Book of Nine Swords -- okay?
- Thread starter brehobit
- Start date
Victim said:
I see related skills for some feats, tactical feats and for some maneuvers as well, so I'm sorry...its not at all like the weapons or just a thematic requirement. I suppose if you don't want to put skill points in the related discipline and use those maneuvers, that is a players choice and they just limit themselves even moreso.
Except for the swordsages, the other classes don't get a large maneuver base as it is, but if someone doesn't want to optimize their character, thats a fair choice.
What I find funny here is Felon does not even own the book, and yet is making impassioned argurements of TOB's merits.
It is perfectly fine to not like the style of the book, BUT web enhancements and Internet Message boards does not get you the the many fine points of balance that exsist in this book.
Bre has the book, but keeps on making statements like Warblades being as effective as Spellcasters with AOO spells. Yet of all the Disciplines that Warblades get I do not see any that give these vaunted AOO. White Raven gives some super charge powers and lots of inspirational abilities. Iron Heart and Stone Dragon let you hit hard for xtra damage. Tiger Claw lets you leap around, and Diamond Mind does what it does.
With signifigant feat expenditure, which could be done more easily with a Fighters bonus feats, a Warblade could probably pick up some of the nifty Burning Wind Manuevers, but most of the really cool manuevers of all of the Disciplines require pre-reqs of 2-4 other manuevers of the same school. Warblade disciplines focus on getting close to something and hitting it once for extra damage, for the most part, pure combat monkey schtick.
A Warblade knows 13 manuevers at 20th level. A Warblade simply does not know enough manuevers to be the super cool do everything character that Bre and Felon make out. Moreover, the number of manuevers readied by a 20th level Warblade is 7.
Each of the character classes in TOB can be used to model a wide range of archetypes and personalities, which to me is a key of good design, these are not like the "samurai' in Complete Warrior.
I think a player playing these classes will have fun, I think they can make an interesting character with a lot of flavor, and I think all of the classes can perform some aspect of the melee monkey role.
I also think that comparing the classes only to Wizards is silly. Monte Cook came out and said the designers of 3.0 recgonized that d4 hp was to little to effectively adventure, but kept it as a sacred cow. The days of the Wizard being the only effective high level spell caster are gone.
Druids (d8 hp, Armor, 2 good saves) with Spell Compendium quite possibly have as good damaging spells as Wizards/Sorc. Druids certainly have the most ability damage spells, and most of their AOO have secondary conditions like rubble and so forth
Clerics (d8 hp, heavy armor, heavy shields, 2 good saves) have some decent attack spells,(Harm, Inflict), and are the best buffers in the game.
Every cleric I have seen has the best AC in the game through heavy armor, shield and self buffing
Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warlock (d6 hp, 1-2 good saves, 2-6 skill points, light armor): enough said, not d4 hit points, can wear armor.
All of the above classes have 3/4 BAB.
The only recent addition to the spell casting ranks with d4 HP is the Archivist. Frankly I would say d4 HP, poor BAB progression is the exception, rather than the rule with spellcasters. Compare a Swordsage without Manuevers to a cleric without spells and you will probably not find much difference...the Swordsage through feat selection and some class abillities will probably be a little better than the cleric, but not by much. Shouldnt we be saying that spellcasters that can melee are steping on the toes of Meleeist...or should we say the fault lies in the design of the melee capacity of the Wizard/Sorcerer...throw backs to an earlier design philosophy that punished the player of a Wizard until fireball level.
It is perfectly fine to not like the style of the book, BUT web enhancements and Internet Message boards does not get you the the many fine points of balance that exsist in this book.
Bre has the book, but keeps on making statements like Warblades being as effective as Spellcasters with AOO spells. Yet of all the Disciplines that Warblades get I do not see any that give these vaunted AOO. White Raven gives some super charge powers and lots of inspirational abilities. Iron Heart and Stone Dragon let you hit hard for xtra damage. Tiger Claw lets you leap around, and Diamond Mind does what it does.
With signifigant feat expenditure, which could be done more easily with a Fighters bonus feats, a Warblade could probably pick up some of the nifty Burning Wind Manuevers, but most of the really cool manuevers of all of the Disciplines require pre-reqs of 2-4 other manuevers of the same school. Warblade disciplines focus on getting close to something and hitting it once for extra damage, for the most part, pure combat monkey schtick.
