A Warrior, a Weaponmaster and a Swordsage walk into a tavern ...

[Shadeydm]

None are deal breakers however I would prefer 2 and 3 were not default assumptions of the game but rather add on for those who favor that playstyle.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I consider the Warrior a Dealbreaker if it's the only option I have for playing a "martial dude". Too boring for me. If it's just one of two or three options, it's okay; i can simply ignore him.

 

[Alukane]

None of them is a dealbreaker to me, but I don't like daily powers for martial characters. I'm looking forward to see Combat Superiority and the combat manouvers module, I got great expectations for both.

 

[steeldragons]

Just adding another voice to the "No dealbreaker" choir. Per se. Though I did vote for Warrior and Weaponsmaster to be the options for core. Preferably with the Weaponsmaster as the "optional rules added" variety.

Swordsage then could be a PrC or "Advanced Theme" or whatever they'll call them.

But I see no reason you shouldn't be able to do all three somehow within the system...and their presence or lack thereof would not be a "dealbreaker" for me.

--SD

 

[Dice4Hire]

I try not to limit myself enough to have dealbreakers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have deliberately avoided the word "Fighter" because it's way too loaded.

That's probably wise.

Breaking the laws of the in-game world is okay for magic. Daily use limitations are a problem, but are barely tolerable for magic, mainly for legacy reasons. They definitely have no place with any of the "real" elements of the game. It's very important to be transparent about what things are. Having supernatural abilities and calling them out as such is great (the third one). Not having supernatural abilities is also great (the first one). Having supernatural abilities and trying to deceive people about it is one of the few things that I think could be considered a "dealbreaker".

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'm assumed that you mean including the class is a deal breaker. In this case I voted none are, but I personally wouldn't be interested in playing number 1.

I know that I care much more about what is excluded that what is included. There will always be stuff I don't want to play in the books. The important things is that the stuff I DO want to play IS in the books.

 

[Salamandyr]

It seems to me the warrior and the weaponmaster can exist side by side with each other as long as both can contribute. One's just a streamlined version of the other. That sounds like exactly that 5e is trying to do.

Swordsage no. Swordmage sure, why not?

The difference mechanically isn't much, but thematically it's important to me. I'm okay, in fact, enthusiastic about character classes like the swordmage who combine martial training with magical expertise to create a fighting style that might include flight, or teleportation, or making your sword burst into flames.

What I don't like the idea of, is a class that gains those abilities explicitly through training long and hard with the sword. If it's possible in the world, to train with the blade so long and hard that you can make it burst into flames or balance on bamboo branches, what does it say about the swordsman who can't do those things? It says he didn't train long and hard enough.

A magical swordsman who is explicitly a blend of martial and arcane training I'm a big fan of (though what I prefer to the swordmage is the old-style fighter/magic-user).

If your intention is to have a Kung Fu/Wuxia style campaign where enough martial training really does let you fly, deflect a hundred arrows at a time, or any of the other things that you see in Asian fantasy movies (and a lot of Hong Kong inspired western fantasies as well), that's cool too, but then you don't need the swordsage then either. You need to give those powers to the warrior and weaponmaster.

 

[Stormonu]

By description, I don't have any problem with them. As long as they are about the same ballpark for "fun to play" and can dish out decent attacks without being underpowered or overpowered, I'm fine*.

I might not play the Swordsage or the Weaponmaster myself, but I'm sure I'll find someone in my group who'd enjoy them.

* Now granted, in a 3E setting, for me the afore-mentioned Swordsage would be right out as I really can't stand the Bo9S. But that's because of the nature of the book itself, not that a wuxia fighter or a fighter/mage is a bad thing.

 

[drothgery]

I voted all three were okay, but I wouldn't play the first one, and I doubt it would be balanced with the other two.