Bo9S

[Arkhandus]

Yes. And your wording was poor. That is why some have gotten a negative impression from you. That's exactly what I just said. That your wording in the first post was not so good. I understood it well enough, but that was despite the poor wording; had I not re-read it more than once trying to figure out what you were actually trying to say exactly, I would have just drawn the same conclusions as others. I don't know if that was your intent, but it is what your wording could be interpreted to imply, because it is poor wording. Is my point clear now?

 

[Shadeydm]

I have seen posts on both sides of the fence regarding how balanced the Tome of Battle is or isn't.

Doesnt show bais for or against.

I have noticed that a majority of the those who think the martial Adepts are balanced just fine tend to be playing one or playing along side one.

points out an observation without bias for or against the product.

This got me thinking and left me with this question.

lead in to a question also without bias for or against the product.

If you were a player in a game where Martial Adepts started appearing with regularity as adversaries yet the PCs were not allowed access to those classes or feats etc would you still think everything was fine and balanced?

Asks if players would still feel the product was balanced if it were NPC classes only not bias for or against the material.

Sorry Ark just don't see where your coming from. Not to suggest that the question itself is perfectly worded but it does not contain any bias for or against the product. It simply asks for a different perspective on it. A dumb question deserving of being poohed upon...not even close.

 

[green slime]

But allowing NPC's to do something has nothing to do with "balance".

The job of the DM is to challenge the players.
After the players defeat a challenge, the DM awards appropriate XP.
Whether or not the opponent had abilities accessible to the players or not.

How could it possibly deemed "unfair and unbalanced" to challenge the players?

 

[Shadeydm]

It shouldn't be. Yet I would not be surprised to see some folks who thought the material was fine and dandy when it was working for them sing a different tune if it was exclusivly working against them. Which would beg the question how balanced is the material essentially a different perspective on the material an NPC only perspective.

 

[Sound of Azure]

It shouldn't be. Yet I would not be surprised to see some folks who thought the material was fine and dandy when it was working for them sing a different tune if it was exclusivly working against them. Which would beg the question how balanced is the material essentially a different perspective on the material an NPC only perspective.

I think you're looking at certain comments though only one angle, here.

I would object to a situation where my character could not have access to the martial disciplines while NPCs were allowed to. I don't object because it's unbalanced in the hands NPCs, but because it's a fun and interesting option that is being denied to a character that may otherwise be capable of doing such a thing. If there's an in-game (say, cultural) reason people like the PCs couldn't use the Bo9S stuff, that's one thing.

For me, it would kind of suck to have a situation where I said "Hey DM, what that guy did was great! I'd like my character to find someone to teach him how to fight like that!", and for him to say "Nope, it's NPC only."

So, it's not that it's balanced in PC hands, and not balanced in NPC hands. (To me) It's that it's a situation where only one side has particular tools available, which could cause some resentment.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think you're looking at certain comments though only one angle, here.

I would object to a situation where my character could not have access to the martial disciplines while NPCs were allowed to. I don't object because it's unbalanced in the hands NPCs, but because it's a fun and interesting option that is being denied to a character that may otherwise be capable of doing such a thing. If there's an in-game (say, cultural) reason people like the PCs couldn't use the Bo9S stuff, that's one thing.

For me, it would kind of suck to have a situation where I said "Hey DM, what that guy did was great! I'd like my character to find someone to teach him how to fight like that!", and for him to say "Nope, it's NPC only."

So, it's not that it's balanced in PC hands, and not balanced in NPC hands. (To me) It's that it's a situation where only one side has particular tools available, which could cause some resentment.

So you think PCs should be allowed to choose the Assasin Prc because NPCs might have it?

 

[Rolzup]

So you think PCs should be allowed to choose the Assasin Prc because NPCs might have it?

Absolutely. Nor do assassins HAVE to be evil, silly class requirements aside. Assassin works great for a commando, for a hunter, for *ahem* an exterminator....

That said, the assassin in MY game is...well, he's an assassin, frankly.

 

[green slime]

Absolutely. Nor do assassins HAVE to be evil, silly class requirements aside. Assassin works great for a commando, for a hunter, for *ahem* an exterminator....

That said, the assassin in MY game is...well, he's an assassin, frankly.

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Apparently, the rules disagree with your point of view. That said, I'd have no difficulty with a player playing an assassin. The character would have to be evil, though, with all tyhe baggage that entails.

 

[Mallus]

Apparently, the rules disagree with your point of view.

Pssst... the rules aren't the game. They're just a common set of tools used to help create the game.

Anyway, D&D classes are pretty transparently just ability packages. They stopped effectively being archetypes a long time ago.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Apparently, the rules disagree with your point of view. That said, I'd have no difficulty with a player playing an assassin. The character would have to be evil, though, with all tyhe baggage that entails.

But then, according to that definition, where do you place adventurers?

And to be an assassin (i.e. hired for killing people) is evil, but shouldn't require being evil, at least from my point of view. Half of the adventurers are hired to kill goblins and stuff, yet they don't need to be evil to do that (though they might turn evil, if they're killing innocent people).

And the assassin is basically a class, that is good at one-hit kills. But so is a smiting, charging paladin. Or a scry-n'-die wizard. Yet they don't need to be evil to disintegrate people.