A Warblade knows 13 manuevers at 20th level. A Warblade simply does not know enough manuevers to be the super cool do everything character that Bre and Felon make out. Moreover, the number of manuevers readied by a 20th level Warblade is 7.
Each of the character classes in TOB can be used to model a wide range of archetypes and personalities, which to me is a key of good design, these are not like the "samurai' in Complete Warrior.
I think a player playing these classes will have fun, I think they can make an interesting character with a lot of flavor, and I think all of the classes can perform some aspect of the melee monkey role.
I also think that comparing the classes only to Wizards is silly. Monte Cook came out and said the designers of 3.0 recgonized that d4 hp was to little to effectively adventure, but kept it as a sacred cow. The days of the Wizard being the only effective high level spell caster are gone.
Druids (d8 hp, Armor, 2 good saves) with Spell Compendium quite possibly have as good damaging spells as Wizards/Sorc. Druids certainly have the most ability damage spells, and most of their AOO have secondary conditions like rubble and so forth
Clerics (d8 hp, heavy armor, heavy shields, 2 good saves) have some decent attack spells,(Harm, Inflict), and are the best buffers in the game.
Every cleric I have seen has the best AC in the game through heavy armor, shield and self buffing
Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warlock (d6 hp, 1-2 good saves, 2-6 skill points, light armor): enough said, not d4 hit points, can wear armor.
All of the above classes have 3/4 BAB.
The only recent addition to the spell casting ranks with d4 HP is the Archivist. Frankly I would say d4 HP, poor BAB progression is the exception, rather than the rule with spellcasters. Compare a Swordsage without Manuevers to a cleric without spells and you will probably not find much difference...the Swordsage through feat selection and some class abillities will probably be a little better than the cleric, but not by much. Shouldnt we be saying that spellcasters that can melee are steping on the toes of Meleeist...or should we say the fault lies in the design of the melee capacity of the Wizard/Sorcerer...throw backs to an earlier design philosophy that punished the player of a Wizard until fireball level.
satori01 said:
It ain't that big of deal, as I do have access to the book. I have a player that came to me all excited about playing a warblade, and couldn't explain where the give-and-take was himself (to his mind, WotC had signed off on the class, making it official--what more is required?).
Thirteen's plenty for a warblade to know, and seven's certainly plenty for a warblade to have ready (considering how little "ready" means for this class).
Warblades are super-tough thanks to their d12 hit dice, have a generous allotment for skills, some spiffy bonus feats, and oodles of other dandy little class features, and on top of that they can deal a megaton of damage thanks to their disciplines. If that's a description of a "super-cool, do-everything character" then there you have it.
Sorry, I don't see where anything you say here or go on to say cements your opinion that comparing damage output between casters (i.e. resource-burning characters) and warriors (i.e. unlimited resource characters) is silly. Btw, Wu Jen also have d4 hit dice.
By and large, new caster classes are just easier to play, not tougher, or better warriors. For instance, the increase in a beguiler or warmage's hit dice to a stalwart d6 is just a mild compensation for losing access to the false life spell, and of course access to light armor just replaces a casting of mage armor. They're more attractive to play for some folks due to their straightforwardness, but certainly they're not getting a marked increase in HP or AC that contends with a warrior.
Divine casters are, of course, designed to look great on paper because they provide the party with support. Even so, I would certainly say without reservation that druids can step all over the toes of warriors when and if they want to. But you know what they say about two wrongs...
Victim
First Post
satori01 said:
13 Manuevers is enough to pick up the top moves from two separate disciplines. Since the warblade can use his stances to fill manuever requirements, he could have some decent moves in a 3rd tree as well. Yeah, so the warblade can only ready 7 moves (plus his 4(?) stances. That's half his total moves known, and probably the more useful half at that. And he can recover his expended moves trivially, or switch out readied moves in a few minutes if he somehow screwed up his selection. By spending a feat (available as a bonus warblade feat, IIRC), they can switch out as full round action. Only 7 moves readied is hardly a real downside, especially since their non manuever attacks will be quite effective.
The super specialists don't have 3/4ths base attack. While they do have d6 HD and light armor, they also lack much of a wizard's defensive options. Warmages have less defense than wizards, IHMO. Beguilers do have some decent defensive spells, but their class features also encourage them to be in melee combat. The warmage seems so more screwed until it gets fireball than a wizard, since it doesn't have the disabling spells to fall back on. Also, since most of the super specialists use more than 1 stat for their powers, they can't focus as much on Con as a pure wizard or sorc, and thus should end up with similar HP.
