My Gut Reaction to Book of Nine Swords

[SteveC]

There is a lot of latitude for you to quibble with the math and still leave the WB way out in front.

But we do agree, the WB is ahead of the fighter.

A massive break in power consistency is a problem regardless of the designers statements.
I was once told by a designer that his class was perfectly well balanced, and then that very designer turned around and said that it wasn't his fault that his class was a battle axe and the sorcerer was a dagger. (in the very same post)

Actually we don't necessarily agree on this. I said that an optimized fighter will be ahead of a Warblade, but an average one will lag behind, in certain areas. This does not constitute a "massive break iin power consistency," any more than a bard does measured in terms of a cleric. Or a fighter does measured in terms of a cleric. There is a range of power that the D&D classes have in straight-up fights, and it can be a significant one. I think the discrepency in power between a Warblade and our fighter is less than the power levels between other core classes, and I'd be willing to play any of the core classes and don't feel I'd be under powered.

I don't see relegating the fighter to archer as an acceptable solution.
Plus, A warbladeX/fighter1 will pretty much kick the butt of a fighterX+1 as an archer.
A Warblade can also make good feat selections (he does get several bonus himself) AND he can make good manuever selections AS WELL, and many of the manuevers offer the same or better options that the fighter gains through feats.

I don't believe you. The Warblade really doesn't have class features that make him a good archer...at least that I saw. I have been known to miss things, so if you're thinking of something specific, let me know and I will certainly retract that statement.

A Warblade can certainly make good feat selections, but he must pick from a static list that will never change, at least for his bonus feats. The bonus feats he can pick are pretty "meh," you have combat reflexes, improved initiative and the save boosting feats...not exactly what most builds rely on to be uber. Combat Reflexes is nice, but that marks you as a fighter with a higher than average dex, which means fewer points in other ability scores. The Warblade maneuver selection is really the classes bread and butter, but I have to say again that there are some nice abilities (who wouldn't take +100 HP on a melee attack?) but they are limited in the ways I've been talking about earlier. A fully tricked out melee character with the feats from the PHB II and tactical feats can be just as effective in melee.

I think we're actually not that far from agreeing on this class (if you can believe that after all that I've written). I think the one CRITICAL issue for the Warblade is how often he can get maneuvers back. It seems like there may not be enough of an opportunity cost to recovering maneuvers. I'll eventually see it in play, and I may make some adjustments at that point. Frankly, I'd advise you and others to try the class and make adjustments if it actually works out to be overpowed in practice, rather than just in theory.

I'd make the same suggestion if a player wanted to play a pure bard in a game with twinked out characters, but in the other direction.

--Steve

 

[helium3]

This means in your games:

---Paladins don't heal wounds by transferring divine energy by touch
---Barbarians don't increase massively in Strength and Constitution by willing forth their primal instincts and energy
---Monks don't land safely from falling from any height, heal their body with ki, strike with power greater than two-handed weapons with their body, and so on
---Rogues dodging fireball blasts that encompass 20 ft. around them
---Warriors wielding hefty looking double-axes
---Wizards *gasp* evoking a greater source of power to create impossible effects in the world around them, like they're gods
---Psionicists who alter events around them with the power of their own minds

And the list goes on. I mean, after all, none of this is "realistic." :\

Some people have a very, very narrow list of what "is" D&D and what is not. Any attempt to expand beyond said list is doubleplusbadthought. It's best to not take such opinions very seriously.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Since it bears repeating: Your personal taste is your own affair. I'm not trying to diss you because you like Fantasy Flavor X and don't like Fantasy Flavor Y. But you keep saying "D&D is X and not Y", and that just ain't so.

Justin, you are a little out of line here.

Airwalkrr is expressing his opinion. That is how the thread is titled, and you even quote him saying 'IMO'.

You are dissing him on something that he isn't saying, and I'd rather not see it again, OK?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I couldn't agree more, except that I don't think giving them the swordsage's method of recovery is the right way to go. It goes too far. Sitting out a full round is the absolute least fun thing for players to do, and I would actually consider changing the swordsage's recovery to be easier, just so they aren't "losing a turn" before I would nerf the warblade that far.

Well, it is no worse than the psionic classes having to use a full round to regain their psionic focus and get back their special abilities, is it? They don't feel that they are 'loosing a turn', rather they feel like they are 'recharging for the next strike'.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Regarding the Warblade, I just refreshed my memory of the class from the WotC website article, and funnily enough, if it had a d10 hp I would say that it was a fine 'intelligent fighter' class - even with no manouvers at all! - .

The full BAB, decent skill points (with a list that includes tumble!) bonus feats and INT-based class features would make for a nice package just on their own - I'd happily play a PC that was like that.

(which in turn, makes me wonder how much extra oomph those manouvres and stances give...)

I wonder what it would be like if you ONLY had stances, and not the other stuff?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also, I noticed this feat outlined on the WotC site

Vital Recovery
Two martial maneuvers
Heal 3 + level points of damage when you recover a maneuver

How does the book state this works for a Warblade when he recovers all his manouvres?
a) he can't use this feat
b) he heals 3+level for recovering one or more manouvres
c) he heals 3+level for each manouvre(!?!)
d) something else?

Cheers

 

[Geoff Watson]

Also, I noticed this feat outlined on the WotC site



How does the book state this works for a Warblade when he recovers all his manouvres?
a) he can't use this feat
b) he heals 3+level for recovering one or more manouvres
c) he heals 3+level for each manouvre(!?!)
d) something else?

Cheers

Why not read the rest of the feat description?

It can be used only once per encounter.

Geoff.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Why not read the rest of the feat description?

It can be used only once per encounter.

Geoff.

That still seems like a terrible cop-out--you can just start up an encounter with one of your allies and heal up to full in no time.

 

[MerricB]

That still seems like a terrible cop-out--you can just start up an encounter with one of your allies and heal up to full in no time.

Err... as a DM I'd disallow that. How does it define "encounter"?

Cheers!

 

[Ulrik]

That still seems like a terrible cop-out--you can just start up an encounter with one of your allies and heal up to full in no time.

You mean, as in actually attacking one of your party-members? I can see them taking that real well.

And if you're talking about an encounter in the sense of talking to them, I'd think any DM (worth his salt or not) would strike that down real quick. The Devoted Spirit maneuvers talk about hitting an 'opponent' who threatens you, I think.