 2006)

Leugren said:
			
		

> To really understand why melee combat specialists suck at high levels, you need to understand two key things:
> 
> 1) *The average damage per level for melee combatants increases at a geologic rate relative to the average hit points of opponents with a CR equivalent to the melee combatant's level.*  At low levels, melee combatants are often dropping their opponents with a single hit.  At high levels, however, it can frequently take a melee combatant many rounds to drop an opponent with a CR equivalent to his or her character level.  The frustration can really start to build when you've focused yourself entirely on melee specialization, but you're doing around the same amount of damage per round at 15th level as you did at 10th level.  Especially when your smarmy little wizard buddy has just decimated an entire tribe of frost giants in the same amount of time that it took you to drop a single one-armed frost giant grandma.  Simply put, damage output for melee combatants scales very poorly relative to the opposition's ability to take the damage.  To circumvent this problem and keep pace with other characters, the melee combatant is forced to pursue strategies like AoO specialization, uber-charging, etc.  An extra 100 points of damage from a single hit by a 17th level warblade is generally just enough to make a CR 17 monster take notice of you, as opposed to ignoring your puny blows and focusing exclusively on the far more dangerous spellcasters.  From this perspective, abilities like Strike of Perfect Clarity do nothing more than correct a gross imbalance in the game.
> 
> ...




So which camp are you in now?

A) ToB classes are over powered
B) ToB classes are just fine
C) ToB classes make the Fighter base class obsolete
D) ToB classes step on the toes of spellcasters, minimizing their roles in a party (namely combat and damage dealing)
E) Any combination of the above


----------



## Victim (Sep 11, 2006)

My own experience radically differs.  Playing 1st through 18th, I've seen our fighter types kill the  out of pretty much everything.

1st level characters can kill most of their foes in one hit, however, hits are unreliable with only 1 attack and few available bonuses.  So we might be looking at ~2 rounds for the low level fighter to kill himself on average.  More if he uses a 1 hander and shield.  Having looked at several high level fighters, a 2 round self kill is hardly out of line.  An uncountered Cloak of Displacement makes a big difference though.  If you do the same damage at 15th that you did at 10th, then you screwed up or are playing with extremely limited resources.

In my experience, spellcasting damage - for most applications - is what doesn't keep up.  A theoretical gain of 3.5 per level for most damaging spells doesn't keep up with monster HP increases.  And that's raw damage, like assuming everything hits for a fighter.  The same player in our group who used to bitch about how overpowered casters were was giving me "That's it?" after my wizard bombed some guys with some Empowered high level attack - which ignored energy resistance, after I beat SR, and after they failed the save.  so that wasn't the issue.  If he'd looked at the actual expected damage, he'd have been ever less impressed.


-------------------------------------------

Kshnik, comparisons involving Shock Trooper are going to be tough.  With Power Attack, you can figure out what tradeoff produces the most damage - both things PA affects determine a character's damage.  But Shock Trooper trades off defense for offense, the limiting factor is how nasty the counter attack your character faces will be.

And comparisons using Frenzied Beserkers or changling warshapers are pretty pointless, since those things are already broken.  Being less broken than them isn't much of a virtue.


----------



## smrtgmp (Sep 12, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Hehe. Personally, I find all of the fallacies being tossed around to be pretty outrageous, and that's hard to conceal. I thought party roles were well-understood. Some guys have a defensive role, some an offensive, and some support the two in some fashion. But now I hear that's not the case; anybody who doesn't do as much damage as everybody else is underpowered, period. The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.



Ummm...melee guys were capapble of dishing out far more damage than wizards long before this book came out.  Have you played around with any of the stuff in CW?

A wizard's power is does not lie in his ability to do damage.  It lies in his versatility, in his ability to fix almost any problem in the game with a wave of the hand.  The introduction of Bo9S does nothing to change that.

When it comes down to it, I think it is foolish to measure power in terms of raw damage output and nothing else.  There are far easier ways to dispose of an enemy than wading through their HP.


----------



## Solarious (Sep 12, 2006)

I find that spellcasters do just fine, even with ToB out. At higher levels, their damage dealing abilities are no longer as important: they certainly help, but they aren't as important. What is important is their ability to either instantly take one or more opponents instantly and to manipulate the battlefield. It doesn't matter if you can deal 100+ damage in a single strike if a _Wall of Force_ is between you and the opponent. Who really cares about a 9th level strike which kills instantly that is available only at high levels? A 9th level Wizard does what is essentially the same with with _Baleful Polymorph_; and can even return the victim to normal for interrogation or turn them in for a reward if you want to. _Time Stands Still_ silliness? Ha! _Righteous Might_, _Quickened Divine Power_, and you're a bigger melee monster than most fighters, depending on how well they're optimized and what buffs you have cast already.

And I challenge everyone to find an effect in the ToB that rivals the versatility and raw power of _Gate_, which brings in a CR23 monster with full cleric spellcasting, a _+5 Dancing Vorpral Greatsword_, a _+2 Composite Longbow_ that generates _Slaying_ arrows at will, and an insane number of spell-like abilities.

Did I mention it also has _Wish_?

With that kind of power, the 1000XP cost is trivial. _Wish_ alone would more than make up for it 5 times over.

Besides domineering combat, spellcasters also excell outside of it. A Warblade can't _Teleport_ his companions hundreds of miles away in the time it takes to mumble a few words a touch his friends. A Swordsage can't make a captive spill their guts by using _Charm Monster_ to make them their new best friends. And a Crusader certainly can't bring down a _Permament Prismatic Sphere_, let alone know which key spells to cast, so she can get at the Lich's Phylactery stashed away within.

This is all Core, without splatbook nonsense. Worry not, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids, least of all, have little to fear from being overshadowed by anything from the ToB.

Fighters (and most other melee classes, to a certain extent), on the other hand, have always been traditionally underpowered, with a surplus of feats and nowhere for them to go. ToB (and the PHBII in particular) can do much to even the odds, especially if you make modifications (I like the houserule of Fighter level -2 Initiator level for manuvers/stances) and take all factors into consideration. And all material should undergo this process of evalutation.

Otherwise, you'll end up with Pun-Pun, the Overdeity, who has infinite everything (including time), is all things, and is all possibilities. At once. And you know how that turns out.


----------



## Tleilaxu_Ghola (Sep 12, 2006)

Okay folks, after reading the first page of this thread, I have to say that a lot of you all seem pretty misguided about Tome of Battle.  I haven't read through the whole thread, so my reactions here are pretty much based off the comments on the first page.

Assuming that the comments on the first page were simply initial reactions, it's almost understandable that people think the book is "overpowered" and "broken".  Since the release of this book, there have been a slew of clarifications by the Wizards of the Coast Customer Service.  Many of these questions and answers are compiled in a thread on the Character Optimization boards here.

Now, I would like to tackle the myth that Tome of Battle is broken or overpowered.  This may be painful, but I believe its something that needs to be done.

*Myths*

*You can use magic or feats to increase the number of attacks that a strike allows.*: This is patently false.  I refer you to page 43 paragraph 2.
*Maneuvers are overpowered*: There are very few maneuvers which I would consider overpowering.  Some exceptions do exist, namely: Iron Heart Surge & White Raven Tactics.  Almost all maneuvers still require that an attack roll must be made and most only affect a single target.  Even worse is the fact that almost all maneuvers simply add damage to a single attack.  So while you may get some cool effects, it's only one attack.  Some people say that stuff like warmaster's charge and time stands still are way overpowered.  These people haven't taken the time to compare them to 9th level spells or powers.  The ability to deal extremely high amounts of damage at nearly 20th level is ubiquitous.  So maneuvers that merely bump up your damage aren't that special.  The effects to watch out for are ones which grant additional abilities (like shapechange) or are capable of slaying many targets (like weird).  9th level maneuvers pale compared to the power and versatility of your average 9th level spell.
*The Tome of Battle base classes are overpowered*: On what scale are they overpowered?  Are they more powerful than a straight fighter?  On some accounts yes, but not in all ways.  Do they have anywhere near the versatility of a wizard or cleric or druid?  Not a chance.  Can their "high 4+int or 6+int" skills compare with that of a rogue or bard?  No, because their skill lists are pretty much limited to combat only skills.  Suffice it to say that there are far more powerful classes out there and you can find them in your trusty PHB: Cleric, Wizard, & Druid.  Heck, with enough splat books, even a Bard can outdo most builds (and can outdo them handily).
*The IL progression for multi-class characters is broken*: Actually, it is quite easy to construct builds which end up with more caster levels (in more classes) than it is to construct a multiclass martial adept.  It's a new mechanic to be sure, but I hardly think it's broken or overpowered.
*Desert Wind maneuvers act as spell replacements*: Yeah right.  6d6 fire damage?  That's a whopping 21 damage on average, and fire resistance is pretty common among monsters.  The area effect maneuvers are all fairly weak when compared to spells of their same level.  Besides, if you want elemental damage, look no further than a psion.  If psions are "broken" then we may as well all be playing NPC classes.

That's all I have for now.  I'm sure if presented with more "complaints" I could provide an endless flow of counter builds and examples.

I would like to leave you all with a few links to some of the threads which I have started on the Character Optimization boards in the Wizards of the Coast Community Forum.  I'm afraid that many of you with a more delicate taste for power will find some of the stuff that I (and others) have developed will be overwhelming.  Despite all the tricks and builds that have been developed, I feel confident when I say that magic or psionics can do better, in almost every circumstance.  (Maybe not every single one, but certainly in many situations).

Tome of Battle: Tricks/Combos/Library
Tome of Battle: Build Compendium
The Art of Making a Multi-Class Martial Adept


----------



## Felon (Sep 12, 2006)

Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
			
		

> Now, I would like to tackle the myth that Tome of Battle is broken or overpowered.  This may be painful, but I believe its something that needs to be done.




Oh, I so had hopes that Ghola would put to bed all concerns about ToB once and for all. Such assertiveness, such confidence...He's gotta have the goods.

But nope, all I see the same old equivocation we've been seeing for page after page. We've discussed the value of making a single concentrated attack versus a full round of iterative attacks. We've dealt with the fallacy of treating easily-recovered maneuvers as if they were a limited, slot-based resource like spells. And worst of all, there's too many "I would considers" and "I don't thinks". Your self-imposed mission was to dispel myths with facts, not share your opinions.



> That's all I have for now.  I'm sure if presented with more "complaints" I could provide an endless flow of counter builds and examples.




That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was *so* hoping for closure.


----------



## Felon (Sep 12, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> Fighters (and most other melee classes, to a certain extent), on the other hand, have always been traditionally underpowered, with a surplus of feats and nowhere for them to go.





			
				smrtgmp said:
			
		

> Ummm...melee guys were capapble of dishing out far more damage than wizards long before this book came out.  Have you played around with any of the stuff in CW?




Why don't you two crazy kids get together and hash out which of the above you want to sign off on? Because that little dance of the ToB defenders is just a little fatiguing now. 

"Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."

"Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."

And of course, if you rebutt one, the other chimes in to reply about how wrong you are as if you were the only who initially adopted the position you're rebutting. My feet hurt.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Sep 12, 2006)

So, has anyone actually taken a Fighter and a Warblade, and actually directly compared them in a campaign yet?  Because all this back and forth is nice, but unless you see it in game it really means nothing. Somethings look better on paper then they actually end up.

I'd like to see someone who hates the Warblade as unbalanced make an optimised warblade and compare it to someone's optimised fighter. (Using just SRD Core and PHBII)


----------



## Leugren (Sep 12, 2006)

Victim said:
			
		

> If you do the same damage at 15th that you did at 10th, then you screwed up or are playing with extremely limited resources.




Enlighten me, please.  Beyond the acquisition of better magic items, how exactly do melee combat specialists appreciably and reliably increase their average damage output per round as they progress from, say, 8th-level to 15th-level?  

- *Is it because they get a couple more attacks on a full-attack action?*  OK, these help a little, but the extra attacks generally only hit if the opponent has an AC that is way below average for an opponent with a CR commensurate to your character level.

- *Is it because of power attack?* This helps a little, again, but only if you are fighting opponents that have an AC which is way below average.

- *Is it because of AoO specialization?* I'll readily admit that AoO specialization is one of the best ways for a melee combat specialist to increase his or her damage output per round, but it does so by increasing your number of attacks per round, not your average damage per attack. It's also not strongly linked to level advancement.  I can acquire feats like Karmic Strike early in my career and pretty much top out my true damage-dealing potential but for a few minor boosts here and there.

- *Is it from feats like Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Mastery?*  To a monster with 200+ HP, your ability to deal an extra +4 or +6 points of damage per hit is pretty much a joke!

- *Is it because you can play a Frenzied Berserker?* Yeah, I just love playing characters that will kill their own party members!

- *Is it because you can create an uber-charger?*  Maybe.  But this means that _all_ melee combat specialists will need to be leap attacking shock troopers in order to hang with the spellcasting classes.

So please teach me.  I'd really love to know how I can reliably and dramatically increase my average damage per round as I advance in level without relying on my DM to hand out some "phat magic loot" or without relying on one of a select few ultra-optimized one-trick-pony builds, like uber-chargers, and gatling-gun AoO specialists.  

