Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[Sithobi1]

+18 BAB, +8 Str(16+4 levels+6 enhancement(probably a manual, but whatever)), +5 Vicious Flaming Shocking Frost Keen Falchion(DMG expects half the gold on one item, 200k is less than half an 18th level character's expected wealth)=+31 before feats
Feats:
1odge
1:Mobility
1:Weapon Focus(Falchion)
2ower Attack
3:Spring Attack
4:Weapon Specialization(Falchion)
6ower Attack
6:Improved Buckler Defense
8:Greater Weapon Focus(Falchion)
9:Cleave
10:Melee Weapon Mastery(Slashing)
12:Greater Weapon Specialization(Falchion)
12:Shield Specialization
14:Slashing Flurry
15:Great Cleave
16:Combat Expertise
18:Whirlwind Attack
18:Weapon Supremacy(Falchion)

Attack:31+2(Greater Weapon Focus)+2(Melee Weapon Mastery)-1(Buckler)+1(Boots of Speed)=34-5 Slashing Flurry=29
Damage:2d4(5)+12(Str)+5(Enhancement)+5d6(Flaming, Shock, etc)(17.5)+4(Greater Weapon Specialization)+2(Melee Weapon Mastery)=45.5 damage

You guarantee your first attack by taking 10, then your second attack(haste) has a 75% chance, as does your third(Slashing Flurry). Add +5 to your fourth attack for a 75% chance of success, then your fifth attack has a 25% chance and your last has a 5% chance of hitting.
Before crits, you have (100+75+75+75+25+5)/100*45.5=161.525 damage.
Edit: Sorry for the miscalculation. Even higher damage.

 

[Victim]

Just plugging a level 18 fighter using a +5 flaming (or whatever) Greatsword with 28 STR (half orc, 16 base, +6 Belt, and +4 from levels) with Greater Spec (and the requirements) and Improved Critical shows about 140-135 (depending on whether or not optimal PA is used) damage per full attack against AC 35 while hasted. It'd be easy to do better with non core stuff, barbarian levels, an inherent STR bonus, etc. Switching out for 4 barbarian levels for rage and using Slashing weapon mastery and Slashing Flurry from PHB2 pumped damage up to 196.

Forty points vs 140. The difference between our numbers probably explains all the different opinions about fighters. Of course, plugging pawsplay's numbers into my spreadsheet shows that his longsword fighter did about 80 damage per full attack without power attacking (although it also has greater focus and spec). Power Attacking isn't so great for 1 handed weapons, especially on full attacks.

If the warblade never learned to deal with invisible and/or flying creatures, then how'd he get to be 18th level?

 

[pawsplay]

Sithob1's build includes buffs for haste, and takes 1d6 damage per hit delivered. And like I said, I was being conservative. I didn't even bother to come up with 18 levels of feats, I just stuck with the basics. I don't see a huge disparity.... I think we have now covered a reasonable pole at each end.

Does anyone still feel +100 damage every other round is overpowered? If so, I can start on a goliath psychic warrior and see what I can come up with...

 

[RigaMortus2]

If the warblade never learned to deal with invisible and/or flying creatures, then how'd he get to be 18th level?

1) He has the Run feat?
2) Because of the valueable contributions by his party members. Casters can dispel invis numerous ways. They can also dispel flight OR make the warblade flying. The point is, the warblade would have to rely on his allies for these things, just as they have to rely on him to take and deal the damage. See, class synergy. This is why martial adepts are not overpowered or unbalanced compared to spellcasters There is still a need for spellcasters after all. Everyone is happy .

 

[Sithobi1]

The haste came from boots of speed, which every respectable full-attack dependent character should have before level 10.

 

[Victim]

1) He has the Run feat?
2) Because of the valueable contributions by his party members. Casters can dispel invis numerous ways. They can also dispel flight OR make the warblade flying. The point is, the warblade would have to rely on his allies for these things, just as they have to rely on him to take and deal the damage. See, class synergy. This is why martial adepts are not overpowered or unbalanced compared to spellcasters There is still a need for spellcasters after all. Everyone is happy .

Yeah, relying on teammates is a valid tactic, assuming you've got reliable ones.

However, I don't think class interdependence = class balance. Some people may not have wanted to play the warblade's targeting and delivery system or other support roles.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Upon further examination, the +100 damage manuever does seem somewhat overpowered. At level 20, +100 seems okay since the extra wealth at those levels can add quite a bit to a fighter's damage. But at 18th, it should probably be somewhat less, perhaps 70 or so. Then it can scale up to 100. Of course, I can't recall any other manuever that scales directly with character level, they seem to be pretty flat (excepting their use of attack, damage and skills). So maybe a flat 85 would be okay. On the other hand, +100 damage is a nice round number, and sounds pretty neat, even if it is a little too powerful when first available.

 

[pawsplay]

My sketch pad math suggests +75 damage for vanilla attackers. I can live with +100, though. A well-tuned fighter can certainly outperform a mediocre one to a much greater extent than one +100 damage guy can out do another.

 

[Xyvs]

That might just have been sane, but this book was not about balance. It was about giving munchkins wet dreams for weeks on end.

Yo Felon,

I think we can agree to disagree. No harm in that. But surely we can have a friendly debate without the munchkin aspersions.

I think what is part of the issue is that it seems you feel party roles should be very clearly defined and that any crossover is not good. Tanks should be tanks. Healers should be healers. Blasters should be blasters. And so forth. But there are definitely parties where the tank wants to do more than just park in front of the mage and take hits. Tanks sometimes want the spotlight too (some see tanking as the "menial labor" of adventuring). And clerics very clearly want to do more than just heal. Now we have healers (i.e. druids and clerics) that can tank, blast, and melee. And ToB is giving us some stylized melee classes that can do some cool stuff without having to sit still and full attack. I love that the idea of a mobile melee class is now doable and balanced with the mobility and firepower of other classes. Even then, casters (especially wizards) still have the utility department all sown up.

As an aside, I tend to agree that if people are arguing vociferously for and against then things are probably balanced. (Voiced by someone else here whose name I have just forgotten )

 

[brehobit]

Sithob1's build includes buffs for haste, and takes 1d6 damage per hit delivered. And like I said, I was being conservative. I didn't even bother to come up with 18 levels of feats, I just stuck with the basics. I don't see a huge disparity.... I think we have now covered a reasonable pole at each end.

Does anyone still feel +100 damage every other round is overpowered? If so, I can start on a goliath psychic warrior and see what I can come up with...

It isn't the +100 points every-other round that is broken. It is the 100 points of damage as a standard action. BIG difference.

 

[brehobit]

I agree with Felon. The notion that a full-bab, d12 type can "keep up" with a wizard in terms of special abilities and area attacks and the like is crazy. Why play he wizard? You'd basicly be stuck throwing buffs and dispelling stuff.

ToB is very overpowered. It makes other warrior classes basically useless. At higher levels, maybe that is needed/justified. But at lower levels? Would anyone really take a 5th level barb, or fighter over a 5th level swordsage or warblade? Anyone?

Mark