Has the wave crested? (Bo9S)

[pawsplay]

I'm really trying to understand your point of view here; You're saying that the ToB is somehow outside the conventional Sword and Sorcery genre that "basic" D&D represents?

Cheers,

/N

Substantially. It's like nothing I ever imagined when I started playing D&D, and it's certainly not a milieu I would imagine from reading D&D inspired fiction.

It's wire fu/Final Fantasy type stuff.

 

[Henry]

Adamantine has a hardness of 20 and 40 hit points per inch... the same hit points as iron, in other words, with more hardness. So he needs to do 140 points of damage.

+100 damage from maneuver, +40 from Power Attack... provided his weapon does at least one point of damage, a 20th level warblade with any two-handed or one-handed weapon wielded in two hands can easily cut an adamantine wall in half.

Ah, I see -- I was thinking adamantine had a lot more hit points than iron did... anyone is going to get through that wall eventually, as long as they're doing at least 21 points of damage per hit. I thought we were comparing the two, not combining them -- although that would have a very effective way to drill through.

 

[jrients]

Yes, there are guys with longswords in the illustrations. I wasn't mentioning a specific weapon and armor combination because I'm personally attached to that combination, but as something symbolic of the swords-and-sorcery genre.

I think I'm about as informed as I'm going to be without spending money on a product I do not believe I want.

I had similar misgivings about 9 Swords, but in actual play I've found that a Warblade is at least as good a Conan as the core Barbarian.

 

[Nepenthe]

It's wire fu/Final Fantasy type stuff.

Not more than the core Monk is. It just looks like the whole book is like that, because a large number of the disciples are just for the swordsage (and some PRCs).

But I guess me repeating that won't make you change your mind... AFAIK the flavour difference between the swordsage and the other two classes has been repeatedly pointed out in every thread on the subject, including this one.

Cheers,

/N

 

[Razz]

There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?

See, something like that my players would see as "cool". And would want to emulate stuff like that. Watching FFVII: Advent Children helped inspire Bo9S combat with them, too. According to the way D&D works, it's not about what the DM wants and it should NEVER be about what the DM wants. It should be about what the players want. Or you quickly lose players. Unless your players go for stone-age super-realistic stuff than more power to you.

 

[Arkhandus]

Core barbarian: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual + 8 raging = Str 40, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, full attack action = four attacks against the adamantine wall for an average of 79 damage per hit = 316 damage to the wall, -60 points for the adamantine's hardness, so 256 damage.

Warblade: half-orc, level 20, Strength 18 + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 belt + 1 manual = Str 32, full power attack, vicious +5 greataxe, weapon specialization, Strike of Perfect Clarity = one attack against the adamantine wall for an average of 175 damage to the adamantine wall, -20 for the hardness, so 155 damage.

I am failing to see how the core-only half-orc barbarian is anything but superior to the warblade at chopping through adamantine walls in 1 round. Of course I don't have the book on hand so I can't factor in whatever Boost the warblade might add in, but it's not likely to make up the difference of 101 damage. Though I'm forgetting if the warblade would also get greater weapon specialization, which is a pittance of extra damage by comparison.

Sure, the Warblade could potentially chop it apart in one hit compared to the barbarian's 3 hits (the 4th is really unnecessary), but it would be a difference of about 1-2 seconds in D&D combat times (Warblade chops through with a strike in 3-1/2 seconds of focusing and making a single attack, Barbarian chops through in 5 seconds with a rapid series of 3 attacks).



And, really, there are only a few disciplines that are really magical in their results. Some of the maneuvers from Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven might be supernatural or the like, but most of them are not, IIRC, and few if any would even appear supernatural to an observer. Although, Tiger Claw has a few that are definitely unusual, but no biggie, they don't have to learn the few really unusual TC maneuvers and stances. Devoted Spirit for a Crusader makes perfect sense with its divinely-granted mystical effects, it's just like a variant of the Paladin, using moments of divine inspiration and brief surges of divine power rather than spells.