Clerics and Druids seem to be designed with the assumption that many of their powers will be used to support (mainly by healing) other characters, thus they need an extra helping of class features to make sure that there's something worth playing besides that. Instead having some people feel forced into being the cleric, the idea seemed to be that offering incentives would lead to enough people naturally picking clerics.
On the other hand, I think comparing to spellcasters kind of silly as well, especially since most moves substitute or modify melee stuff, plus the basic frame of the classes seem to be PHB melee guys.
Thanatos said:
IIRC, most of the skill using manuevers are Diamond Mind powers, which all use Concentration.
Warblades don't really have the feat or manuever base to go whole hog on all their disciplines anyway. They could easily support the disciplines they do focus on with 2 skill points per level since they have a wide class list and are supposed to pack a good INT anyway. The way I see it optimizing my character would involve NOT maxing out most discipline skills, and instead putting those points where they'd do the most good regardless of any thematic associations.
And its not like initiator feats are the only ones that require skills. Feats requiring skills isn't a justification for increased skill points. Otherwise no class would have 2 skill points.
------------------------------------------
Really, my problem isn't with melee guys doing damage. I think this thread and numerous others have established that fighters and barbarians can crank out some nasty hits. But warblades aren't really going to lacking in that area either. So while using a standard action manuever in place of a full attack will usually be subpar (I'd expect many full attack substitute moves to be less painful than a straight up full attack as well), on pure standard attacks (while closing) warblades are almost certainly going to come out ahead. And full action moves that augment a character's full attack will take that high damage and boost it further.
RigaMortus2
First Post
Victim said:
You can kind of consider maneuvers as a sort of "super" feat, which do more damage and have added effects than your standard feats do (weapon spec, power attack, melee weapon mastery, battle jump, leap attack, etc.) but at the expense of only being useable once every other round (less actually, since at level 20 there is no way to use all 7 maneuvers in one round). Where as feats that help damage (like the ones I just mentioned) or help hinder an opponent (Improved Trip/Sunder/Disarm etc.) can be used every round.
So what is the difference between a Fighter using his bonus feats to help him deal more damage in a full attack, and a Warblade using his maneuvers to deal more damage in a full attack? A fighter can take advantage of his bonus feats all the time, where as the most a warblade can take advantage of his maneuvers is every other round. And while I admit, there are several maneuvers that enhance damage more than most feats will, I think it balances out since they can only be used every other round.
This isn't meant to necessarily help either side, just a comparrison, but FWIW...
Fighters get a total of 7 character level feats + 11 bonus feats = 18 total
Warblades get a total of 7 character levle feats + 4 bonus feats (which are limited and none of which really add to damage) = 11 feats + 7 maneuvers readied = 18 total. So that is 11 that can be used all the time (as standard feats) and 7 that can be used every other round, and since there is no way you could expend all 7 maneuvers in the same round (due to the limits on standard/full/swift actions) it is spread even more thin.
This is of course assuming we are optimizing our characters for damage output here.
Victim
First Post
My mistake: the feat that lets initiators change out manuevers quickly is not on the warblade bonus list.
Riga, I have 4 basic problems with that argument.
1. Not all feats that a fighter takes add to damage - many of them expand his options in combat without adding to damage, and others are basically controls placed on damage (do less damage to make the opponent do less to you). Many of the feats that do add damage are very situational, such as Cleave, Combat Reflexes, etc.
2. Warblades have access to the same pure damage increasing feats, and will probably be able to take some of the better situational ones. They can also get some of the weaker damage adding feats on their bonus list, like Combat Reflexes. Even using say PHB2 addons for the fighter, the warblade will be able to grab the best stuff. With a 1 or 2 level dip in fighter, they can even get Weapon Supremacy.
3. The magnitude of high level manuevers seems to massively outweigh that of feats. How many feats is the ability to get 3 full attacks every 2 rounds worth? Will a warblade really do 75% of the damage of a fighter on a full attack, considering that they have full base attack and access to the weapon specialization line? That's just a Warblade using Time Stands Still every other round. I'd certainly evaluate that ability as worth more than 1 feat, just as I'd consider Pounce to be outside the bounds of feats as well.