As a melee combat specialist, the only way I can think of to do this reliably is by playing one of the martial adept classes from ToB.



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> So which camp are you in now?
> 
> A) ToB classes are over powered
> B) ToB classes are just fine
> ...




I'm in the camp of those who, like Mike Mearls, always thought that melee types were underpowered in D&D 3.x beyond around 8th level, and who is happy as heck to have the new options from ToB to help remedy this situation.

P.S.  To those of you who argue that spellcasters are severely constrained by their limited resources per day, I say two things:

1) Wands, Staffs, and Scrolls: invest or create your own!
2) When the spellcasters' resources become depleted, call for the team to make camp!  If you're in the middle of a dungeon, pick up a scroll of the 1st-level _rope trick_ spell or something similar.  This makes the limitation largely irrelevant in almost all instances.  How many teams insist on soldiering on long after their spellcasters are all but useless?  Such teams are begging for a TPK!  DMs will only occasionally force the issue because they want the players of the spellcasters to have fun too.  It's the same reason you rarely see rust monsters running around in a dungeon.


----------



## Leugren (Sep 12, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was *so* hoping for closure.




Yeah, we can all _be_ argumentative, but apparently we can't all _spell_ it! 

You're dishing it to everyone else, so I assume you can take it.


----------



## Solarious (Sep 12, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Why don't you two crazy kids get together and hash out which of the above you want to sign off on? Because that little dance of the ToB defenders is just a little fatiguing now.
> 
> "Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."
> 
> ...



Underpowered. Warrior types were only really powerful when you either added some spellcasting so you could cast some power self-only buffs (I'm looking right at you, Wraithstrike), or you completely optimized them to become wreaking machines. To be completely honest, two handed weapon power attack fighting was one of the few ways a real warrior type could compete.

You want to be a finesse-type fighter? You don't have a snowball's hope in the Plane of Elemental Fire without sneak attack dice. Two weapon fighting? Again, with the extra dice of damage required to make it worthwhile. Sword and sheild? The Balor laughs at your puny defences, and tosses you aside with a _Quickened Telekenisis_ before moving along to munch on nice, soft spellcaster flesh. Or try anyways.

And even when you did two handers, you needed to invest in numerous feats that required something that begins with 'charg' and ends with 'e'. And you -had- to plan out your character, each and every level, making sure you qualified for this tactical feat or that. You needed to mix various splatbooks together so they synergized and produced stupidly fantastic results which makes people cry out: broken!

And now.... with the PHBII and the ToB... you don't _have_ to anymore.

You don't need to be able to cast _Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion_ in order to matter inside of combat. You don't have to use _Hold Monster_ to keep those pesky minions from escaping with the McGuffin. You can make a finesse warrior without rogue levels or PrCs. Two weapon fighting is valid again!

You aren't shoehorned into a sterotype of a Greatsword weilding wave-of-meat. It's a breath of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Leugren (Sep 12, 2006)

Solarious said:
			
		

> And even when you did two handers, you needed to invest in numerous feats that required something that begins with 'charg' and ends with 'e'. And you -had- to plan out your character, each and every level, making sure you qualified for this tactical feat or that. You needed to mix various splatbooks together so they synergized and produced stupidly fantastic results which makes people cry out: broken!




Q.F.T.!


----------



## Tleilaxu_Ghola (Sep 12, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, I so had hopes that Ghola would put to bed all concerns about ToB once and for all. Such assertiveness, such confidence...He's gotta have the goods.
> 
> But nope, all I see the same old equivocation we've been seeing for page after page. We've discussed the value of making a single concentrated attack versus a full round of iterative attacks. We've dealt with the fallacy of treating easily-recovered maneuvers as if they were a limited, slot-based resource like spells. And worst of all, there's too many "I would considers" and "I don't thinks". Your self-imposed mission was to dispel myths with facts, not share your opinions.



Well that's what I get for not reading the whole thread, I guess.  Now to address the issue of a single concentrated attack, versus a full attack:

Merits of a Full-Attack:
1. Mixes well with power attack
2. There are many ways to boost the number of attacks in a full attack (TWF, Mongoose Series Maneuvers, Haste, Speed Weapons, etc)
3. Can be preformed at the end of a charge, when pounce is available.

Cons of a Full-Attack:
1. Can't move much before initiating one UNLESS you have pounce.
2. Iterative attacks have a increasingly low probability of success

Merits of a Single Attack:
1. Typically one can move and then deliver the attack, this is not true for all single attack maneuvers however.
2. Can attach disabling effects or damage dice to the attack with maneuvers.

Cons of a Single Attack:
1. Will never, ever, reach the damage potential of a full attack.  15d6 is about the best you can add on to an attack (that's only 53 damage on average).  By the time you have access to a maneuver which can add 15d6 to an attack, you'll probably have 3 iterative attacks.  A pouncing charger with leap attack and shock trooper can add ~+50 damage to all his iterative attacks at that level.
2. You can only use your uber single attack once per encounter (until you recover it), but you can full attack as many times as you like.

*Conclusion*: There are merits both ways, but if you want to look purely at damage, a full attack (with proper feats) beats out a powerful single attack hands down.  Even the movement restrictions can be alleviated with the help of abilities like pounce or shadow pounce.




> That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was *so* hoping for closure.



That's the point.  It's hard to combat vague and generalized statements.  If you want to actually compare the two systems, you need to come up with hard numbers and an actual build.  Only then can I effectively counter whatever anti-ToB sentiments are floating around out there.

For an example of how such comparisons may be done, I'll link you to a comparison between Stormguard Warrior and Power Attack that I did on the CO boards:
Mathematical Comparison: Stormguard Warrior vs. Power Attack

The conclusion of that thread: power attack is still the ultimate damage machine.  Since fighters have the most feats, they can invest quite heavily into power attack related feats and come out on top damage wise much more rapidly than a ToB character could.


----------



## Leugren (Sep 12, 2006)

Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
			
		

> Well that's what I get for not reading the whole thread, I guess.  Now to address the issue of a single concentrated attack, versus a full attack:
> 
> Merits of a Full-Attack:
> 1. Mixes well with power attack
> ...




Sorry to disagree, TG, but your thread doesn't really prove that much about the efficacy of the Power Attack feat.  If it proves anything at all, it proves that uber-charger builds can more than hold their own against most martial adept builds. The problem with this line of reasoning is that you're comparing extremes rather than norms.  Unless you believe that uber-chargers represent the norm as far as melee builds go, then your examples obscure the fact that, without AoO specialization or charge/pounce cheese, the damage potential for the average  melee combat specialist really blows compared to his/her average ToB counterpart.  You're also playing right into the claims of the naysayers on this thread who argue that the pro-ToB group on this thread is divided into two contradictory camps:

CAMP #1: "Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."

CAMP #2: "Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."

Both camps can't be correct!  With the arguments you put forth, you seem to be arguing for the beliefs of camp #2, but I _know_ you believe melee combat specialists have always been underpowered relative to most of the spellcasting classes at higher levels.



			
				Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
			
		

> And yet: Mage >> Melee
> 
> ToB has one lacking: it doesn't have anything that boosts skills or roles outside of combat. For that reason, magic is still more powerful.




This is really the argument that we should be driving home against these guys.

I therefore still contend that a typical sword and board melee build absolutely _blows_ compared to a typical spellcaster build beyond around 8th level.  If we are going to discuss issues of balance between the classes, then we need to examine a full spectrum of builds which, taken collectively, comprise a bell-shaped normal distribution in terms of efficacy and damage potential.  I hold that the median of this normal distribution for fighters really blows compared to the median for spellcasters.  Uber-chargers and AoO specialists are not the median but rather the extremes, and comparing extremes is unreliable in statistical analysis.  The ToB gives a much-needed boost _to the median_ for melee combat specialists relative to the median for spellcasters.


----------



## Tleilaxu_Ghola (Sep 13, 2006)

Actually I'd say that I fall into a different camp:

Warriors have always been weak because they've always lacked versatility, Tome of Battle doesn't change this fundamental truth much.  Tome of Battle provides an alternative route to massive damage outside the traditional AoO/Charging specialists.

The end result: Warriors are still warriors post ToB.  They still hit stuff and still take hits.  It's just that now warriors can hit stuff in so many more ways than they could before.  In the end they still take hits like warriors used to: with AC & Hitpoints.

Mages are compltely unaffected by Tome of Battle, because their niche (versatility and area-effect damage) hasn't really been invaded.  Gish have received a boost by Tome of Battle, but gish were always powerful, so it's kind of like a drop in the bucket for gish.  Lets not kid ourselves, ToB definately gave warriors a boost.  But, as I said, this boost is a boost in the same direction that they were always headed.  ToB just gives you more ways to kill stuff by hitting it, but you still have to hit it with your sword.


----------



## comrade raoul (Sep 13, 2006)

Leugren said:
			
		

> Enlighten me, please.  Beyond the acquisition of better magic items...



This qualification does a lot of work, doesn't it? High-level D&D characters--especially non-spellcasters--need magic items to inflict and avoid damage. But let's run some numbers real quick.

Anyway, let's say Jane Melee is a raging fighter 12/barbarian 3 fighting an evil opponent. She's got a Strength of 22 (or 26 when raging) and a pair of _+4 holy shortswords_, and the weapon-specific feats up to Greater Specialization, plus Improved Critical (shortsword), Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Rend. So she's reasonably optimized for damage, but far from really fine-tuned. She's really at her best when she can make a full attack, though.

So she attacks at +27/+27/+22/+22/+17, and deals 3d6+16 points of damage with her primary hand and 3d6+12 on her off-hand. She's attacking AC 30, so she can expect to get 1.95 hits with her primary hand and 1.55 hits with her off-hand. That's 51.675 points of average damage with her off-hand and 34.875 points with her off-hand, for a total expected damage of 86.55. If she hits at least once with each hand, which she very likely will, she can also rend for an extra 15.5 points (1d6+12); she can also expect to deal a total of 12.41 points of damage from critical hits. So that's a total of more than 110 points of damage on a full attack!

Now let's take her friend, Johnny Mage, a wizard 15 who casts a _quickened, empowered scorching ray_ followed by an _empowered cone of cold_. His three empowered rays do 1.5*(4d6) points of damage apiece (average 21), but need ranged touch attacks to hit; his cone of cold deals 1.5*(15d6) points of damage (average 78.75), but offers a reflex save. If all three attacks hit and his target fails its saving throw, Johnny deals 141.75. This is nontrivially more damage than Jane, but Johnny can probably only do this once a day, and his expected damage goes way down if his target makes its saving throw against the cone, or one or more of the rays miss, or the target has energy or spell resistance--all serious possibilities at Johnny's level.

In any case, Jane certainly shouldn't feel useless, or significantly underpowered. Are these characters really atypical?


----------



## Thanatos (Sep 13, 2006)

Thats only comparing by damage though. Not every second is spent in combat. Teleport & other obstacle overcoming spells, battlefield control, divinations, restoratives, shelters -- are all spellcaster applications that factor in balancing classes.


----------



## Solarious (Sep 13, 2006)

Not to mention the dealiest attacks don't usually involve damage. Who needs damage when you can point your pinky at a troll and reduce it to dust or turn it into stone? Most melee classes (and various monsters) are hideously vulnerable to Will saves: a _Hold Monster_ means they're as good as (or even better, in the case of _Dominate_ and _Charm_ spells) dead. Damage is a poor way to compare spellcasters and other classes, because spellcasters can trancend simple damage and get right to the killing part, even if you ignore all their ability to rewrite the battlefield with a single action.


----------



## Tleilaxu_Ghola (Sep 13, 2006)

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> This qualification does a lot of work, doesn't it? High-level D&D characters--especially non-spellcasters--need magic items to inflict and avoid damage. But let's run some numbers real quick.
> 
> Anyway, let's say Jane Melee is a raging fighter 12/barbarian 3 fighting an evil opponent. She's got a Strength of 22 (or 26 when raging) and a pair of _+4 holy shortswords_, and the weapon-specific feats up to Greater Specialization, plus Improved Critical (shortsword), Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Rend. So she's reasonably optimized for damage, but far from really fine-tuned. She's really at her best when she can make a full attack, though.
> 
> ...



You didn't talk about how that 78.75 damage can apply to many targets at once.  That's a strength of a mage -- area effect damage.

But what about real strength of a mage?  How about something as simple as finger of death.  If the save is failed, then the target immediately dies.  Yes there are ways to be immune to this, but that's pretty potent.  Now if you want *real* damage, why don't we talk about a split disintegrate?  At 20 CL it occupies an 8th level slot and deals 80d6 damage.  That's around 280 damage on average.  Now we're talking a huge difference between the fighter and the mage (damage wise).

But what about saves, SR, and other spell defenses?!

Fine, orb of fire at 15 CL deals 15d6 damage no save, no SR, and it requires a touch attack, which isn't too hard to make.  Since it's only 4th level, you can metamagic the crap out of it.  Not only that, but it also dazes the target on a failed for save!  Empower brings the damage up to around 75 for the low cost of 6th level slot.  But wait a minute, you let your barbarian invest a crap load of feats, so I think I will too.

