Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[brehobit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.