And as mentioned, the core Monk and suchlike already present similar supernatural martial arts stuff in D&D. It seems like most folks who dislike the Bo9S from a flavor or style standpoint just don't like any kind of non-European influence in D&D, and are monk-haters already as a result. I can understand not liking the added complexity of manuevers, though it's really just giving warriors something fun to do besides full-attack or spring attack. But I can't fathom the rabid Eurocentrism that some people have regarding D&D. Even Greyhawk itself has some notable Middle Eastern influence in its setting, by way of the Baklunish people, their nations, and some aspects of their faith.



Also, the brokenness of a few maneuvers does not make the whole book broken; sure White Raven can be broken, and a few maneuvers from other disciplines perhaps, but so can some of the spells in the core rules. Really, core spells are more likely to cause problems with a DM's campaign/adventure design (Scry/Buff/Teleport anyone?) than martial maneuvers will; the maneuvers are almost exclusively combat effects, barring a few Shadow Hand maneuvers and some others, many of which aren't even normally available to Crusaders or Warblades.


And regarding things maneuvers can do that spells cannot: like what? A wizard's Time Stop is generally as much or more effective than a 17th-level Swordsage or Warblade using Time Stands Still, depending on what the wizard does with his bundle of extra turns. And unlike the wizard, the swordsage or warblade is just attacking really quickly in a series of rapid hits, not even special hits, just flailing away rapidly; not actually stopping time to unleash a barrage.


And an aside: Who doesn't like Final Fantasy?!?! I'll kick your butts for that!!! j/k

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

See, something like that my players would see as "cool". And would want to emulate stuff like that. Watching FFVII: Advent Children helped inspire Bo9S combat with them, too. According to the way D&D works, it's not about what the DM wants and it should NEVER be about what the DM wants. It should be about what the players want. Or you quickly lose players. Unless your players go for stone-age super-realistic stuff than more power to you.

Both DM and players should be happy, of course.

But when the DM wants Exalted and the players want Harvest & Hernia, or vice versa, conflict will ensue.

Brad

 

[MerricB]

There are a number of ways of doing some really insane stuff, like +100 to damage. Has it ever occured to you that maneuver could be used to cut an adamantine wall in half?

I'm just interested: how much high level play have you seen? I haven't seen that much (just the final few sessions of my AoW campaign), but the 17th-20th level fighter in our group was doing a significant amount of damage each round; at time up to 300 points in one round, aided by haste and power attack. Against that, the +100 damage isn't so great.

Cheers!

 

[Kmart Kommando]

My swordsage in AOW was doing maybe 75 damage on a single strike, or about 140 on a full attack, if the target wasn't really hard to hit.
Meanwhile, the Ranger/Monk dip was hammering out 250 on a full attack with his bare hands, and the Wizard/Master Transmogrifer, using the examples straight out of the PrC section for his form, was belting out 350+ damage per round, most of the time missing only on a 1 or 2. And also had an AC about 15 points higher than my swordsage. :\ Even the Fighter/Outcast Champion was putting out 180 damage on a full attack.

I could do the most on a single hit, due to a few choice maneuvers, but my output was far behind the power curve. It wasn't until I picked up that broken amulet from BoED that halves your melee damage taken and shares it with the hitter, and the Robilard's Gambit feat, then my swordsage became a powerhouse melee machine, but mostly the monsters stopped attacking me and just pelted me with spells.
I did, however, have a few maneuvers that would save a party member for one more round, such as the one that prevented a target from making a full attack for one round.
My favorite one though, was the Setting Sun throw maneuver, where you trip them, throw them up to 60ft, and hurt them and anyone in the way. Only got to use that one once though, most things were way too big to throw. That orc barbarian wasn't happy though.

 

[Destil]

I'm just interested: how much high level play have you seen? I haven't seen that much (just the final few sessions of my AoW campaign), but the 17th-20th level fighter in our group was doing a significant amount of damage each round; at time up to 300 points in one round, aided by haste and power attack. Against that, the +100 damage isn't so great.

Cheers!

Haste is another good one to mention, one more attack you miss out on with strikes (likewise with weapons of speed).

Also, in the adamant wall example, give them both an Adamantine greatsword to ignore hardness and the disparity is even greater.