How about Arcane Thesis (Orb of Fire) + Empower Spell + Searing Spell + Enervate Spell.  That's four feats, 1 of which is very specific, but 4 of which are useful almost all spells.

With all of those metamagic feats (and arcane thesis) our spell still only occupies a 6th level slot.  It deals half damage to any creature with fire immunity or any non-living creature.  It deals +100% damage to any living creature with anything but fire immunity (ignores all resistance).

Overall it deals 30d6 damage to a living target, that's 104 damage on average, comparable to your fighter.  It only requires a touch attack and has no save (for the damage), no SR, and on a failed save it dazes the target.  The Daze effect is key, because that takes out the target for a round allowing the other party members to beat on him without fear of consequences.  Even better is the fact that if conjured outside an Antimagic Field, it can still affect targets with in an anti-magic field because instantaneous conjurations function within an antimagic field.

Sure you can't go around throwing these things all day long, but you can chuck quite a few of them.  If you're still itching to deal damage, you can add another feat: arcane thesis (fireball) and mix in the standards: searing spell, empower spell, and enervate spell.  Since fireball is of third level, you can use use it in conjunction with spell matrix.  If we use a 9th level spell matrix (greater) and 3 such fireballs we can now blast 4 such fire balls in a round.  That's 80d6 fire damage (40d6 fire to creatures immune to fire & full damage to resistant targets).  80d6 (average 280) fire damage to all targets in a 20 foot radius at long range.  Sure it depletes a lot of your resources (1 9th level slot, 4 fifth level slots) but you can pretty much wipe out an opposing army in a single swift + standard action.

A 20th level mage could probably preform this nova tactic 4/day.  Given that the standard number of encounters per day is around 4, that's not too bad.  Mages are capable of ending an encounter in a single round, warriors are not.

But that's not all!  Mages can also prepare fun spells like domination, which not only eliminates enemies but adds one more to your numbers.  They can conjure undead or outsiders and then polymorph them into greater beings.  The utility and power of an arcanist is unmatched by a warrior.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 13, 2006)

I've got a question for everyone: is there any way a core only build of any class can stand up to optional classes and feats brought in through supplements? Yes, even including the allegedly unbalanced Druid and Cleric...just curious.


----------



## comrade raoul (Sep 13, 2006)

I tried really hard to limit the characters to fairly mainstream abilities from the Player's Handbook and the Player's Handbook II--the sorts of things I'd include in a campaign, and that represent mainstream--rather than super-optimized--characters. (The fighter/barbarian doesn't have Melee Weapon Mastery, for example, because I think it's too good when interpreted as stacking with everything else.) That's why I tried to avoid the "orb" spells (and _spell matrix_), or the use of Arcane Thesis to stack lots of metamagic effects, which I take to be much too good compared to core material. (I could've made Jane a dervish or something, for example.)

However, you (and Solarious, and Thanatos) are definitely right that spellcasters have a bunch of options combat characters don't: they can take characters with weak Fortitude or Will saves right out of a fight fairly readily, and they can do very interesting and useful things outside of combat. But Jane also has other advantages--she's got way more hitpoints and, probably, a significantly better AC than Johnny. She can stand up to a nasty monster for a few rounds; Johnny can't, really (though he can certainly use his magic to get away). This is a nontrivial difference when it comes to combat.


----------



## Solarious (Sep 13, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I've got a question for everyone: is there any way a core only build of any class can stand up to optional classes and feats brought in through supplements? Yes, even including the allegedly unbalanced Druid and Cleric...just curious.



Thurbane, it's difficult to tell. It depends on what kind of supplements you bring in, what classes you talk about, and especially how many supplements you introduce. Without more information, and which classes are being compared to which, there is no way to answer your question. That being said, CoDzilla is perfectly capable of holding their own... but it is entirely possible to crush a pure core Codzilla under the weight of the Law of Unintended Consequences (which states that all splatbooks are subject to reinterpetation, obliteration of the spirit of the rules, and their combined material stacking in Unintended manners not unlike mixing barrels of nitro with a hot flame). Another factor is preperation time: all divine classes have aces in triplicate in the buffing department, and seriously skews power comparisons.

Keep in mind that the real power of the core classes is that all supplements, by design and neccessity, have to include material that caters to the core classes. Of course, they benefit the most from the Law of Unintended Consequences, since there is more material for the home team than anything else.



			
				comrade raoul said:
			
		

> But Jane also has other advantages--she's got way more hitpoints and, probably, a significantly better AC than Johnny. She can stand up to a nasty monster for a few rounds; Johnny can't, really (though he can certainly use his magic to get away). This is a nontrivial difference when it comes to combat.



Please. Johnny will try to enter combat with a few protective measures whenever possible. The most effective of these is miss chances... because they all have the same effect regardless of your AC. _Mirror Image_, _Displacement_, _Improved Mirror Image_ (from the PHBII), and (Improved) _Invisibility_ to name a few. These spells work the numbers against their opponents, and you don't need too much time in order to back off and throw out enough high damage spells, a save-or-die, or a disabling spell that shuts the danger switch off. Besides, every mage worth their salt will have _Dimention Door_ for a fast retreat as resources allow, and most will also have alternate methods of movement, such as the ubiquitous _Fly_. This is why initiative is so important at high levels: the first to act will have the first chance to start throwing out those save-or-dies at the most critical targets.

And as perviously stated, hp matters much less when you are either alive or dead (effectively), and AC really is trivial when touch is the most important AC of all.


----------



## smrtgmp (Sep 13, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> Why don't you two crazy kids get together and hash out which of the above you want to sign off on? Because that little dance of the ToB defenders is just a little fatiguing now.
> 
> "Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."
> 
> "Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."



I never said warriors were more powerful.  I said they could do more damage.  

The two hardly go hand in hand.  

As I said above, which you ignored, it is not the wizard's ability to deal prolific amounts of damage which makes it powerful.  It is the fact that they can make themselves useful in every single situation other than the oh so drull "dead-magic zone."


----------



## Kmart Kommando (Sep 13, 2006)

My swordsage is mopping the floor with many NPCs, but really has a bit of a glass jaw.
The sorceror in the party, however, can't take nearly the abuse, but hands out up to twice the damage I do, round after round, and is able to single target blast just like me, or spread it around.  Seems pretty balanced to me.
The polymorph specialist wizard in our party has been the frontline fighter for a long time, and my old psychic warrior could never compete with his damage output in melee, though I did have more hit points (mostly thanks to vigor, which I blew most of my PP on just to be a meat shield).  My swordsaage outdamages him by a fair bit now, but the wizard's AC while morphing is through the roof, so there is balace there as well.  I think we both have similar hit points now too. He also just gained Power Attack, and has Wraithstrike, so the numbers may well swing back in his favor.  I took the maneuver that lets me do a standard action attack as a touch attack, so I can do the Full Power Attack smack and tumble away, once, then I have to switch it up to something else until I run low and Adaptive Style my stuff back.  Which I've done 2 times in the 3 sessions of playing him, with about 4 fights per session average. Although, I did recently gain Robilard's Gambit, so that my tilt the balance a bit as well.


----------



## Cactot (Feb 10, 2007)

*hmm...*

It seems like there are a various set of arguments being made at the same time, and they all vary based on the assumptions you are making.

Are fighters more powerful than casters? Pre/post TOB doesnt change this
 -Single target
  =If optimized correctly with access to extremely good equipment, they can do more single target damage AND take more damage
   +BUT if not optimized, they can not.  Also, casters can bypass HP/AC of most creatures.  ALSO casters have FAR more ways to AVOID taking any damage. 
 -Multi target
  =A resounding NO
 -Versatility 
  =A resounding NO


Are TOB classes better than the fighter?
 -Damage output
  =In a "low power" low magic non-optimized campagin, YES
  =In a "high power" high magic non-optimized campaign, ????
  =In any sort of optimized campaign, NO

 -Versatility
  =In most situations YES, though a fighter would likely have nearly as much in combat versatility.  TOB classes are 100% more useful out of combat.

 -Do they make fighters obsolete power wise?
  =In the most non-optimized campaigns... maybe, but it is exactly in those types of campaigns power level shouldnt matter much as a decision maker (else CoDzilla would be banned)
 =In all other campaigns, NO



SUMMARY:  The answer depends on your level of optimization and the availability of magic items.  A naked caster >>>>>>>> a naked fighter of ANY sort.  Plus, its REALLY hard to gimp a caster.  Also, in a non low-magic campaign fighters and ToB classes are far more balanced.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 10, 2007)

IMHO, ToB: Bo9S is not okay. It is *awesome*.

Good fun, and finally "warrior-types" who can hold their own against a Cleric or Druid.

Love. This. Book! -- N!


----------



## Nail (Feb 10, 2007)

What's with the thread necromancy?


----------



## Cactot (Feb 10, 2007)

thats just how i roll  =)


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Feb 10, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> IMHO, ToB: Bo9S is not okay. It is *awesome*.
> 
> Good fun, and finally "warrior-types" who can hold their own against a Cleric or Druid.
> 
> Love. This. Book! -- N!




Yes! When I read it I though "this solves lots of problems.. The Warblade replaces the fighter, the swordsage the monk and the crusader the paladin..." With the warlock replacing the bard there is no class I don´t like anymore.


----------



## hong (Feb 10, 2007)

OMG it's Serial! Hey, are you still gaming with Nockermensch?


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Feb 10, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> OMG it's Serial! Hey, are you still gaming with Nockermensch?




No, I moved to another city.. To tell the truth I'm not gaming at all. But I keep reading this foruns and some D&D books...


----------



## hong (Feb 10, 2007)

Ah yeah, I remember him saying something like that... well, if you see him, tell him that the Austrian guy says hi. And tell him to post more often!


----------



## NilesB (Feb 10, 2007)

brehobit said:
			
		

> Thurbane: Dragonball Z is a great analogy!



I hav a number of better ones:  the Táin Bó Cuailnge, Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Song of Roland, The Nibelungenlied, et cetera.


Yeah there's no precedent for this sort of thing outside of the orient. 

really:\


----------



## NilesB (Feb 10, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Spellcasters do jack for single target damage, and vs foes warded with basic low level spells, their area damage isn't so great either.  Oh no, 60 damage!  Wait, if they save 1/2 the time, then it's 45 damage.  Minus energy resistance; the 2nd level spell Resist Energy provides 30! resistance at 12th level.



And yet people call it overpowered for a swordsage to deal a smaller amount of area effect damage over a smaller area subject to all the same limitations. Plus an evoker who knows he is going to face fire resistant foe can always prep lightning bolts over fireballs whereas desert wind style deals fire damage and only fire damage.


----------



## NilesB (Feb 10, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Warblades are super-tough thanks to their d12 hit dice, have a generous allotment for skills, some spiffy bonus feats, and oodles of other dandy little class features, and on top of that they can deal a megaton of damage thanks to their disciplines. If that's a description of a "super-cool, do-everything character" then there you have it.



_Barbarians_ are super-tough thanks to their d12 hit dice_ and damage reduction_, have a generous allotment for skills, _awesome swift movement_, and oodles of other dandy little class features, and on top of that they can deal a megaton of damage thanks to their _Rage_. If that's a description of a "super-cool, do-everything character" then there you have it.


That didn't require much substitution.


----------



## Nail (Feb 10, 2007)

FWIW, IMC I removed the Weapon Aptitude class ability and reduced the HD to d10 of the WB.  Seems to be working so far.

The ease of multiclassing might still be a problem.


----------



## Thurbane (Feb 11, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> I hav a number of better ones:  the Táin Bó Cuailnge, Beowulf, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Song of Roland, The Nibelungenlied, et cetera.
> 
> 
> Yeah there's no precedent for this sort of thing outside of the orient.
> ...



Oh yeah, I can clearly remember Beowulf screaming "Haiiidooooken"! at his enemies and creating a huge blast of fire from his body...


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Feb 11, 2007)

no but he did rip off the arms of monsters....  thats stronger then anything in d&d yet. dident someone get thier arm ripped off in dbz? the green guy that sounds like pickle?


----------



## NilesB (Feb 11, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, I can clearly remember Beowulf screaming "Haiiidooooken"! at his enemies and creating a huge blast of fire from his body...




But you seem to have forgotten Beowulf tearing off Grendel's arm; his fingertips blazing like ten bright stars and burning deep holes in the flesh of the beast.

Which is much closer to the kind of things martial adepts do than DBZ is.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 11, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not only do I think it's balanced, but I don't think it _necessarily_ adds a kung fu/wuxia element to the game. While many of the powers do that, a whole mess of them don't. I can easily see creating a purely "standard" (read: roughly Western) D&D character with this book, and in fact am planning to do so for an upcoming campaign.




I agree.  I was worried about the Kung Fu style stuff until I actually read through the whole book, and you could have a swordsage that has all cool manoeuvers, with none of them being supernatural or mystical in nature.  It's just how  you pick them.