Let's take a sample fighter type with Greater Specialization, Weapon Supremacy, Power Attack, Slashing Flurry - if it's a direct, always on damage booster, he's got it. As in my example before, he's weilding a +5 flaming greatsword with haste. Against AC 35, he does about 150 damage with a full attack. Using the exact same stats, but no feats except proficiency (and Power Attack - you can't remove it on the damage calculator I'm using, but the AC is high enough that optimal PA is zero anyway), he does about 90 damage with a full attack. Let's drop his STR by 2 as well, since warblades need more INT than most fighters. Now we're talking about 75 damage.
So these feats helped a lot, adding a bit more than 50% to the fighter's damage. But I only used up 9 feats. Some of those feats the warblade can't get (Weapon Supremacy), and others can be replaced by items (stupid no Imp Crit/Keen stacking). If our warblade focuses on the specialization line (but not Supremacy or Imp Crit), he's back up to about 113 with his reduced STR. For the purposes of comparison, he doesn't have keen stuff either.
Since we're looking at roughly 50% more full attack damage from Time Stands Still, the warblade has a slight edge in damage now. The fighter has another 8 or so feats to spend, while the warblade has 11 more moves plus 4 stances - yeah, you ignored the stances in your pseudo feat analysis. One easily damage add would be Cleave for the fighter, plus he can take stuff like CQF to avoid nasty Imp Grab monsters. Improved Toughness narrows the HP difference to a single point on average. On the other hand, the warblade could have some choice boosts and could replace all his saves with Concentration checks or grab a reroll for saves, etc. This is pretty close right now, I think, especially since we're on a two round cycle with the specials. Unless we make leadership one of the fighter's feats.
But just running that one move makes up for alot of damage - Time Stands Still doesn't quite eliminate the gap between the weapon master fighter and the one with the same STR but no feats, but it's pretty close.
4. The warblade has other significant class features like weapon retraining, more skill points, bigger HD (altough Imp toughness evens that out, mostly) their INT based stuff. They get their INT bonus when confirming crits, which is kind of like Power Critical (not that that counts for much though). The ability to add INT as insight bonus to attack and damage vs flanked or flatfooted combatants seems like it'd help quite a bit damage wise.
So if you add the two Stances a level 20 warblade can run plus two of their INT based features (flanking and anti-special move) as effective feats, then they're up to 22 feats.
Plus I think warblades would have an advantage on rounds when the characters can only take a single attack.
------------------------------------------
Of course, after looking at the math, I have to say that things are much closer than I thought they'd be. While the warblade is only using 1 manuever, I can't think of something I'd rather spam than TSS. Perhaps the warblade isn't as egregiously overpowered as I thought. A fighter barb mix with the right PHB2 feats might be able to hold up to a warblade.
Dang, now I don't have as much of a reason not to get ToB.
Riga, I have 4 basic problems with that argument.
1. Not all feats that a fighter takes add to damage - many of them expand his options in combat without adding to damage, and others are basically controls placed on damage (do less damage to make the opponent do less to you). Many of the feats that do add damage are very situational, such as Cleave, Combat Reflexes, etc.
2. Warblades have access to the same pure damage increasing feats, and will probably be able to take some of the better situational ones. They can also get some of the weaker damage adding feats on their bonus list, like Combat Reflexes. Even using say PHB2 addons for the fighter, the warblade will be able to grab the best stuff. With a 1 or 2 level dip in fighter, they can even get Weapon Supremacy.
3. The magnitude of high level manuevers seems to massively outweigh that of feats. How many feats is the ability to get 3 full attacks every 2 rounds worth? Will a warblade really do 75% of the damage of a fighter on a full attack, considering that they have full base attack and access to the weapon specialization line? That's just a Warblade using Time Stands Still every other round. I'd certainly evaluate that ability as worth more than 1 feat, just as I'd consider Pounce to be outside the bounds of feats as well.
Let's take a sample fighter type with Greater Specialization, Weapon Supremacy, Power Attack, Slashing Flurry - if it's a direct, always on damage booster, he's got it. As in my example before, he's weilding a +5 flaming greatsword with haste. Against AC 35, he does about 150 damage with a full attack. Using the exact same stats, but no feats except proficiency (and Power Attack - you can't remove it on the damage calculator I'm using, but the AC is high enough that optimal PA is zero anyway), he does about 90 damage with a full attack. Let's drop his STR by 2 as well, since warblades need more INT than most fighters. Now we're talking about 75 damage.
