Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[RigaMortus2]

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.

How is it a big difference? The balancing factor is how often you get to do it, not the action type it takes. It could be a move action, free action or swift action for all it matters, as long as it is balanced by being only useable once a round (since we demonstated a vanillar fighter can do that much in one round) or every other round (as it currently works).

Again, why do you think the fact that it is a Standard Action to perform is the part that makes it "unbalancing"?

 

[RigaMortus2]

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?

Fly, Invis, Haste, Polymorph, Wish, Animal Buffs (Bull's Str), Dispel Magic, Wall of X, Teleport/Dimension Door, ability to have the right spell in the right situation, and so on...

You'd basicly be stuck throwing buffs and dispelling stuff.

Throwing buffs and dispelling is PART of what spellcasters do. What is the big deal in that? And damage is ALWAYS useful no matter who is doing it. Just because a Warblade is doing damage doesn't mean the Wizard (or any other class for that matter) is prohibited from dealing damage.

Why is everone so insistant that the moment a melee class deals damage, there isn't anything left for the spellcasters to do? I don't get it. If you think in a standard party of 4 characters (Warblade, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) that the Warblade is going to deal enough damage and kill all the enemies on the battlefield and leave none for the Rogue, Wizard or Cleric, then you must play in totally different games than I do.

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

I think if you are comparing straight class builds (level 1-20 Warblade vs level 1-20 Fighter) then you are correct. But this book was built with multiclassing in mind. It is evident by the character level = 1/2 initiator level. Seriously, when is the last time anyone has played a straight "warrior" base class all the way through from levels 1 to 20? It doesn't happen very often. People dip a level or two into Fighter for the bonus feats, people dip into other classes (including prestige classes) for their class features which compliment what they can already do.

Finally we have some classes in ToB that are great for a few level dips, or great to play all the way through w/o multiclassing. How is that broken or unbalaced?

 

[brehobit]

How is it a big difference? The balancing factor is how often you get to do it, not the action type it takes. It could be a move action, free action or swift action for all it matters, as long as it is balanced by being only useable once a round (since we demonstated a vanillar fighter can do that much in one round) or every other round (as it currently works).

Again, why do you think the fact that it is a Standard Action to perform is the part that makes it "unbalancing"?

The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack. If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack. But the WB can still do the same amount of damage. BIG advantage in my experiance.

Mark

 

[brehobit]

Finally we have some classes in ToB that are great for a few level dips, or great to play all the way through w/o multiclassing. How is that broken or unbalaced?

A warblade with d8 HD, 2 skillpoints/level and 3/4 BAB would still be very very playable. (I'd say about right actually). That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Mark

 

[comrade raoul]

The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack. If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack. But the WB can still do the same amount of damage. BIG advantage in my experiance.

This is absolutely correct. Moreover, people are comparing pretty optimized fighters against very standard warblades. A warblade built for dealing damage--with Time Stands Still, say, improved by some of the Tiger Claw boosts that give extra attacks--will quickly outstrip any traditional melee build I can think of.

 

[Thanatos]

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 )

That would be me...glad someone noticed lol.

The comparison everyone was using to show that the +100 wasn't a big deal was to a fighter or barb doing a full attack. If the fighter or barb have to move (and often they do) they can't pull off the full attack. But the WB can still do the same amount of damage. BIG advantage in my experiance.

You're also assuming the warblade will use his swift action every other round to regain this ability and that might also not be possible (maybe he saves it for another ability, maybe he blows it using an immediate action on something else). It might also not be what he does, choosing to save his swift action for another use. So it may not be such a BIG advantage afterall.

If you are going to start throwing variables in there "well the fighter may have to move" well, in all fairness...something may prevent the warblade from saving that swift action for reclaiming spent maneuvers.

 

[Thanatos]

A warblade with d8 HD, 2 skillpoints/level and 3/4 BAB would still be very very playable. (I'd say about right actually). That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Mark

Not as a front line figher really, that would be relgating him to the side lines as a skirmisher, not the warrior he is supposed to be.

Just because something is playable, doesn't mean its a good class...we have lots of examples of things that are "playable" but absolutely suck to play and aren't any fun.

So no, I don't think that, in a nutshell, is the problem...

This is absolutely correct. Moreover, people are comparing pretty optimized fighters against very standard warblades. A warblade built for dealing damage--with Time Stands Still, say, improved by some of the Tiger Claw boosts that give extra attacks--will quickly outstrip any traditional melee build I can think of.

I don't necessairly agree we are talking about "very standard warblades" The comparison was against +100 damage (+ normal melee damage) every other round. I'd be interested to see an actual set of builds for comparison between a well made fighter, barbarian and warblade. I'm not sure I'd agree the warblade would quickly leave the other two in the dust either from what I have seen so far.

 

[Banshee16]

That would be me...glad someone noticed lol.



You're also assuming the warblade will use his swift action every other round to regain this ability and that might also not be possible (maybe he saves it for another ability, maybe he blows it using an immediate action on something else). It might also not be what he does, choosing to save his swift action for another use. So it may not be such a BIG advantage afterall.

If you are going to start throwing variables in there "well the fighter may have to move" well, in all fairness...something may prevent the warblade from saving that swift action for reclaiming spent maneuvers.

Many of the martial adept abilities require swift actions.....if the warblade has some of them readied, they may not be able to reclaim their spent maneuvers because they're using their swift actions to use counters, or something like that.

I tend to agree with your statement above. This thread has seen strong arguments on both sides of the issue. That would seem to imply that it's balanced. I *wanted* to dislike the book, as I'm not a big anime fan. And I still dislike the more mystical abilities, such as throwing fire, etc. But the abilities that come with Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and even in some cases Tiger Claw are not as overtly mystical as others.

Instead, they seem to be able to portray a combat-focused character who is not simply a brawler, but one with strong focus and dedication to their path, who treats it more as an art than your ordinary fighter does.....and when you start taking into account that many of the abilities use up the character's actions for the round, preventing a full attack, then it starts seeming not as bad.

I wonder if this will be similar the initial arguments about the Mystic Theurge when the 3.5 DMG was released....that on paper it looks horribly unbalanced, but in play, isn'? That was an example of a fix to a multiclassing issue I'd noticed before 3.0 was released, when they were revealing all the "preview" info about how it would work.

Banshee

 

[kigmatzomat]

It does not in fact say "followed by a standard action to attack". Here's a quote from the class description:

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round. You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers

All it says that you have to follow the recovery up with a melee attack, which certainly doesn't abridge the ability to make a full round of attacks.

I believe the key phrase is "a melee attack." There are multiple actions that can yeild "a melee attack." A standard action - standard attack. A full round action: Charge & coup de grace. As long as you limit yourself to making "a melee attack." It would seem rather contradictory to allow you to make a full attack action when it specifically prohibits a double move ("use a standard action to do nothing else").

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I personally think people are too concerned with balance issues. Sure, there are obviously stronger or weaker class and abilities, but isn't the game supposed to be about fun?