Book of 9 Swords:Have you gone back to base classes?

[Tock Chandler]

Sure beats the hell out of "I attack, I do X damage, I attack, I do X damage," as the fighters, barbarians, and paladins usually do.

YMMV, and evidently does.

That would be boring, too. But the normal martial classes in my campaigns never just do that, they have characters with individuality, style, etc. But once 9 Swords comes in, it's just powergaming and tourrettic repetitions. And sudden deaths of important NPCs due to overpowered 9Swordsers.

 

[Nifft]

And sudden deaths of important NPCs due to overpowered 9Swordsers.

This happens in my game without any 9Sworders.

Hate the players, not the game.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Arkhandus]

Aye, that's a problem with the players, not the book.

Core-rules clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards are already more powerful than martial adepts. They just don't come into their own until around 5th-7th level; while martial adepts are effective at all levels. And they just don't have the ability to fight at full power in every battle; but totally dominating a few fights each day is still pretty impressive.

Trust me. I'm running a Land of the Nine Swords campaign on Thursday nights. The party's Cleric has dished out more damage, maxed out his AC more, maxed out his Strength more, stricken more accurately, and survived more easily than any other PC in the group and even most of my NPCs. I was kind of glad when he finally died in melee with an Old White Dragon (or was it a Very Old White Dragon? I forget) after the dragon surprised him and got in one free bite attack, followed by a full-attack on the next round after the Cleric's own full-attack. I scored a crit or two with the Dragon, dropping the Cleric. Then the party exploded the dying Cleric's Necklace of Fireballs at the Dragon's feet, almost killing it. They finished off the Dragon with ease in the following round. But it was worth it to see the Cleric finally meet his doom.

I'm not an RBDM......I just feel better when my carefully-devised NPCs (all of whom I name fully and give some background to, no matter how briefly they'll be in the game) aren't being slaughtered easily by divine spellcasting-buttkickers they can barely hit at all. It was fine that the party's own martial adepts, fighters, and rogues were challenged, but annoying that every NPC died within a few rounds or less because of the Cleric or the Druid in the party.

 

[Tock Chandler]

This happens in my game without any 9Sworders.

Hate the players, not the game.

Cheers, -- N

I'm not saying that 9Swords could never be used well. I'm saying that in my experience it attracts the powergaming side of even otherwise-balanced players. "Holy crap, I can add this and this and this!" And then there's no personality, the character basically just becomes a gun you point at things and it dies. That's terribly boring for me.

And I think the idea that clerics and wizards and such have to advance a few levels before becoming more "powerful" than a fighter is fine. I've never seen that as an unbalance, because there will always be things that the fighter can do that they can't.

 

[Khuxan]

I'm not saying that 9Swords could never be used well. I'm saying that in my experience it attracts the powergaming side of even otherwise-balanced players. "Holy crap, I can add this and this and this!" And then there's no personality, the character basically just becomes a gun you point at things and it dies. That's terribly boring for me.

I have been told by self-professed power gamers that Bo9S discourages power gaming. Those players used to minmax their martial classes because otherwise they simply couldn't compete with the clerics, druids and wizards. They told me it was refreshing to be able to play a melee character that didn't suck without going to the trouble of optimising it.

Why is there no personality in Bo9S characters? If anything, they are ripe with flavour. The character has options, allegiances, and powers that make them the opposite of a gun. To me, a gun is a barbarian or fighter that does nothing but move-attack-kill-move-attack-kill.

And I think the idea that clerics and wizards and such have to advance a few levels before becoming more "powerful" than a fighter is fine. I've never seen that as an unbalance, because there will always be things that the fighter can do that they can't.

When CODzilla beats the fighter at melee combat, there is a grave problem in the game. As I understand it, PH II has helped to rectify this, but it's still disturbing.

 

[shilsen]

I know it's for hyperbole's sake, but you're missing all the things Ftrs, Bbns, and Pals do with feats and class abilities.

In our group (as explained above), a Ftr with feats can hold his own with a Martial Adept....and by "hold his own", I don't *just* mean doing similar damage per round. There are options out there.

And as you said, YMMV.

Actually, I agree absolutely. In my game any of the PHB classes are as functional as the Bo9S classes. I was just pointing out the flaw (as I see it) in Tock Chandler's assertion that somehow the Bo9S classes lead to more boring tactics than regular melee-type classes. As others have noted, it's got much more to do with the player than the class.

 

[Sitara]

I've played (still playing!) a Crusader, and I'm still enjoying him. I almost feel ashamed of enjoying it as much as I do, because in terms of power and versatility, he cuts Rangers, Paladins, and Fighters to ribbons with his array of special abilities. In some ways, he's TOO powerful. (His only weakness is tramping around in full plate armor; he'd drown in a heartbeat if he fell in water.) He has only a +1 magic weapon at 9th level, and yet he deals out damage that would shame a fighter (about 60 damage, with a 20 foot move, in one strike, with a divine surge? YEOWTCH!)

I can definitely see going back to paladins, fighters, etc. for the flavor of the classes, but to be honest, the crusader really does outclass a paladin, even to the point of healing repeatedly in combat.

glad to see you are having fun! However, how can your pc use divine surge; don't you need to burn a turn undead attempt to activate the feat? Or am I thinking about divine vigor...

 

[blargney the second]

Divine Surge is the strike from Bo9S that adds +8d8 damage.

And I'm still waiting to see if that gets errataed...

 

[Nail]

In my game any of the PHB classes are as functional as the Bo9S classes.

..and given what we know about your game, we know your players are having a blast. ...or getting blasted. I forget.

I was just pointing out the flaw (as I see it) in Tock Chandler's assertion that somehow the Bo9S classes lead to more boring tactics than regular melee-type classes. As others have noted, it's got much more to do with the player than the class.

Although I agree that the player has lots to do with how exciting/boring/balanced/etc a combat is, let's not forget the DMs share of the blame. I don't know how many times I've seen a DM House Rule unbalance a game.

Currently - and given my own set of House Rules () - I view the ToB:Bo9S Martial Adepts as balanced. More-or-less. With a slight hedge. 'Cause maybe they need more work....

 

[Nifft]

I'm not saying that 9Swords could never be used well. I'm saying that in my experience it attracts the powergaming side of even otherwise-balanced players. "Holy crap, I can add this and this and this!" And then there's no personality, the character basically just becomes a gun you point at things and it dies. That's terribly boring for me.

And I think the idea that clerics and wizards and such have to advance a few levels before becoming more "powerful" than a fighter is fine. I've never seen that as an unbalance, because there will always be things that the fighter can do that they can't.

You usually play at low levels (7 or less), and your players have just started up the ramp of system mastery.

Am I right?

-- N