Or, you could have one that throws fire with this sword and is more "kung fu".  The choice is there.

Banshee


----------



## shilsen (Feb 11, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I agree.  I was worried about the Kung Fu style stuff until I actually read through the whole book, and you could have a swordsage that has all cool manoeuvers, with none of them being supernatural or mystical in nature.  It's just how  you pick them.
> 
> Or, you could have one that throws fire with this sword and is more "kung fu".  The choice is there.
> 
> Banshee



 Agreed. I'll also add that for a lot of them you can retain the wuxia mechanics with a completely different flavor. Don't like the flavor of the Shadow Garrote maneuver? Just describe it as the character drawing a dagger incredibly fast and hurling it at the enemy. And so on.


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 11, 2007)

The authors even said as much in the Introduction chapter.  You can describe maneuvers however you want.

I'm actually looking forward to some Slayers-style announcement of moves with my newly rebuilt crusader!
-blarg


----------



## Sarellion (Feb 12, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, I can clearly remember Beowulf screaming "Haiiidooooken"! at his enemies and creating a huge blast of fire from his body...




If I am not mistaken Dietrich von Bern could breathe fire. He shows in several german sagas and has his own one.


----------



## Thurbane (Feb 12, 2007)

Each to their own, I suppose, but Bo9S has no place at my gaming table. I dislike both the flavor and mechanics of the new classes and abilties. To be fair, it's not alone - I'll never use psionics, warlocks or incarnum in my game, either...

If it fits in with your game, more power to you - I guess that is why it is simultaneously the most loved and most hated product that WotC produced last year.


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 12, 2007)

We just had the one of the best games of my life tonight, with my group facing off against a wererat warblade and his groupies on a garbage scow.  It was a nail-biter, but that's as it should be against a BBEG 1 CR over average party level plus support.  Refreshing maneuvers as a swift + melee attack is handy, but not a game breaker considering how few of them warblades can ready.  Even the very high AC tank was concerned for his life with the baddie using Emerald Razor for 2d4+8 damage.

On the other side of the fight, one of the PCs is a swordsage/swashbuckler who knocked mooks off the boat three times with her maneuvers, including a Charging Minotaur with the Twisted Charge trick to turn 90 degrees (and a jump over 10' of water).  The whole table was getting a serious kick out of the stunts she was pulling off.

Useful, cinematic, interesting, fun.  Nothing to see here folks, move along. 
-blarg


----------



## Derren (Feb 12, 2007)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:
			
		

> Yes! When I read it I though "this solves lots of problems.. The Warblade replaces the fighter, the swordsage the monk and the crusader the paladin..." With the warlock replacing the bard there is no class I don´t like anymore.




Thats the point. The ToB classes replace the core melee fighters. And thats why some people (including me) call the book overpowered. Not because the ToB classes closer to casters in power, but because they completly outshine and replace the core melee characters.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Feb 12, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats the point. The ToB classes replace the core melee fighters. And thats why some people (including me) call the book overpowered. Not because the ToB classes closer to casters in power, but because they completly outshine and replace the core melee characters.




To me it means that the melee characters now more balanced compared to the spellcasters, particulary at high levels.


----------



## Cactot (Feb 12, 2007)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:
			
		

> To me it means that the melee characters now more balanced compared to the spellcasters, particulary at high levels.




agreed

why is it such a problem to have a melee character that is fun to play, has lots of interesting abilities (not overpowered ones), and has useful out of combat skills?

sure the fighter is slightly overshadowed, but there are lots of remedys to that, such as... allowing them the mastery feats from Iron Heroes, allowing them to buy stances and abilities from TOB with their feats (with initiator lvl = to char lvl), or maybe give them a few "bonus feats" for getting abilities from ToB, or hell, go all out with all of the above.  They will still have  for skill points, but they will definitely have more battlefield options than they do now, plus be more interesting to play, and keep up with casters at high lvl.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:
			
		

> To me it means that the melee characters now more balanced compared to the spellcasters, particulary at high levels.




...Or it means: "We won't bother trying to balance the core classes against each other any more.  We'll just issue new classes!"


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ...Or it means: "We won't bother trying to balance the core classes against each other any more.  We'll just issue new classes!"



 You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

In order to play the game, I'd like the original product to be available, accessible, and usable.  Those that say WBs are balanced often claim the core fighting classes are not usable.  Ergo.....


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> In order to play the game, I'd like the original product to be available, accessible, and usable.  Those that say WBs are balanced often claim the core fighting classes are not usable.  Ergo.....




Of course the original product is usable. It's just not particularly advantageous.

And a class doesn't have an ego. It won't get miffed if you leave it out of a game. It won't complain about nerfed if you don't give it goodies. The PLAYERS who take that class might complain about not having goodies, but by taking that class out of the game, by definition you have no players who might take that class. Problem solved!


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

But classes have class, hong.  They don't like it when the cheap trash crashes in on their territory.


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> But classes have class, hong.  They don't like it when the cheap trash crashes in on their territory.




I laugh at your puny attempt to reify classes.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I laugh at your puny attempt to reify classes.



"Reify": To apply "if" again.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

To be serious for a brief moment:

IMC, Ftrs get 1 bonus feat per level.  Problem solved.


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

And you know what they say when you reify something: you use an if about you and me.


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> To be serious for a brief moment:
> 
> IMC, Ftrs get 1 bonus feat per level.  Problem solved.



 Wait a minute... you were saying that warblades are munchy compared to normal fighters... so you nerf them... but you don't actually use normal fighters in your game....


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

Hey hong:  Yer past 12k!  woot.


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

At times like this, I wish I had a picture of Luke Skywalker in the ventilation shaft near the end of TESB, you know, the "I am your father" scene, so I could macro "NOOOOO!!!!!" on to it.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Wait a minute... you were saying that warblades are munchy compared to normal fighters... so you nerf them... but you don't actually use normal fighters in your game....



I do both.

WB: gain d10 HD, lose weapon aptitude.

Ftr: gain 1 bonus feat/lvl, rather than 1/two lvls.

I'm currently play testing this (2 players of mine: one pays a Ftr, one plays a WB), after working up maximized characters of Ftr and WB at 3rd, 9th, 15th, and 20th.  The comparison looks balanced.


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> At times like this, I wish I had a picture of Luke Skywalker in the ventilation shaft near the end of TESB, you know, the "I am your father" scene, so I could macro "NOOOOO!!!!!" on to it.




I just spoiled that movie for everyone, didn't I? HAW HAW!


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I just spoiled that movie for everyone, didn't I? HAW HAW!



Don't worry.  I'm sure only a few people have seen the movie.


----------



## Derren (Feb 12, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




For me it is. When even WotC thinks that the core melee classes are to weak then they should fix those classes and not create new ones to replace them inoffically.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 12, 2007)

I do not own Book of Nine Swords, but one of my players does want to play a Master of Nine PrC (whatever that is) after multiclassing:

Warblade 4/Fighter 2/Monk 2/Swordsage 2

However, two of the abilities (maneuvers, whatever they are called) that he wants to take are:

White Raven Tactics
Iron Heart Surge

I'm not even sure how these can be considered balanced unless they are once per day (based on my knowledge of them).

How often per combat can these be used?


----------



## Victim (Feb 12, 2007)

They're basically once per combat - although a warblade may be able to recover them depending on how long the combat lasts - but an unlimited number of times per day.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 12, 2007)

Putting aside how often they can be used how often are they useful?

Going from my experience with them in one game and anothers experience in a different game white raven tactics is usually only good about once per battle.

Basically it changes one of your teammates initiative to be one less than yours and allows them to act on that initiative, so using it once on someone who beat you in initiative allows them to go a certain number of counts faster than they would have anyway.

It really helps set up certain tactical situations so long as you do not mind your characters standing very close to one another but once you have done it a single time that character basically cannot benefit from it again this combat which leaves the rest of your party and it does not always help whoever you might be trying to use it on.

I have no experience with Iron Heart Surge though. I think there was a thread on it not too long ago though.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Feb 12, 2007)

At first glance, it seems overpowered (especially the Warblade and Bloodstorm Blade).  Then again, so did the _EPH_ to a lot of people--a sentiment from which I personally have yet to be dissuaded.  Number of available spells/powers per day aside, the sheer amount of damage a Psion, Metamind, Psychic Warrior, or Warmind (especially high-level Kineticist/Metaminds and Psy War 1 [for Knowledge Psionics]/Ftr 4/Warmind 10's) can deal in a single round compared to characters of other classes at their levels is absurd, IMO.  Although they may "burn out" faster than other classes, parties in which I've participated have generally forgone the "four encounters per day" guideline in favor of the "I need to rest now" strategy, thus essentially negating the aforementioned drawback.

In contrast to psionic characters, Warblades can continue to beat the holy living crap out of their opponents until the cows come home, slaughter a few of them for dinner, and proceed to kick some more butt.  However, I think that a major balancing factor of the class is the draw of the White Raven discipline and its capacity to seriously boost the other characters while doing relatively little for the Warblabe him or herself.  Perhaps a method of balancing the class a bit would be to rule that strikes from each discipline can only be executed with one of that discipline's favored weapons.  That would make the optimal (IMO) combination of Major Diamond Mind/Major Iron Heart/Minor White Raven a bit more difficult to pull off, although the Quick Draw feat could pretty much put things right back where they started.

In practice, I have found my gut reaction to hold true with the _BoNS_.  I've had a couple of PC Warblades--one in an Eberron campaign with 2 other PCs and one in a gestalt solo campaign combined with Warmage--and even at low levels, they seem to be significantly more powerful than characters of other classes.  However, I generally consider this to be a boon IMC because it tends to draw players away from the cookie-cutters and gets them to start making tentacled paper dolls.  I have no problem with scaling relative power/challenge levels on the fly to balance a campaign, and I generally enjoy powerful, high-fantasy campaigns more than the alternative.

Is it overpowered?  IME, in some ways, absolutely.  Is this a problem?  That depends on the playgroup.  Personally, I don't see a real problem with the power levels of either the Crusader or the Swordsage, and although the Warblade is awfully powerful, I just find it too darned _cool_ to disallow completely.


----------



## Deekin (Feb 12, 2007)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> At first glance, it seems overpowered (especially the Warblade and Bloodstorm Blade).  Then again, so did the _EPH_ to a lot of people--a sentiment from which I personally have yet to be dissuaded.  Number of available spells/powers per day aside, the sheer amount of damage a Psion, Metamind, Psychic Warrior, or Warmind (especially high-level Kineticist/Metaminds and Psy War 1 [for Knowledge Psionics]/Ftr 4/Warmind 10's) can deal in a single round compared to characters of other classes at their levels is absurd, IMO.
> .




Just to point out, the Metamind is the worst PrC that has ever been published, ever will be published, and so on. You loose out on 5 levels of Manifesting, limiting you to 8th level powers, limiting  your meta cap. In terms of PP lost, you loose more from taking the metamind class that you could possably get back, even with free manifesting and the 10 round of inf power points per day.  If you think the metamind is overpowered, you are probably reading the rules wrong.

And as for damage per round, a Sorc using 2 non-core books can use up all his spells in a single round. Using core rules, A wizard can do more damage per round.

This has all been covered in the Myth: The XPH is overpowered Thread over on the WotC boards.


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

Let's not bog this thread down with psionics, 'K?


----------



## Nail (Feb 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not own Book of Nine Swords, but one of my players does want to play a Master of Nine PrC (whatever that is) after multiclassing:
> 
> Warblade 4/Fighter 2/Monk 2/Swordsage 2



Hah!

You already know there's a problem when there's that much multiclassing.    

Don't let this guy put the "known" list into a common pool between the WB and SS.  I'm pretty sure he has to keep them separate.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> However, two of the abilities (maneuvers, whatever they are called) that he wants to take are:
> 
> White Raven Tactics
> Iron Heart Surge
> ...




*White Raven Tactics*:
_First_: Be sure he's got the prereqs for this - one other White Raven Maneuver.  It's probably best if he shows you a level-by-level break down of what his PC takes and when he takes it.  Building WBs are trick-sey...yessss they are, my preciousssss.....

_Second_: This manuever can really be used only once per ally...but if you do it right, you can get double actions out of your allies every other round.  Remember that you can delay to any initiative count you like, so you can use this, then next round delay and recharge, then use this on the same subject.  Etc.  It's quite nasty: It allows you to give a ally effectively 2 rounds of actions every time you use it.

_Third_: Even so, you'll only be able to see this once every other round.  So given a 5 round combat, that's three times.


*Iron Heart Surge*
_First_: Again, don't forget the prereqs.

_Second_: It does take a Standard Action.  It might be the case that the condition he's in doesn't allow an action at all -- so he can't use the 'Surge.    Also things like charm and dominate wouldn't allow a surge either, as the charmed person wouldn't want to do it.  Etc.  I'm thinking the list of useful times this would work would be limited.....although I could be wrong.

