Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[Thanatos]

Is it being suggested that a power-attacking barbarian with greater rage is such an impotent joke that he can just be ignored? Sorry, that's a tough sell.

It wasn't all that great a strategem before (see above), except that the arcanists are the guys who'll have 60 hit points or so at a level where characters can suffer 60 hit points of damage even after a successful save. You go for the arcanists because they're the squishiest targets, not because keen holy greatswords hit like wet rags.

Well, good thing I am not trying to sell you anything. I never said fighters or barbarians were impotent jokes, I said they were not as big of a threat as the mages and healers in a fight where its gonna be close -- a well placed AoE or well timed heal can change disaster into victory and rarely is it the melee alone that manage to turn the tide.

The fact they are such soft targets and have powerful healing or arcane might capable of changing defeat into victory is precisely why taking them out very quickly is a very standard and good strategy. You can read through the story hours and see it implemented time and time again.

Now, we've got martial adepts that are as tough as any warrior class that's come before them, if not tougher, plus they do a ton more damage. Their gap that you perceive as being filled served a purpose, just as the hit-point gap and AC gaps between warriors and mages do. Give and no take.

But the whole "I'm better than you, but that means I draw more bad guy aggro" has always been a pretty weak sophism in gaming (q.v. those 1e cavaliers).

I don't think they do a ton more damage...seems to me, they do burst damage, which can often make them seem more threatening then someone pounding away with steady damage, but very little big burst damage. The adept classes are still giving and taking, just not by the same exact formula thats been previously used to death.

Being better then someone has nothing to do with drawing agro....its perception of threat that does in rpgs, that perception usually centers on the arcane casters first, then healers, then melee...when you blur the line it changes the standard and accepted tactics of the game. That weak sophism usually only works reliably in computer games.

 

[Sithobi1]

I think we've proven that the martial adepts don't deal more damage than a decently-built fighter, so there's not much difference, especially if you take into account the fact that a fighter is considered to be on the weak end.

 

[Victim]

I don't think they do a ton more damage...seems to me, they do burst damage, which can often make them seem more threatening then someone pounding away with steady damage, but very little big burst damage. The adept classes are still giving and taking, just not by the same exact formula thats been previously used to death.

I don't really see warblades as giving up sustained damage to go along with their burst damage; they can have pretty much all the damage adding feats a fighter has, just not the special tricks. How exactly are crusaders or warblades shorted on sustained damage?

While melee characters don't have tide turning tricks, I think it's often their actions that establishes what the tide is.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm really okay with an 18th level warblade doing 50% more damage than an 18th level fighter. The fighter has so many combat options; nothing except something like a psychic warrior or OA samurai can even come close to touching a fighter in terms of always having something to do in a fight. Just breathing funny around some fighters can draw an attack of opportunity, others are as much a threat in ranged as in melee. Some of them can boost their AC to insane levels. Others can throw buckets of d20s, waiting for those automatic 20s to stick. I think the fighter and the warblade can co-exist.

That said, I still would prefer they didn't, just because I don't dig the 9 swords stuff.

 

[Thanatos]

I don't really see warblades as giving up sustained damage to go along with their burst damage; they can have pretty much all the damage adding feats a fighter has, just not the special tricks. How exactly are crusaders or warblades shorted on sustained damage?

Sure, they can take fighter feats -- but thats not to completely serve them as well as taking feats designed for martial adept classes in a number of examples, especially with regards to prereq's for tactical feats. They get alot fewer feats then fighters do overall and really have more to spend them on.

You're twisting my words, I enver said anyone was "shorted" on sustained damage, but the potential for the martial adept classes and burst damage is better then your averagely designed fighter (probably not your optimally designed fighter, but I don't know for certain; but I've never really seen 'burst' style damage fighters). At least thats my opinion, based on what I have read and seen examples of so far.

While melee characters don't have tide turning tricks, I think it's often their actions that establishes what the tide is.

Never did I say anything of the sort...I was pointing out why they are often not taken out first as a standard tactic like arcane casters and healers.

 

[Felon]

I think we've proven that the martial adepts don't deal more damage than a decently-built fighter

This has not been in fact been proven.

especially if you take into account the fact that a fighter is considered to be on the weak end.

Considered by whom? Many have asserted in this thread that a properly built fighter is capable of fantastic damage. Enough, apparently, to make the +100 damage discipline look tame--or so I'm told.

 

[Felon]

You're twisting my words, I enver said anyone was "shorted" on sustained damage, but the potential for the martial adept classes and burst damage is better then your averagely designed fighter (probably not your optimally designed fighter, but I don't know for certain; but I've never really seen 'burst' style damage fighters)

If by "burst" fighter you mean a fighter that deals much more damage in one round than another, then I submit that two-weapon fighters or anyone else who relies on multiple attacks qualifies as a burst fighter. Do a ton of damage one round, then chug up to the next enemy and make a single attack.

 

[Alceste]

After wading my way through this thread, here's my question: has anyone actually had a character from this book in play? There are a lot of different character options that seem to be either too powerful or too restrictive, but when you see them in play, they work out just fine.

I'd like to hear some actual examples rather than just rehashing "100 HPs! OMG" and "here's how my fighter can do the same thing..." comments.

Anyone?

--Steve

My only exp with characters from the book is with a crusader in my Saturday game. The other fighter type in the party is a paladin. Both are 12th level (the crusader being a replacement). So far, the crusader seems to be more about helping fellow party members setup attacks/defend with the paladin being better at straight damage dealing (divine might, divine sac, etc).

My exp with well built high level dps fighters/barbs around 17 to 18 level is that 175 points a round is easily reachable with moderate armor classes with haste. With a bard helping out the numbers will reach much higher. Unfortunately high level bards are pretty rare.

Even so, the warblade feels overpowered based on his d12 die type and his too easy method of recovery. I can not see a reason that an intelligence based fighter needs a d12. The warblades method of recovery means that each opponet will likely face his entire arsenal of powers. Imho, the warblade needs a nerf to bring him back into line with the other classes in the book.

 

[Thanatos]

If by "burst" fighter you mean a fighter that deals much more damage in one round than another, then I submit that two-weapon fighters or anyone else who relies on multiple attacks qualifies as a burst fighter. Do a ton of damage one round, then chug up to the next enemy and make a single attack.

That is essentially what I mean by a burst fighter, but I don't agree that a fighter just making multiple standard attacks or attacking with a second weapon really qualifies as burst damage.

 

[Thurbane]

It's just not what I'm looking for in D&D. I don't want your kung fu in my peanut butter.

Best-quote-ever!

Personally, I blame it on a combination of Pepsi-max, extreme sports and Dragon Ball Z...