So these feats helped a lot, adding a bit more than 50% to the fighter's damage. But I only used up 9 feats. Some of those feats the warblade can't get (Weapon Supremacy), and others can be replaced by items (stupid no Imp Crit/Keen stacking). If our warblade focuses on the specialization line (but not Supremacy or Imp Crit), he's back up to about 113 with his reduced STR. For the purposes of comparison, he doesn't have keen stuff either.
Since we're looking at roughly 50% more full attack damage from Time Stands Still, the warblade has a slight edge in damage now. The fighter has another 8 or so feats to spend, while the warblade has 11 more moves plus 4 stances - yeah, you ignored the stances in your pseudo feat analysis. One easily damage add would be Cleave for the fighter, plus he can take stuff like CQF to avoid nasty Imp Grab monsters. Improved Toughness narrows the HP difference to a single point on average. On the other hand, the warblade could have some choice boosts and could replace all his saves with Concentration checks or grab a reroll for saves, etc. This is pretty close right now, I think, especially since we're on a two round cycle with the specials. Unless we make leadership one of the fighter's feats.
But just running that one move makes up for alot of damage - Time Stands Still doesn't quite eliminate the gap between the weapon master fighter and the one with the same STR but no feats, but it's pretty close.
4. The warblade has other significant class features like weapon retraining, more skill points, bigger HD (altough Imp toughness evens that out, mostly) their INT based stuff. They get their INT bonus when confirming crits, which is kind of like Power Critical (not that that counts for much though). The ability to add INT as insight bonus to attack and damage vs flanked or flatfooted combatants seems like it'd help quite a bit damage wise.
So if you add the two Stances a level 20 warblade can run plus two of their INT based features (flanking and anti-special move) as effective feats, then they're up to 22 feats.
Plus I think warblades would have an advantage on rounds when the characters can only take a single attack.
------------------------------------------
Of course, after looking at the math, I have to say that things are much closer than I thought they'd be. While the warblade is only using 1 manuever, I can't think of something I'd rather spam than TSS. Perhaps the warblade isn't as egregiously overpowered as I thought. A fighter barb mix with the right PHB2 feats might be able to hold up to a warblade.
Dang, now I don't have as much of a reason not to get ToB.
Victim said:
I still don't think comparing maneuvers to feats is really the right one to make. Maneuvers were meant to be more akin to spells then feats, if ya try to fit them in a feat mold, they are grossly overpowered compared to feats.
Taking even 1 level in fighter will eliminate the warblades ability to get 2 9th level maneuvers and I think that is probably a big sacrifice overall. Also, using TSS every other round assumes you don't use your swift action to change stances, use a boost or use a counter (which, by not using a counter, you could end up having some combat effect happen that prevents you from using it TSS anyway), which is one of those reasons I think it looks more powerful on paper then in actual play.
Incidentally, its funny you mentioned Leadership, as I do give that to fighters along with the landlord feat -- providing it is part of their character concepts, as part of a prerequisite for them.
I really don't like their whole ability to re-train their weapon specialities...that one doesn't sit well with me, so I now allow fighters to do the same thing.
Anyway, thanks for providing that feat chain build...I'm not really good at optimizing fighter types and it was enlightening.
Victim
First Post
Well, I didn't come up with the feat comparison basis, I was just using it in my argument.
The warblade could still use one counter or boost in the same round he uses TSS. Also, if the warblade is using additional moves or stance changes instead of refreshing TSS, then it seems obvious that the value of those moves is perceived to be greater than cycling his best move faster. Otherwise he'd simply ignore his extraneous manuevers to focus on his big gun. Either the warblade is making a mistake, or the extra moves are increasing power (having a 9th level move ready to use doesn't do much good if he's taken out by a failed save), not decreasing it.
Leadership is great for fighters, since they can get a lot of benefit from magical support. Taking Leadership gives the fighter's player a lot more control over that support. It's like vertical integration. It also helps that they can pay the feat for it more easily.
The warblade could still use one counter or boost in the same round he uses TSS. Also, if the warblade is using additional moves or stance changes instead of refreshing TSS, then it seems obvious that the value of those moves is perceived to be greater than cycling his best move faster. Otherwise he'd simply ignore his extraneous manuevers to focus on his big gun. Either the warblade is making a mistake, or the extra moves are increasing power (having a 9th level move ready to use doesn't do much good if he's taken out by a failed save), not decreasing it.
Leadership is great for fighters, since they can get a lot of benefit from magical support. Taking Leadership gives the fighter's player a lot more control over that support. It's like vertical integration. It also helps that they can pay the feat for it more easily.