_Third_: What you should really be complaining about is the *Moment of Perfect Mind*, a Diamond Mind 1st level power.  It's nuts.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Feb 12, 2007)

Deekin said:
			
		

> And as for damage per round, a Sorc using 2 non-core books can use up all his spells in a single round. Using core rules, A wizard can do more damage per round.
> 
> This has all been covered in the Myth: The XPH is overpowered Thread over on the WotC boards.






			
				Myth: The XPH is overpowered said:
			
		

> While a psion can easily outdamage, on average, a wizard in a single combat due to the way powers are manifested / augmented, the depletion of that psion's power points is so rapid that, in a typical game, the next encounter or the encounter after that, he will be completely drained of power points and useless.




My comparison was based on points of damage in a single round without respect to how often such a feat can be accomplished.  How is it that a 15th-level sorcerer, wizard, or any other class can match or beat a Practiced Manifester Psion 5/Metamind 10's (ML 14) freely manifested, Overchanneled (ML 16) 21d6+21 fire or cold _energy current_, maximized to 143 points of damage per round for 16 rounds, with a save DC of 21 + Int in one round?  At 15th level, a Sudden Maximized, Sudden Empowered _delayed blast fireball_ or _horrid wilting_ only deals 135 points of damage.  Granted, either one would damage far more targets, but I'd still like to see the method which would make your argument true.

I really wasn't trying to argue the power level of the _EPH/XPH_, but rather to provide a relevant comparison in terms of first impressions.  Also, I have generally found (the hard way) that it is simply proper messageboard etiquette, irrespective of location on the web, to afford others a bit more respect when providing one's opinion, such as through the inclusion of the acronym "IMO" (in my opinion) which, _IMHO_, your argument certainly was.  In any case, I apologize for provoking your ire, although I did express my analysis as a matter of opinion, with which you are certainly free to disagree.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 12, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> *Iron Heart Surge*
> _First_: Again, don't forget the prereqs.
> 
> _Second_: It does take a Standard Action.  It might be the case that the condition he's in doesn't allow an action at all -- so he can't use the 'Surge.    Also things like charm and dominate wouldn't allow a surge either, as the charmed person wouldn't want to do it.  Etc.  I'm thinking the list of useful times this would work would be limited.....although I could be wrong.




Yes, I pointed this out to him, but I do not have the book.

According to him, it is not just conditions. It is spells, effects, and conditions.

Also, he is the DM in our current 20th level campaign and he is having NPCs use these abilities right and left (i.e. more than once per combat, practically every round) to auto-dispel spells. Solid Fog spell, no problem. One NPC auto-dispels it, the other NPCs come out and attack.

I suspect he just has not carefully read the book. I cannot imagine WotC wrote something that allows some of the things he is doing.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Feb 12, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes, I pointed this out to him, but I do not have the book.
> 
> Also, he is the DM in our current 20th level campaign and he is having NPCs use these abilities right and left (i.e. more than once per combat, practically every round) to auto-dispel spells. Solid Fog spell, no problem. One NPC auto-dispels it, the other NPCs come out and attack.




Heh.  "...select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.  That effect ends immediately."

It's an extremely liberal reading of the word "affecting".  That Wall of Iron is affecting my ability to kill the wizard!  Pah.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 12, 2007)

White Raven Tactics is pretty crazy. Its up there with spells like Fireball, Magic Missile, and the like as "The very best of their ilk, bordering on broken" and in its case, it is probably closer to Wraithstrike than Magic Missile.

Iron heart surge cant remove conditions that are mental, as it requires an action to end. If you cant take an action, you cant remove it. Also, I wouldnt allow it to "dispel" spells, only conditions like nauseated, shaken, confused(if he gets the "act normally for one turn" result" etc, and spells that affect you, and only you, like hold person, or whatnot. I wouldnt allow solid fog, or web, or anything similar to be "dispelled".


----------



## hong (Feb 12, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> For me it is. When even WotC thinks that the core melee classes are to weak then they should fix those classes and not create new ones to replace them inoffically.



 This is known as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".


----------



## Seeten (Feb 13, 2007)

If the bathwater is dirty, and the baby is a mongoloid, and diseased, and is on lifesupport, I support this action.

And actually, this sounds quite similar to the fighter, the retarded red headed stepchild of classes in D&D.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 13, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Hah!
> 
> You already know there's a problem when there's that much multiclassing.
> 
> Don't let this guy put the "known" list into a common pool between the WB and SS.  I'm pretty sure he has to keep them separate.




It goes beyond that (which you are correct on). I picked up the book. The maximum level for any maneuvers is based on martial adept class levels in WB or SS (initiator levels for a PrC as best I can tell).

So, a PrC could have higher level maneuvers, but to get a 3rd level WB maneuver, one must have at least 6 levels in WB.

Only WB maneuvers can be regained with a swift action (without a feat), so any higher level PrC maneuvers do not get that advantage.


After reading this, I do not see any significant balance issues at all. If the PC multiclasses, he will make it difficult for himself somehow. And, the maneuvers my DM was using, he was not using them correctly. Hence, the reason they seemed totally broken.


----------



## bestone (Feb 13, 2007)

I dislike the twinkers handbook...errr i mean book of 9 swords

For many many many many reasons

  Anyone want to flame me for that first comment? i'll direct you to a few posts on builds where you can get +112 to a trip roll, or do over 25,000 damage in a round

but no no wait.....its balanced....


----------



## FireLance (Feb 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It goes beyond that (which you are correct on). I picked up the book. The maximum level for any maneuvers is based on martial adept class levels in WB or SS (initiator levels for a PrC as best I can tell).



Not exactly. It's WB levels plus half levels in other classes for WB maneuvers, and SS levels plus half levels in other classes for SS maneuvers. A WB 6/ SS 4 has an initator level of 8 for WB maneuvers and an initiator level of 7 for SS maneuvers. If he picked up another WB level, he'd have an initiator level of 9 for WB maneuvers, and can select 5th-level maneuvers.



> So, a PrC could have higher level maneuvers, but to get a 3rd level WB maneuver, one must have at least 6 levels in WB.



The initiator levels for some PrCs stack with initator levels from martial adept base classes. Offhand, I can't remember how this works if you have multiple martial adept base classes, but if it stacks with all of them, a WB 6/SS 4/PrC 2 would have an initator level of 10 for WB maneuvers and 9 for SS maneuvers, and could pick up 6th-level WB maneuvers with another WB or PrC level.



> Only WB maneuvers can be regained with a swift action (without a feat), so any higher level PrC maneuvers do not get that advantage.



I think PrCs use the recovery method of their base martial adept classes. Again, I can't remember offhand how this works for characters with multiple martial adept base classes.



> After reading this, I do not see any significant balance issues at all. If the PC multiclasses, he will make it difficult for himself somehow. And, the maneuvers my DM was using, he was not using them correctly. Hence, the reason they seemed totally broken.



Just a warning that martial adepts may multiclass better than you think, even if correctly used, they aren't as powerful as your DM was playing them. I really like the Book of Nine Swords, but I recognize that it's not for everybody.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 13, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> 25,000 damage in a round



I think it's balanced against the core-only 15th-level wizard using a _maximize metamagic rod_ with a _widened cone of cold_ to deal 35,820 points of damage in one round - assuming all his enemies are packed into the 398 squares affected by his spell, and they all fail their saving throws, of course.


----------



## Justin Cray (Feb 13, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think it's balanced against the core-only 15th-level wizard using a _maximize metamagic rod_ with a _widened cone of cold_ to deal 35,820 points of damage in one round - assuming all his enemies are packed into the 398 squares affected by his spell, and they all fail their saving throws, of course.




OK, I lol'ed.


----------



## Nail (Feb 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It goes beyond that (which you are correct on). I picked up the book.



Before I get started on a rant: I actually like the book.  The flavor and the basic mechanics are good -- but the specific mechanics require polishing, to say the least.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The maximum level for any maneuvers is based on martial adept class levels in WB or SS (initiator levels for a PrC as best I can tell).



 As FireLance points out, initiator levels are equal to WB levels + SS levels + 1/2 other levels.  The multiclassing PC this guy wants has enough initiator levels (8) to get a 3rd level power.  In general, the multiclassing rules for ToB:Bo9S are quite generous.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Only WB maneuvers can be regained with a swift action (without a feat), so any higher level PrC maneuvers do not get that advantage.



Not quite.

Only maneuvers known through the WB class (he can know 5 at 4th level) can be regained by the "Swift action + normal melee attack" combo.  Depending on how the class levels were taken, of course......




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> After reading this, I do not see any significant balance issues at all. If the PC multiclasses, he will make it difficult for himself somehow.





You should read it again.      And, "If I Were You", I'd work up some test case characters.  Try taking a WB from 1st to 12th level, for example.  I found it quite illuminating.
...and a bit scary.


----------



## Nail (Feb 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> According to him, it is not just conditions. It is spells, effects, and conditions.
> 
> Also, he is the DM in our current 20th level campaign and he is having NPCs use these abilities right and left (i.e. more than once per combat, practically every round) to auto-dispel spells. Solid Fog spell, no problem. One NPC auto-dispels it, the other NPCs come out and attack.



Holy crap.

You've got to be kidding me.....that's one heck of a generous interpretation of that ability!!!



			
				ToB:Bo9S-p68-Iron Heart Surge said:
			
		

> When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds.  That effect ends immediately.  You also surge with confidence and vengence against your enemies, gaining a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls until the end of your next turn.




Your DM has a text-based argument ("select one spell..."), but it's such an over-the-top interpretation that it can't withstand much scrutiny.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes, I pointed this out to him, but I do not have the book.
> 
> According to him, it is not just conditions. It is spells, effects, and conditions.
> 
> ...




The unofficial ruling on this (via CustServ I beleive) is that Iron Heart Surge only effects spells, effects and conditions that specifically target you (so, you can't dispel area effects for example, such as AMF).


----------



## Satori (Feb 13, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> If the bathwater is dirty, and the baby is a *mongoloid*, and diseased, and is on lifesupport, I support this action.




Bad Form, Watson.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 13, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> As FireLance points out, initiator levels are equal to WB levels + SS levels + 1/2 other levels.  The multiclassing PC this guy wants has enough initiator levels (8) to get a 3rd level power.  In general, the multiclassing rules for ToB:Bo9S are quite generous.




They specifically have an example of how to calculate initiator level when multiclassing (and multiclassing w/ other martial adept classes).

The correct formula is:

Martial Adept class + 1/2 all other classes (including other martial adept classes)

Martial Adept PrCs will specifically mention if they add to your initiator level or not.

So a Warblade 4/Swordsage 2/Monk 2 will have the following Initiator levels:

Warblade IL 6 (WB 4 + 1/2 all other classes (4/2))
Swordsage IL 5 (SS 2 + 1/2 all other classes (6/2))

It's been awhile since I read over the multiclassing rules for Martial Adepts, but I know there is an example in there, and I believe this is correct.

FWIW - Some PrCs that add to initiator level will add it to both Warblade & Swordsage in the example above...  Again, these are specifically called out in the PrC.


----------



## Nail (Feb 13, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> They specifically have an example of how to calculate initiator level when multiclassing (and multiclassing w/ other martial adept classes).
> 
> The correct formula is:
> 
> ...



You sure the SS levels don't add to WB, and vis versa?

...I'll have to go look it up now......page numbers?......


----------



## Slaved (Feb 13, 2007)

Page 39 under multiclass characters


----------



## Nail (Feb 13, 2007)

Page 39.

Initiator Levels = Martial Adept Class + 1/2 levels of _all_ other classes.

You're right, *Rigamortus2*!


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Feb 13, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You sure the SS levels don't add to WB, and vis versa?
> 
> ...I'll have to go look it up now......page numbers?......



They don't add straight up to each other, but each level in one counts as 1/2 level (rounded down) towards the initiator level of the other (page 39).


----------



## Seeten (Feb 13, 2007)

To answer Karinsdad, anyway, the 20th level DM is pulling a fast one. Heh.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 13, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Holy crap.
> 
> You've got to be kidding me.....that's one heck of a generous interpretation of that ability!!!




You don't know the half of it.

First, I agree with you and RigaMortus2 about the initiator level stuff. I read the paragraph before the table, but had only skimmed through the section before that which explains it.


However, the DM was really loading the dice. He had about 12 Yuan-ti (Monk/Warblade?) combatant types (maybe 15th level) with these abilities and 2 Yuan-ti Sorcerers (maybe 16th level) against 4 20th level PCs (Cleric, Paladin, Beguiler, Eldritch Knight) and a 17th level PC cohort (Sorcerer). So, outnumbered about 3 to 1 with NPCs who the DM was breaking rules for.

The combat was on this massive chess board with each square 10x10 feet. The "white squares" led to a fall into some void. The "black squares" were solid stone.

8 of the combatant types diagonally surrounded and attacked our Enlarged EK. Four would move in and attack, four would move behind them. The four in the back (illegally) used White Raven Tactics to give extra turns (not extra actions, extra turns) to the four in front who would full round attack and take a 5' step back whereas the other 4 would move in and attack. The EK was 90% wounded in a single round.

So, my Cleric was forced to cast Mass Heal (on him and the Paladin, even though the Paladin was not wounded) because Heal has range touch and I was too far away.

