Epic6 and BO9S: Your thoughts

[Nifft]

Warblade with greatsword and 18 str: 2d6 +6 damage. ... (int is more useful to a Warblade, he'll probably have his ~2 points higher) and a nicer list and is generally more useful for out of combat interactions. But in combat, it's no contest, not even close. Especially since 1/3 of the monsters in the book aren't immune to power attack and maneuvers.

Rogue can deal his +6d6 at range (with two feats, which E6 makes common). Warblades are limited to melee.

If we're allowed to have more than one high ability score, the Rogue can invest in Strength instead of just maxing out Dexterity, and remove a big chunk of the Warblade's advantage.

But whatever: I personally am okay with there being some classes that are better at combat than others, and IMHO the Rogue should be a middle-of-the-line benchmark rather than the best in the business. If you are NOT better than a Rogue, you are bad at combat.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I wouldn't worry about it much. At low levels, 3.5 casters, especially clerics and druids, are still quite powerful. To me, any imbalance that might arise is not so big that the DM cannot adjust for it by tweaking circumstance, challenge, story, and magic items (even a slight change to crafting wands/potions/scrolls can have a big effect).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Rogue can deal his +6d6 at range (with two feats, which E6 makes common). Warblades are limited to melee.

if feats are common, Warblade can pick up a proficiency... In any case, the humble sling adds str bonus to damage. It's not great, but it's not like Warblade's helpless at range. Rogue's only getting SA within 30 ft, which a warblade can easily close the distance if the foe's on the ground. In the very specific case of a foe that's flying, with no fly spell buff from the partymage, AND he's for some reason staying within 30 ft of the ground, I suppose rogue has a big edge.

If we're allowed to have more than one high ability score, the Rogue can invest in Strength instead of just maxing out Dexterity, and remove a big chunk of the Warblade's advantage.

Even if he invests heavily in str, he's not getting as much bang for it as the warblade. Even if he somehow got an 18 str (which I very highly doubt without really hurting dex, but whatever), rogue's getting +4 damage on the primary and +2 on the offhand. Warblade's getting +6 each attack. And it goes without saying, but any round spent positioning or moving into melee, warblade absolutely obliterates rogue's damage output. These "lost rounds" should at least be equal to the rounds warblade's not using a maneuver.

But whatever: I personally am okay with there being some classes that are better at combat than others, and IMHO the Rogue should be a middle-of-the-line benchmark rather than the best in the business.

Oh, rogue is at best middle of the road, they're fairly underpowered in 3.5. I'm mostly deconstructing your statistics only because I find it odd that you chose such a weak class to use as a benchmark in the first place. And Warblade isn't simply better at combat than rogue, he's leaps and bounds better.

If you are NOT better than a Rogue, you are bad at combat.

Which is the equivalent of saying, "If you as good as a Rogue, you are bad at combat." Nice! Brutal, but true.

 

[NotZenon]

trailblazer E6!! ... i know... i know...

on original topic, if you plan on using the BO9S then i would make sure all the players know that these classes greatly over power the original martial classes, or just downright replace the fighter and the paladin (ranger, barbarian) with there respective BO9S counterparts.

also i would consider giving the mages some rest mechanic, or ability to recharge their powers. (i personally divide the spells into simple/complicated, simple spells come back after a short rest (10min) , and complicated ones are gone for the day once you cast them)

a sixth level wiz or sorc... isn't really that powerful, they are just getting to the point where they don't totally suck, but still don't overwhelm the rest of the game.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not seeing this whole "This is when casters stop sucking!"

It's astonishingly easy in early levels for a spellcaster to kickstart their save DCs to the stratosphere. It isn't until much, much later levels that saves finally manage to catch up. Level one has gems like color spray and sleep, and level two has the hilariously powerful glitterdust.

Certainly, at level 1 casters can only completely dominate combat once or twice between rests, but this idea that casters are just horrible until mid-level doesn't jive.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I am definitely NOT a fan of E6, nor Bo9S, I can say, that I think the two together are 'apples and oranges' - they don't belong together IMO. One is attempting to weaken the overall game, while the other 'bosses' up the martial characters, that seems counterintuitive.

