Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
My Gut Reaction to Book of Nine Swords
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 3063912" data-attributes="member: 9053"><p>This, I think is the crux of the matter, so let me speak to it. This isn't an easy question with a yes or no answer. I think there isn't just one magical point where you can add up the values for a class and use it to balance against another one. Rather, I think there's a range of value from say...bard to cleric/druid. I think this is why most attempts to deconstruct D&D classes down to a point-buy ultimately fail, because there isn't a magic forumula you can use to make all of the classes add up to the same total.</p><p></p><p>When 3.0 was designed, feats were the new kid in town. The fighter is the king of feats, and I believe that the designers somewhat over-estimated how effective feats would be. Over time, a lot of the newer classes were given bonus feats. Usually, like with the Warblade, these were from a relatively small list that didn't include the very best feats. At some point, classes started getting bonus fighter feats, which to my mind started to seriously devalue the class.</p><p></p><p>Now when 3.5 was released, there were already complaints about the fighter, but there were nowhere near as many of them as with, say, the haste spell. The designers took the approach of fixing the things they saw as broken, and also listened to the loudest voices at the time. As a result, the fighter got some token new feats (greater focus/specialization) and the intimidate skill. A lot of the other classes got much more attention.</p><p></p><p>But how useful are feats? Well, the fighter feats are supremely customizable, which I think the designers rated very highly (again, perhaps too highly). At the same time, something that you can custom build can be either too good, too bad or just right. So when you're talking about how powerful a fighter is, you're talking about a moving blob of a target. Is it a power attacking/shock trooper fighter? Or is it a two-weapon lots-of-attacks fighter. Or still yet, is it a general fighter that doesn't stray far from the feats in the PHB? Those three types of fighters are at VERY different power levels.</p><p></p><p>With the evolution of D&D, we have a class that, when 3.0 was initially released, was near the middle of the power scale, and I think over the last few years it has slipped down a bit. If you had designers like Mike Mearls redesign the fighter now, I think it would be given a few additional features. In many ways, I think the Tome of Battle is a testing ground for a new style of fighter, as a matter of fact.</p><p></p><p>Those are a lot of words to justify this:</p><p></p><p>I think the Warblade has a much more precisely defined power level than the fighter. A properly built fighter, with access to all of the feats from WotC products can be more effective than a Warblade. An average built fighter will probably be less effective than a Warblade. A fighter who takes nothing but toughness will be much less effective. And I think that's okay. Just like an uber cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter. A Warblade belongs in a campaign with a fighter in much the same way that a bard belongs in a game with a cleric, rogue or wizard. Almost no one would say the bard is more powerful than those other classes, but it is still within the same range of power that D&D classes occupy. </p><p></p><p>With your analysis below (which I understand) you're trying to say that the Warblade has everything better than the fighter. There's a problem with that which is that the Warblade has a predefined set of abilities for the most part. The feats they can select are not nearly as useful as the full range of fighter feats, and also won't ever change. They also don't include feats from sources like the complete books or the PHBII.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, the maneuvers, which are powerful, are also very specific in what they can do. What the designers did was value that choice of a wide range of abilities as something pretty big. As you get more and more classes, customization of a character by feats becomes less valuable, because there's more of a chance that what you want is already there in a custom character class.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So while I might quibble with you over the math, you're right: by a straightforward approach the Warblade seems to be ahead of the fighter. The thing is, the designers have told us that the feature of choice is worth something, and they valued it highly.</p><p></p><p>A fighter will be better than a Warblade in circumstances where the fighter isn't trying to do the same things as the Warblade (such as be an archer) or when the fighter is very smart about feat choices from the whole range of WotC books.</p><p></p><p>--Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 3063912, member: 9053"] This, I think is the crux of the matter, so let me speak to it. This isn't an easy question with a yes or no answer. I think there isn't just one magical point where you can add up the values for a class and use it to balance against another one. Rather, I think there's a range of value from say...bard to cleric/druid. I think this is why most attempts to deconstruct D&D classes down to a point-buy ultimately fail, because there isn't a magic forumula you can use to make all of the classes add up to the same total. When 3.0 was designed, feats were the new kid in town. The fighter is the king of feats, and I believe that the designers somewhat over-estimated how effective feats would be. Over time, a lot of the newer classes were given bonus feats. Usually, like with the Warblade, these were from a relatively small list that didn't include the very best feats. At some point, classes started getting bonus fighter feats, which to my mind started to seriously devalue the class. Now when 3.5 was released, there were already complaints about the fighter, but there were nowhere near as many of them as with, say, the haste spell. The designers took the approach of fixing the things they saw as broken, and also listened to the loudest voices at the time. As a result, the fighter got some token new feats (greater focus/specialization) and the intimidate skill. A lot of the other classes got much more attention. But how useful are feats? Well, the fighter feats are supremely customizable, which I think the designers rated very highly (again, perhaps too highly). At the same time, something that you can custom build can be either too good, too bad or just right. So when you're talking about how powerful a fighter is, you're talking about a moving blob of a target. Is it a power attacking/shock trooper fighter? Or is it a two-weapon lots-of-attacks fighter. Or still yet, is it a general fighter that doesn't stray far from the feats in the PHB? Those three types of fighters are at VERY different power levels. With the evolution of D&D, we have a class that, when 3.0 was initially released, was near the middle of the power scale, and I think over the last few years it has slipped down a bit. If you had designers like Mike Mearls redesign the fighter now, I think it would be given a few additional features. In many ways, I think the Tome of Battle is a testing ground for a new style of fighter, as a matter of fact. Those are a lot of words to justify this: I think the Warblade has a much more precisely defined power level than the fighter. A properly built fighter, with access to all of the feats from WotC products can be more effective than a Warblade. An average built fighter will probably be less effective than a Warblade. A fighter who takes nothing but toughness will be much less effective. And I think that's okay. Just like an uber cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter. A Warblade belongs in a campaign with a fighter in much the same way that a bard belongs in a game with a cleric, rogue or wizard. Almost no one would say the bard is more powerful than those other classes, but it is still within the same range of power that D&D classes occupy. With your analysis below (which I understand) you're trying to say that the Warblade has everything better than the fighter. There's a problem with that which is that the Warblade has a predefined set of abilities for the most part. The feats they can select are not nearly as useful as the full range of fighter feats, and also won't ever change. They also don't include feats from sources like the complete books or the PHBII. Similarly, the maneuvers, which are powerful, are also very specific in what they can do. What the designers did was value that choice of a wide range of abilities as something pretty big. As you get more and more classes, customization of a character by feats becomes less valuable, because there's more of a chance that what you want is already there in a custom character class. So while I might quibble with you over the math, you're right: by a straightforward approach the Warblade seems to be ahead of the fighter. The thing is, the designers have told us that the feature of choice is worth something, and they valued it highly. A fighter will be better than a Warblade in circumstances where the fighter isn't trying to do the same things as the Warblade (such as be an archer) or when the fighter is very smart about feat choices from the whole range of WotC books. --Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
My Gut Reaction to Book of Nine Swords
Top