It went from bad to worse. They had Improved Evasion to avoid energy type spells and could auto-dispel any battlefield spells we cast. Some of the Monks were giving extra turns to the Sorcerers who were using Celerity or Greater Celerity (immune to the Daze somehow) to cast 2 or 3 spells per turn, for 2 turns per round (4 to 6 spells per round each or 8 to 12 spells (although lower level) per round compared to our typically 5 or 6 spells per round with Quickened spells). And, I also think the DM may have been giving extra turns to multiple allies per use of WRT, not one.

So between the illegal use of White Raven Tactics and the illegal use of Iron Heart Surge, they got about 5 turns in to each of ours and virtually none of our spells affected them.

The EK flew into the air (to get away from 8 full round attacks every other round even after he cast Iron Body on himself), got most of his spells dispelled, got hit to about -8 hit points, and fell into one of the voids (actually, he fell onto a stone square, but at his iron body weight, the DM rolled to see if it broke and it did, so he and the square fell in). Fortunuately, the cohort Sorcerer got a Feather Fall on him as he fell and my Cleric had cast Persistent Lesser Vigor on the party the night before which didn't get dispelled, so he auto-stabilized. We couldn't get to him at that point. It probably took 5 more rounds, just to get the battle semi-under control.


We beat them because the Beguiler got a Mind Fog up on them followed by whatever the spell is that does massive subdual damage and they had to dispel/end the Mind Fog individually and did not have the time to do so with the spells coming from the Cleric and Sorcerer.

It was, quite frankly, one of the most overwhelming, threatening, and complicated battles I have ever played in (partially because the DM had not carefully read the Bo9S rules). Even so, it was a lot of fun, even though it seriously looked like we were going to get creamed.  


On the bright side, the DM and I are now in agreement on how those rules work (as per the actual writeup in Bo9s) and we won't face another combat like that soon.


----------



## bestone (Feb 13, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You don't know the half of it.
> 
> 
> ...... NPCs who the DM was breaking rules for.




Bitter bitter, the dm doesnt break the rules, the dm MAKES the rules

Just remember, if he's doing it, you can do it too






> It was, quite frankly, one of the most overwhelming, threatening, and complicated battles I have ever played in (partially because the DM had not carefully read the Bo9S rules). Even so, it was a lot of fun, even though it seriously looked like we were going to get creamed.




Well you beat it, and it sounds fun? whats the problem, you should stop knockin your dm for cheating, bring it up to him he's wrong. And if he insists he's not, then he's not. And like i said, just remember what he does, and pull the same on him




> On the bright side, the DM and I are now in agreement on how those rules work (as per the actual writeup in Bo9s) and we won't face another combat like that soon.




Yaay!


----------



## Seeten (Feb 13, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> I dislike the twinkers handbook...errr i mean book of 9 swords
> 
> For many many many many reasons
> 
> ...




We dont flame people on these boards, but, suffice to say, I hate the Cleric, Mages, Sorcerers and Druids Twinkers handbook also, that lets them stop time, horridly wilt a room, and holy word away 400 demons at a time, no save no sr. Oh wait, thats the PHB.

Hating on melee types for being able to be useful in endgame is like ... so passe. Really.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 13, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Bitter bitter, the dm doesnt break the rules, the dm MAKES the rules
> 
> Just remember, if he's doing it, you can do it too




WOTC makes the rules. I bought "D&D 3.5 Edition", not "D&D I do what I want and play God, and you like it, or else, Edition"

If the DM has sensible house rules, and informs me ahead of time, thats cool. If the DM has nonsensical house rules, and makes them up on the spot, I have my own house rule. Its called, "Later, gator."


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

bestone said:
			
		

> Well you beat it, and it sounds fun? whats the problem, you should stop knockin your dm for cheating, bring it up to him he's wrong. And if he insists he's not, then he's not. And like i said, just remember what he does, and pull the same on him.



I suspect you've entirely missed the point of KD's post.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 14, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> On the bright side, the DM and I are now in agreement on how those rules work (as per the actual writeup in Bo9s) and we won't face another combat like that soon.




"Now you know. And knowing is half the battle!" 

Go Joe! -- N


----------



## The Souljourner (Feb 14, 2007)

I bought this book a couple weeks ago, looked at the classes, looked at the feats, and very briefly skimmed the manuevers, said "meh" and put it back on the shelf.  Then I read this thread and my interest is piqued... I guess I was missing something.  Well, I go back and read the manuevers and holy crap, they're really awesome.

I love the manuevers, I love the way they've been implemented, and I think overall it would be a great addition to any campaign.  Yes, even sword & sorcery campaigns.  IF you think it's all throwing fireballs from your a la street fighter, you've obviously only read the first discipline - desert wind.  From what I saw last night (I only read 4 or 5 of the disciplines, to be fair), it's by far the most supernatural out there.   Divine Spirit is, but it's only available to a paladin-like class anyway.  Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, and White Raven have barely anything that would be considered over the top at all (at least special effects wise).

As for power... it's really hard to tell.  It's a brand new mechanic, and a lot of the really good effects are high level.  Maybe it's ok, I don't know.  I do know that the ones I was saying "wow" to were no the 100 damage 9th level manuevers.  I was saying wow to a lot of the White Raven stuff - letting your whole party charge, get cumulative bonuses, and no attacks of opportunity?  Awesome.

If this is a preview of 4th edition, I say, sign me up!

As for whether or not the warblade is overpowred... hard for me to say.  I'm with the camp that the fighter is underpowered (though PHBII did help a lot there), so I don't mind if the warblade is a little higher powered (and I think it is).  But I don't think it's crazy.  Please people, don't call the difference between d10 and d12 major.  Don't say he's "far more tough".  It's 21 hitpoints at level 20, where that's often within a standard deviation of a single hit.  11 points at level 10.. yay.  

I think it'll need to be played to see how it really works out.  I think the loss of the bonus feats (Warblades get them, but from a very limited list, and almost none of them are straight "do better hitting" types) will hurt them a lot more than you think.  They can't just automatically take weapon focus, weapon spec, etc, if they're taking feats for their maneuvers as well.

So... my guess is (since that's all any of us can do until we play) is that it'll be powerful, but also a hell of a lot of fun.  And in my opinion, that's a lot of what the fighter classes needed - a strong injection of fun.  How many times have you played with a pure fighter type and his turn consists of "I hit it.  Done."?  PHBII made melee fighters viable, TOB makes them fun.

-Nate


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

For me, the Book of 9 Swords has a different problem -- not one in terms of it being overwhelmingly powerful (though it is pretty strong compared to, say, Tome of Magic's options), but rather its paradigm; one that is new to D&D, really.

The only problem I've ever had with Book of Nine Swords is the whole core idea of the book -- the "per encounter" balancing. For me, being able to do supernatural over-the-top actions every minute of the day without any resource limitations just changes D&D to a level of the fantastic that I personally don't like. I don't mind the option, but the thing that does concern me is all the people who are raving that "this should be the way the core rules are written." For me, when I want that level of the fantastic, I play Feng Shui. D&D has for me been about heroes with resources who have to struggle a bit from time to time, and who have to measure those resources against the opposition. (I'm not talking tactics or strategy, but the overall story premise of a hero who has to use his advantages wisely.) Encounter-based magics however, never run out, and never put the hero in a disadvantages situation. And if the hero has a maneuver available every single round of a combat (which the crusader, warblade, and swordsage do, because rarely do combats last more than 5 rounds), I don't call it a disadvantage.

So for me, it's the paradigm-shift that I don't like. It's the one thing that would possibly stop me from going from 3E to 4E, if this were the direction all classes went.


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Encounter-based magics however, never run out, and never put the hero in a disadvantages situation.



Could I discuss this point a bit?

As I play D&D (since forever ago until today), one of the issues that crops up is how the heros we play compare to the heros we read about in books (or see in movies, should I ever have time for such things).  Gandalf comes to mind.  When did he ever run out of magic?

Done well (that is to say: "done _better_ than ToB:Bo9S."), a system that uses a "per encounter" basis for character abilities might be a great thing, and more closely mirror what we read and see in related fantasy art-forms.

Maybe.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Done well (that is to say: "done _better_ than ToB:Bo9S."), a system that uses a "per encounter" basis for character abilities might be a great thing, and more closely mirror what we read and see in related fantasy art-forms.




Then again, I'm personally more interested in modelling D&D, than modelling a related fantasy art-form.  Hence my distaste for the idea of spreading the mechanic through the whole of D&D.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

_How many times have you played with a pure fighter type and his turn consists of "I hit it. Done."? _

Very rarely?


----------



## Shazman (Feb 14, 2007)

There does seem to be a shift towards more of a resources per encounter as opposed to per day in some of WotC's latest supplements. Warlock, reserve feats from Complete Mage, Tome of Battle, Factotum from Dungeonscape.  I personally like it.  Nothing kills momentum in a game like having to rest.  You have to spend hours healing and picking spells.  It's a boring but unfortunately necessary part of the game.  You don't see heroes in fantasy literature say "I'm almost out of spells, we better rest before we stop the evil overlord from taking over the world."  It streamlines the game, and reduces boring downtime.  I'm currently in a Red Hand of Doom campaign with back to back challenging encounters with just enough downtime between battles to heal up from a wand.  The psion is out of power points, and the cleric and wizard are almost out of spells.  Unless the DM gives us some leeway, this extremely enjoyable campaign is about to end in a TPK thanks to the x per day design of the game.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

> You don't see heroes in fantasy literature say "I'm almost out of spells, we better rest before we stop the evil overlord from taking over the world."




You don't? Tolkien's characters, at least, seem to camp a lot.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 14, 2007)

This new paradigm exists in both the Complete Scoundrel (skill tricks) and Dungeonscape (the Factotum) as well.

EDIT - Shazman beat me to it, and more eloquently as well!


----------



## FireLance (Feb 14, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> As I play D&D (since forever ago until today), one of the issues that crops up is how the heros we play compare to the heros we read about in books (or see in movies, should I ever have time for such things).  Gandalf comes to mind.  When did he ever run out of magic?



Boy, does that bring back memories... 

When I first looked through a copy of the Basic D&D rules, more than 20 years ago, I remember thinking to myself, _a 1st-level magic-user gets to cast just one spell for the entire day? What's he supposed to do the rest of the time?_ 

To someone whose previous experience with magic systems was with point-based computer games like Ultima and gamebooks like Fighting Fantasy, the concept of being able to create only a single spell effect every day was a massive culture shock.

That's why to me, the current culture shock at abilities that do not run out or (at least) are easily refreshed or regained is an almost surreal reversal. I guess it's because the conventional paradigm in D&D seems to have been: mundane stuff you can do as often as you like, but magic must be rationed.

As for heroes never being put at a disadvantage, I think the way to challenge the PCs is to change the nature of the problems they face from "Do I have enough of limited resource X?" to "Do I have the right tool for the job, and if not, how do I get it?" All the _fireballs_ in the world won't help you against a red dragon.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You don't? Tolkien's characters, at least, seem to camp a lot.



 They camp to get some rest or shelter from the elements.  They don't retreat in the middle of a big battle to "heal up" and "prepare spells."


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> They camp to get some rest or shelter from the elements.  They don't retreat in the middle of a big battle to "heal up" and "prepare spells."




That's mainly because healing magic in Tolkien takes a while. While mages probably don't prepare spells, keep in mind that most of the spellcasters in LOTR cast spells only rarely and practically never use the same spell twice.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 14, 2007)

They didn't need to retreat in the middle of big battles. The DMPC, DM's best friend who gets nice stuff, Deus Ex Machina, and running away to _end_ a battle worked well enough.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> Unless the DM gives us some leeway, this extremely enjoyable campaign is about to end in a TPK thanks to the x per day design of the game.




Personally, I'd say that it's about to end because the DM's not giving leeway, not because of the X per day aspect. There are people complaining now about how a character goes from 1st to 20th in the space of three campaign weeks; how about in the same darned day!?!?!

This is probably better discussed elsewhere than a rules thread, though, so I'll bow out. The mechanics, though, are some pretty good ones, and other than some reservations with the front-loading of the warblade's abilities (Felon's always covered that one better than I do), the abilities themselves I don't really mind or find dramatically too powerful.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> ...I think the way to challenge the PCs is to change the nature of the problems they face from "Do I have enough of limited resource X?" to "Do I have the right tool for the job, and if not, how do I get it?" All the _fireballs_ in the world won't help you against a red dragon.




No, but that Mountain Hammer that gives you an extra greatsword's-worth of damage and negates his DR might help a heck of a lot.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> There are people complaining now about how a character goes from 1st to 20th in the space of three campaign weeks; how about in the same darned day!?!?!




That would be an extreme example that the DM has full control over.  The player's do not control how many encounters they have each day, the DM does.  And that is part of the problem, I feel.  It's hard to plan and reserve your resources if you don't know if you are going to have 1 encounter or 10 encounters.

I think the ToB system (as well as the others mentioned) helps tilt this "problem" in the player's favor.  Remember, it is the DM that controls how many encounters the party will run into on a given day...