Actually from the way my caster players play, and how we run our games, the disparity between martial and caster doesn't really show up until 15th+ level. Its a matter of spell choices and no '15 minute adventuring day', sessions often do not include a 'campsite', more like 48 hours of grueling fights without an hour available to recharge your spells. Nobody ever SPAMs there magic, ever, as its too likely to end up in another fight with no spells to use if you do.

When I play epic, its E50, not E6. I won't play a definitively ham-strung game.

But I'll just go play a standard game of Pathfinder and not concern myself with either concept. Neither one is of my interest in the least tiny way.

GP

 

[Quartz]

However, I'm a bit concerned about power. To me, BO9S classes are straight up more powerful than most martial classes. I don't have a problem with that. My concern is that at the low levels of E6, I don't feel that martial classes need any help...and I'm concerned spellcasters will be outgunned by the BO9S classes.

Aren't you forgetting Item Creation feats? Your E6 Wizard can have a bandoleer of wands, launching a 6d6 Lightning Bolt every round.

 

[Ydars]

Before I can answer your question Stalker0, I would need to know more about your players.

If you have a group of inveterate power gamers who are experts at building druids/clerics/wizards then you might have a problem with magic versus martial builds, but in my recent E6 game I saw no such problems and we went from levels 1-5 and spent 3 times as long as usual at each level; I still had no problems.

What kind of E6 game are you running; If you allow spells from the spell compendium, for example, then casters become much more versatile as some of the low level spells in there are slightly more powerful than PHB1. Similarly, if you allow all martial feats from all the books, the warrior builds can become more powerful.

Without knowing this sort of stuff, it is impossible to help you, but my prejudice is that BO9S is not a good idea as it will make your martial characters overpowered.

 

[Nifft]

if feats are common, Warblade can pick up a proficiency...

You got half of my point, but ignored the other half. The Warblade can't use his maneuvers at range, while the Rogue can use his sneak attack at range.

Even if he invests heavily in str, he's not getting as much bang for it as the warblade. (...) And it goes without saying, but any round spent positioning or moving into melee, warblade absolutely obliterates rogue's damage output. These "lost rounds" should at least be equal to the rounds warblade's not using a maneuver.

Meh, the Rogue can swap for a ranged weapon, and it's been my experience that ranged attackers get to use their full attacks more than twice as often as melee attackers.

Oh, rogue is at best middle of the road, they're fairly underpowered in 3.5. I'm mostly deconstructing your statistics only because I find it odd that you chose such a weak class to use as a benchmark in the first place.

The Rogue and the Psychic Warrior are the balance benchmarks we (almost) all agreed on back when the 3.5e CharOp board was looking for such.

It's not weak, and it's not too strong: it's the median.

Which is the equivalent of saying, "If you as good as a Rogue, you are bad at combat." Nice! Brutal, but true.

HAW HAW I'M MISINTERPRETING WHAT YOU SAID AND THEN AGREEING WITH MYSELF.

How about we converse like grown-ups instead. Please.

If you are as good at combat as a Rogue, you are adequate.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

I'm not seeing this whole "This is when casters stop sucking!"

It's astonishingly easy in early levels for a spellcaster to kickstart their save DCs to the stratosphere. It isn't until much, much later levels that saves finally manage to catch up. Level one has gems like color spray and sleep, and level two has the hilariously powerful glitterdust.

Certainly, at level 1 casters can only completely dominate combat once or twice between rests, but this idea that casters are just horrible until mid-level doesn't jive.

At level 1 or 2 a caster can't completely dominate combat even once or twice. He can change combat such that it's much, much easier for his party to win, but he can't obviate his party such that they're not contributing.

At high level, he can make some classes feel obsolete.

- - -

I'd argue that with the introduction of [Reserve] feats, a caster should feel perpetually useful starting at level 3. Since E6 makes feats less of an opportunity cost, stock up on [Reserve] feats, and remain tactically useful all day.

Cheers, -- N