One last thing...  ToB won't help much in the way of healing, so that IS a resource that will run out and force players to rest/heal.   The Devoted Spirit maneuvers that heal are not something you can depend on or use to replace healing magic.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> No, but that Mountain Hammer that gives you an extra greatsword's-worth of damage and negates his DR might help a heck of a lot.




Which, at most, can only be used once every other round...  Plus it generally is not a good idea to get into melee with a Red Dragon (at least, not for an extended period of time).


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's mainly because healing magic in Tolkien takes a while.



   

The fact that Tolkien's characters camp has very little to do with healing magic!

Tolkien's characters camp because .....<wait fer it!>.....it's the end of the day!


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Which, at most, can only be used once every other round...  Plus it generally is not a good idea to get into melee with a Red Dragon (at least, not for an extended period of time).




Foe hammer from martial study feat, mountain hammer from stone dragon, and I'm thinking there's even another maneuver that beats DR that's low-level. That's three time in one combat right there, before you can take the recover action to do it once or twice more. Even without recovering the one gained from martial study, if a D&D combat goes on for 5 rounds or more, it's a rare occurance in my experience.

Besides, I'm just talking about the low-level stuff, for low-level dragons. If you're talking about the adults and Wyrms, there are other abilities that kick in that can help commensurately. Plus, most of the martial maneuvers being expressly hit and run actions, you're not in melee for long (especially easier if you aim for tumble ranks and the spring attack feat as you level up).

So these martial maneuvers are an impressive set of tools all by themselves!


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

Spring attack doesn't work with most maneuvers (strikes are Std Actions).

Sorry, Henry!


----------



## FireLance (Feb 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Plus, most of the martial maneuvers being expressly hit and run actions, you're not in melee for long (especially easier if you aim for tumble ranks and the spring attack feat as you level up).



Yes and no. Strikes usually require standard actions, so they don't work with Spring Attack, which requires you to take the attack action. Boosts and stances should work with Spring Attack, though. Tumble would also work, although you are limited to moving away after an attack, hopefully avoiding a full attack.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 14, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The fact that Tolkien's characters camp has very little to do with healing magic!
> 
> Tolkien's characters camp because .....<wait fer it!>.....it's the end of the day!




Exactly, they camped to get shut eye, not to break out the wand of cure light wounds and replenish spells and power points.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 14, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> Foe hammer from martial study feat, mountain hammer from stone dragon, and I'm thinking there's even another maneuver that beats DR that's low-level. That's three time in one combat right there, before you can take the recover action to do it once or twice more. Even without recovering the one gained from martial study, if a D&D combat goes on for 5 rounds or more, it's a rare occurance in my experience.




If we are talking low-level, the Warblade only can ready a couple of maneuvers.  So if he wants to stock up on multiple maneuvers that pretty much do the same thing, he will be lacking in other areas.  True, they can always re-ready maneuvers outside of combat, but if they come into an encounter they weren't prepared for, you aren't guaranteed to have readied the best maneuvers for that situation (yes, you could have Adaptive Style, but that will burn a feat).

So I still see it coming back to PCs being balanced with having the right resources for an encounter.


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

Gandalf: "We should camp here, before we go into the Mines of Moria, as I'm nearly out of spells!"

Aragorn: "And I need to get rid of these silly Entangle spells and memorize something more useful for underground."


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If we are talking low-level, the Warblade only can ready a couple  of maneuvers.




..The word you're looking for there is either "few" or ""several".    A WB 1 can have 3 manuevers readied.  A WB 4 can have 4.


----------



## Slaved (Feb 14, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ..The word you're looking for there is either "few" or ""several".    A WB 1 can have 3 manuevers readied.  A WB 4 can have 4.




As this is not a formal setting using, "a couple of" is an acceptable version of plural. More formally it would not be correct but the american form of english has taken a couple of liberties with the language.    

Oh, and having only three manuevers readied hurts!


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

4 equals "a couple of"?   Huh.

I see a couple of Balors standing behind you.......


----------



## Slaved (Feb 14, 2007)

From the all powerful knowledge base that is dictionary.com


			
				Online Dictionary said:
			
		

> WordNet - Cite This Source
> a couple of
> 
> adjective
> ...


----------



## Nifft (Feb 14, 2007)

In honor of the date, let me just say that the most fun couples have "more than one; an indefinite few" members. IYKWIM,AITYD. 

Hearts, -- N


----------



## The Souljourner (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _How many times have you played with a pure fighter type and his turn consists of "I hit it. Done."? _
> 
> Very rarely?




Really?  'Cause it happens all the time in the games I'm in.  Sure, it might be something more like "ok... so I'm power attacking 3, and I charged, but I'm also shaken, so my attack roll is at -3... damage is at +6..." <rolls> "I miss."   (or) "I hit, I do ... 16 points of damage."

It's just... fighters so often don't have anything interesting to do in a fight.  Most of the time they're just mashing the attack button.  It's like playing a fighting game on the atari 2600... all you have is that orange attack button.

Sure, you can disarm or trip or bullrush or whatever, but so many of those special manuevers are just doomed to fail against any kind of non-human opponent.  Yeah, you may rock against the swarm of orcs, but when the dragon comes out, you're reduced to "I try to hit it".

Book of 9 Swords lets fighters still be fighters, but gives them more options... some decisions to make in combat rather than just how much to power attack.

As for whether or not per-encounter abilities are good or not... I think it's a two edged sword.  I really like the removal of this weird "ok, we have to rest at 11am because the wizard is out of spells" mechanic that D&D often runs into...  however (if applied to all classes) it would remove the ability to have those really tense fights when the casters are low on magic, and you have to make due with those last few bizarre spells that you never found time to cast..... how do you kill the giant that just walked onto the scene when your cleric only has water walk and daylight, your wizard only has grease and dancing lights, and all your melee guys are low on HP?  Those kind of tense, force-you-to-improvise type fights are some of the best, and it's very hard to set those up legitimately if all it takes is a full round action to regain all a PC's resources.

-Nate

P.S. couple = 2 people, unless you live in Utah


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

A WB 1 has ALL his maneuvers readied, just to be clear. All his maneuvers also happens to total 3.

Tome of Battle is my all time favorite 3.5 book, even if it is a bit mechanically weak. The ideas are awesome, the polish on the mechanical side is just a little lacking.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 14, 2007)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> P.S. couple = 2 people, unless you live in Utah




... or cheat. Or are in college. Or ... 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Spring attack doesn't work with most maneuvers (strikes are Std Actions).
> 
> Sorry, Henry!




Good to know -- but it doesn't invalidate tumble working after or before a strike, which both swordsages and warblades have (and also nice to know the boosts should work). Even with a -10 for full-speed, it's a bargain. (Also glad to know if I ever play a martial adept I'm not wasting feats on spring attack.)


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

> Yeah, you may rock against the swarm of orcs, but when the dragon comes out, you're reduced to "I try to hit it".




I really don't think so. Fighters should be very busy in that fight; trying to limit the dragon's movement toward squishier characters, readying to interrupt, adjusting weapons and tactics, and conferring with casters about healing and buffs.  If the dragon is cornered, they may need their shield; if it takes to the wing, they may need their bow. If it turns invisible, they may have to dash about until they run into it. They may have to purposefully draw AoOs to give rogues and casters room to escape, or step forward into a full attack so that the rogue directly behind them has cover against the dragon's reach.

Fighters have potions to drink, alchemical items to hurl, oils to use... The idea that they just stand there and hack away is a failure of imagination.


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> ... The idea that they <Ftrs> just stand there and hack away is a failure of imagination.



In our high-leveled game (we went to 22nd - 23rd level), the Ftr was quite busy - and having loads of fun - doing all sorts of tactics.  "I hit it" was just one of them.


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 14, 2007)

With the addition of the per-encounter model, our games have gotten more heroic.  At second level.  I like that.
-blarg


----------



## The Souljourner (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I really don't think so. Fighters should be very busy in that fight; trying to limit the dragon's movement toward squishier characters, readying to interrupt, adjusting weapons and tactics, and conferring with casters about healing and buffs.  If the dragon is cornered, they may need their shield; if it takes to the wing, they may need their bow. If it turns invisible, they may have to dash about until they run into it. They may have to purposefully draw AoOs to give rogues and casters room to escape, or step forward into a full attack so that the rogue directly behind them has cover against the dragon's reach.
> 
> Fighters have potions to drink, alchemical items to hurl, oils to use... The idea that they just stand there and hack away is a failure of imagination.




While I agree, none of those things are things that fighters have any real special ability with.  The cleric or ranger or paladin or druid can do all those things just as well.... and do a whole bunch of other stuff, too.  I don't like that fighters kinda become the "draw attacks of opportunity and get in the way of movement" guys. 

You think of a fighter tank in an MMORPG (or for us oldbies, MUDs), and they're keeping the badguy off the squishy characters... there's just no mechanical way for them to do that in D&D.  Attacks of opportunity are one way 3.x has helped with that, but it's honestly not enough.  Often times reach and the pure fact that the enemy can *eat* an attack of opportunity makes it so they just ignore the melee guys and hit the guys throwing empowered orbs of I-don't-know-what.

I saw White Raven maneuvers and thought - holy crap, that's what I've been looking for in D&D for 15 years!

I agree that the pure mechanics could probably be polished a bit, but from the point of view of a pure fighter, they're a godsend for making combats interesting again.

And I think that's part of the key - if you can describe your fighters actions in interesting an complex ways, and you find that interesting and fun, you don't need anything other than the PHB.  For those of us who are old and jaded, we need the new h0tness to make playing the sword swinger not a simple act of calculating probabilities.

-Nate


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

Less wizards firing crossbow bolts, more maneuvers and reserve acid bolts? Sign me up.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> For those of us who are old and jaded, we need the new h0tness to make playing the sword swinger not a simple act of calculating probabilities.
> 
> -Nate




You are making a lot of assumptions about my age and experience.


----------



## Brian Gibbons (Feb 14, 2007)

Shazman said:
			
		

> There does seem to be a shift towards more of a resources per encounter as opposed to per day in some of WotC's latest supplements.



Another way of stating this is that WOTC's design philosophy is moving away from a "balanced on average" style of design.

3e tried (with varying degrees of success) to get away from the idea that if a class or race is overpowered at low level and underpowered at high level (or vice versa), that you can consider everything just averaging out over time and call the class or race balanced.  The goal (again, with varying degrees of success) seems to be to make things balanced on a level-by-level by basis.

The spellcaster-vs-melee dichotomy, however, has always been balanced on a "well, over the course of the day, the classes are balanced on average" basis, rather than encounter-by-encounter.  The idea that a wizard being able to bring out the big guns and blow away a single encounter at the expense of being sub-par the rest of the game is balanced with a fighter being consistently average all day long unfortunately makes adventure design an integral part of game balance--a campaign where seven fights a day are common will lead to a radically different result than one where a single fight a day is the norm.

Personally, I see the Binder (from Tome of Magic) as a harbinger of, if not what spellcasters in 4e will be, at least what some designers are arguing for--spellcasters who can do meaningful things every round and more impressive things on a 1 per X rounds basis.

Moving melee types to the same sort of system seems like a good thing to me, though it has to be done consistently rather than an ad hoc add-on.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

Speaking of mechanics, and balance, I want you guys to weigh in on a new character of mine.

I'm going to be starting in a new campaign soon, its virtually entirely underwater, and I am playing a Sahuagin. I think at first level, I am going Ranger, but I considered Warblade. I think I'll go Warblade later, maybe next level, instead. Here is my issue.

My attack sequence is Talon/Talon/Bite/Rake/Rake.

Warblade gives Punishing Stance, which adds 1d6 to each attack. I am sure this is balanced aroudn the idea that it adds to 1 attack at levels 1-5, 2 at 6-10, etc, with the possible exception of TWF.

No one could have expected it to add 1d6 to 5 different attacks at level 1(ECL 3) and I felt very uncomfortable going Warblade as a result.

Let me know, from a DM perspective, what you'd consider fair? I am thinking adding 1d6 for stance to 1 attack up to level 5, 2 up to 10, 3 to 15 and 4 to 20, but whats everyone feel is fair?


----------



## Nifft (Feb 14, 2007)

Brian Gibbons said:
			
		

> Personally, I see the Binder (from Tome of Magic) as a harbinger of, if not what spellcasters in 4e will be, at least what some designers are arguing for--spellcasters who can do meaningful things every round and more impressive things on a 1 per X rounds basis.




Indeed. And the Warlock was a move in the same direction, even before that.

Note that even Binders have things they can do a limited number of times each day, like Feats (like Empower Supernatural Ability), and even some of the granted Vestigial abilities (like Tenebrious granting _flicker_ a limited number of times each day).



			
				Brian Gibbons said:
			
		

> Moving melee types to the same sort of system seems like a good thing to me, though it has to be done consistently rather than an ad hoc add-on.




Someone has to beta-test this stuff. 

Better _ad hoc_ than never, and better a reasonably designed add-on now than a merely reasonably designed whole system later.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Nail (Feb 14, 2007)

Keep in mind you only get the rake attack after a round of grappling, and only 2 rake attacks while swiming and grappling.  

So normally you're getting 2 talons and secondary bite.

Still, that's not bad.  Is this an underwater campaign?


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

Wait, it doesnt mention grappling in the description, it simply says "When Swimming, you can take 2 rake attacks" and also mentions you get rakes when you are affected by Blood Frenzy, again, no mention of grappling.

Yes, it will be probably entirely underwater, with possible short stops on ship decks, and maybe the occasional trip to the shore.

EDIT:
Ok, just read the rake description. Good to know =)

So normally talon/talon/bite. Thats 1d4+5/1d4+5/1d4+2, and with Punishing Stance, thats 1d4+5+1d6/1d4+5+1d6/1d4+2+1d6 which suddenly seems outrageous at level 1(ecl 3)


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> No one could have expected it to add 1d6 to 5 different attacks at level 1(ECL 3) and I felt very uncomfortable going Warblade as a result.




A 3rd level cleric can bestow a curse with a touch of the hand, causing a -4 ability penalty. A 3rd level rogue can get +2d6 sneak attack, straight up, probably nearly every round or every other round. 

Human fighter 3, with Powerful Charge, Greater Powerful charge, greatsword... 2d6 + (Str x 1 1/2) +2d6. 

Not really that out of line for ECL 3.


----------



## The Souljourner (Feb 14, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You are making a lot of assumptions about my age and experience.




I am?  I thought I was only making an inference about my own age and experience (and really.... more about my mindset).

I totally didn't mean it as a suggestion that you're young and inexperienced... just talking about my own jadefulness (it's a word... I swear!).  

I actually totally agree that a lack of imagination can make some types of characters boring.  And to some extent, that group of people who lack imagination includes me.  I don't get as jazzed about playing a new character unless he has some kind of new ability I haven't tried before.  I love roleplaying and I'm fine with hours without die rolls... but eventually, I just want to hit something in the face, and when I do, I don't want it to be the same old thing I've done 1000 times before.

-Nate


----------



## Seeten (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, I guess next level I'll pick up Warblade and be Ranger 1/Warblade 1. Seems too good to be true, but I suppose I do suffer from the smallness of the die in that 1d4 damage is pretty weak.

Also, Tiger Claw uses jump as its prime attribute. While swimming, should Tiger Claw use Swim, instead? Makes sense to me...and is totally OP for me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 15, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> The fact that Tolkien's characters camp has very little to do with healing magic!
> 
> Tolkien's characters camp because .....<wait fer it!>.....it's the end of the day!




DND characters camp because .....<wait fer it!>.....it's the end of 4 encounters!  

If you look at each day in Tolkien, the number of encounters is:

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, all day battle, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, all day battle, 0, 0, 0

It really is apples and oranges. From a combat perspective, typically two totally different genres.


----------



## hong (Feb 15, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> For me, the Book of 9 Swords has a different problem -- not one in terms of it being overwhelmingly powerful (though it is pretty strong compared to, say, Tome of Magic's options), but rather its paradigm; one that is new to D&D, really.
> 
> The only problem I've ever had with Book of Nine Swords is the whole core idea of the book -- the "per encounter" balancing. For me, being able to do supernatural over-the-top actions every minute of the day without any resource limitations just changes D&D to a level of the fantastic that I personally don't like. I don't mind the option, but the thing that does concern me is all the people who are raving that "this should be the way the core rules are written." For me, when I want that level of the fantastic, I play Feng Shui. D&D has for me been about heroes with resources who have to struggle a bit from time to time, and who have to measure those resources against the opposition. (I'm not talking tactics or strategy, but the overall story premise of a hero who has to use his advantages wisely.) Encounter-based magics however, never run out, and never put the hero in a disadvantages situation. And if the hero has a maneuver available every single round of a combat (which the crusader, warblade, and swordsage do, because rarely do combats last more than 5 rounds), I don't call it a disadvantage.




Hit points.


----------



## hong (Feb 15, 2007)

Although (and I mentioned this before on Malhavoc's Iron Heroes forum) a game where even hit points refreshed after every encounter could be very interesting. Basically you're fresh, or you're dead. Or maybe severely injured -- ability damage might still carry over, or there could be a threshold below which hit points don't come back.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

Crusaders can refresh their HP too.

Throw in a Dragon Shaman with the heal aura, if no crusaders are available. =)

Warblades and Swordsages can take devoted spirit heals with feats, too.


----------



## hong (Feb 15, 2007)

I didn't look that closely at the crusader, but my impression was that their healing isn't going to keep pace with damage dealt, at high levels.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 15, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Although (and I mentioned this before on Malhavoc's Iron Heroes forum) a game where even hit points refreshed after every encounter could be very interesting. Basically you're fresh, or you're dead. Or maybe severely injured -- ability damage might still carry over, or there could be a threshold below which hit points don't come back.




Persistent Lesser Vigor the night before.

Every PC is refreshed for hit points within 5 to 20 minutes after each combat with no other healing involved.

This would allow for about 45 to 150 fully fresh one minute encounters per day and still have 8 hours of rest and an hour to get back spells. More if the PCs are not that damaged in a given encounter. Less if the spell gets dispelled.


----------



## blargney the second (Feb 15, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> I didn't look that closely at the crusader, but my impression was that their healing isn't going to keep pace with damage dealt, at high levels.



You're right - it isn't going to keep up.  But it's still useful to be able to cure some damage every encounter.

My theory is that the warblade set off so many people's reads-bad radar that the crusader evaded much notice/scathing criticism.  It's an awesome class that actually offers a lot more than I think it's given credit for.
-blarg


----------



## Nifft (Feb 15, 2007)

The Crusader's big trick has to do with Stone Power and Delayed Damage Pool. The idea is to keep as much damage as possible in your Delayed Damage Pool, and then negate up to 10 points of it at the start of your round with Stone Power.

They can tank like nobody else thanks to that little trick, so long as they stock up on a few Stone Dragon strikes.

That trick, combined with some healing maneuvers, is enough to keep them alive at low to mid levels. (At high levels, the maneuver that gives you a _heal_ does most of the heavy lifting.) At least, this is what I've heard. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

Crusaders can heal with every melee strike, and further, their maneuvers refresh automagically, no actions required, so they can keep healing.


----------



## Seeten (Feb 15, 2007)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> You're right - it isn't going to keep up.  But it's still useful to be able to cure some damage every encounter.
> 
> My theory is that the warblade set off so many people's reads-bad radar that the crusader evaded much notice/scathing criticism.  It's an awesome class that actually offers a lot more than I think it's given credit for.
> -blarg




I am currently playing a Crusader. Its awesome.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 15, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> They can tank like nobody else thanks to that little trick, so long as they stock up on a few Stone Dragon strikes.



Stone Power also works with the attack and full attack action, so if you really need those hp and you don't have any Stone Dragon strikes, you can just make a melee attack.


----------



## Nifft (Feb 15, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Stone Power also works with the attack and full attack action, so if you really need those hp and you don't have any Stone Dragon strikes, you can just make a melee attack.




What you say is 100% true. The advice of taking a few Stone Dragon strikes is mostly so you aren't tempted to use some OTHER strike during your action.

You're playing a Crusader to use maneuvers, after all. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## FireLance (Feb 15, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Although (and I mentioned this before on Malhavoc's Iron Heroes forum) a game where even hit points refreshed after every encounter could be very interesting. Basically you're fresh, or you're dead. Or maybe severely injured -- ability damage might still carry over, or there could be a threshold below which hit points don't come back.



I'm toying with something I call the VP/HP system, loosely based off the VP/WP system. The basic idea is, at the start of every encounter, all the PCs get VP equal to their current HP (not including temporary HP). Damage taken during the encounter is taken off VP first, then temporary HP (if any), then actual HP. Taking actual HP damage will of course give you less VP in future combats (until you get the chance to rest and recover your HP, anyway).

I recognize that, as written, this will make the PCs VERY durable. This is intentional. I'm planning for there to be no clerics in the game, and magical healing will be very rare. There will be a healer/buffer type class with access to maneuvers from the Devoted Spirit school, with one tweak: Devoted Spirit "healing" maneuvers and stances add to VP, not HP (they are morale/inspiration based, not actual healing), and a character's maximum VP is capped at his full normal HP (so no extra padding of VP before anyone actually gets hurt).

I'm planning to playtest this with my regular group using pre-generated characters.


----------



## The Souljourner (Feb 15, 2007)

FireLance - we're doing something similar in our new campaign - using reserve points from Unearthed Arcana.  Here's the details:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/reservePoints.htm

-Nate


----------



## hong (Feb 15, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm toying with something I call the VP/HP system, loosely based off the VP/WP system. The basic idea is, at the start of every encounter, all the PCs get VP equal to their current HP (not including temporary HP). Damage taken during the encounter is taken off VP first, then temporary HP (if any), then actual HP. Taking actual HP damage will of course give you less VP in future combats (until you get the chance to rest and recover your HP, anyway).
> 
> I recognize that, as written, this will make the PCs VERY durable. This is intentional. I'm planning for there to be no clerics in the game, and magical healing will be very rare. There will be a healer/buffer type class with access to maneuvers from the Devoted Spirit school, with one tweak: Devoted Spirit "healing" maneuvers and stances add to VP, not HP (they are morale/inspiration based, not actual healing), and a character's maximum VP is capped at his full normal HP (so no extra padding of VP before anyone actually gets hurt).
> 
> I'm planning to playtest this with my regular group using pre-generated characters.




That's pretty much what I did with Brit3E. 

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/vpwp_dnd.htm

In the end, people had so many VPs that keeping track of healing times became a bit of a joke. I tended to skim over that, saying that by the time they got to the next encounter, they'd recovered 100 VP or were fully healed or something similar.


----------



## Shazman (Feb 15, 2007)

I would say that if they have reserve type feats for clerics in Complete Champion, then there will be enough viable options for spellcasters and warrior-types so no major overhaul of the system will be needed.  Want to play with the standard Vancian x number of spell slots per day?  Then play standard clerics and wizards, etc.  If you like more of an x abilities per encounter, then go for warlocks, wizards, and clerics (with reserve feats), martial adepts and factotums.  Doing small things all day plus few dramatically powerful spells per day would let you worry less about resource management without totally negating it.  You could still get tense combats when all of your big spells are gone, but you're not totally hosed after several brutal encounters. That's my two cents anyway.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 15, 2007)

Seeten said:
			
		

> Crusaders can heal with every melee strike, and further, their maneuvers refresh automagically, no actions required, so they can keep healing.




If they have the healing stance, they only heal 2 hit points per attack.  That isn't really that great, and definately not something you want to use as your main healing ability.  As noted, they also have access to strikes that do healing, but that most certainly isn't something they are guaranteed to do/get every round by virtue of their withheld/granted maneuvers.

True that their maneuvers refresh on their own, but you still run into the same problem that you aren't guaranteed the exact maneuver you want at the exact time you want it.

FWIW, I played a Crusader briefly, and using their healing strikes was very touch and go.  One encounter me and my group would be nearly fully healed, and another encounter we barely stayed alive.  And I beleive this was because of the random nature of gaining those healing strikes.


----------



## brehobit (Feb 15, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If they have the healing stance, they only heal 2 hit points per attack.  That isn't really that great, and definately not something you want to use as your main healing ability.  As noted, they also have access to strikes that do healing, but that most certainly isn't something they are guaranteed to do/get every round by virtue of their withheld/granted maneuvers.
> 
> True that their maneuvers refresh on their own, but you still run into the same problem that you aren't guaranteed the exact maneuver you want at the exact time you want it.
> 
> FWIW, I played a Crusader briefly, and using their healing strikes was very touch and go.  One encounter me and my group would be nearly fully healed, and another encounter we barely stayed alive.  And I beleive this was because of the random nature of gaining those healing strikes.



Well...

There are a few tricks here (mostly at higher level) .  Firstly, there is a 6th level stance which heals 4 points/hit to you and a partner for every hit you or your partner make.  Darn handy.  With the right partner (say a 12th level ranger with 6 attacks) you can expect to heal ~12 points/round.  If you or he are fighting mooks and get lots of cleaves in, it gets pretty silly.

Plus, stone power can be used to heal 10 points from your "temp damage" pool I believe.    

Plus you get the healing strikes (a 6th level one heals level +3d6 to all allies on a hit).  

So a crusader _can_ last a long time, and can really buff/heal the party.  I've been working on a Ruby Knight Vindicator who can do a HUGE amount of healing.  Not a lot of damage potential (only 2 real damage stikes) but pretty nice.


----------



## Victim (Feb 15, 2007)

If a crusader wants more reliable healing, they'll have to work against the system a bit and keep their lower level healing moves known and readied.  If you only have the level 6, AoE 3d6+level healing manuever, then your healing is going to be pretty hit or miss.  But if you have that and the level 3 one readied, then the character is much more likely to be regaining some HP.  Combine that with the Stone Dragon DR attacks and a Crusader could have a defensive manuever running every round.

Not that the other healing moves help the rest of the group though.


----------

