Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
Now, I would like to tackle the myth that Tome of Battle is broken or overpowered. This may be painful, but I believe its something that needs to be done.

Oh, I so had hopes that Ghola would put to bed all concerns about ToB once and for all. Such assertiveness, such confidence...He's gotta have the goods.

But nope, all I see the same old equivocation we've been seeing for page after page. We've discussed the value of making a single concentrated attack versus a full round of iterative attacks. We've dealt with the fallacy of treating easily-recovered maneuvers as if they were a limited, slot-based resource like spells. And worst of all, there's too many "I would considers" and "I don't thinks". Your self-imposed mission was to dispel myths with facts, not share your opinions.

That's all I have for now. I'm sure if presented with more "complaints" I could provide an endless flow of counter builds and examples.

That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was so hoping for closure. :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Solarious said:
Fighters (and most other melee classes, to a certain extent), on the other hand, have always been traditionally underpowered, with a surplus of feats and nowhere for them to go.
smrtgmp said:
Ummm...melee guys were capapble of dishing out far more damage than wizards long before this book came out. Have you played around with any of the stuff in CW?

Why don't you two crazy kids get together and hash out which of the above you want to sign off on? Because that little dance of the ToB defenders is just a little fatiguing now.

"Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."

"Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."

And of course, if you rebutt one, the other chimes in to reply about how wrong you are as if you were the only who initially adopted the position you're rebutting. My feet hurt.
 

So, has anyone actually taken a Fighter and a Warblade, and actually directly compared them in a campaign yet? Because all this back and forth is nice, but unless you see it in game it really means nothing. Somethings look better on paper then they actually end up.

I'd like to see someone who hates the Warblade as unbalanced make an optimised warblade and compare it to someone's optimised fighter. (Using just SRD Core and PHBII)
 

Victim said:
If you do the same damage at 15th that you did at 10th, then you screwed up or are playing with extremely limited resources.

Enlighten me, please. Beyond the acquisition of better magic items, how exactly do melee combat specialists appreciably and reliably increase their average damage output per round as they progress from, say, 8th-level to 15th-level?

- Is it because they get a couple more attacks on a full-attack action? OK, these help a little, but the extra attacks generally only hit if the opponent has an AC that is way below average for an opponent with a CR commensurate to your character level.

- Is it because of power attack? This helps a little, again, but only if you are fighting opponents that have an AC which is way below average.

- Is it because of AoO specialization? I'll readily admit that AoO specialization is one of the best ways for a melee combat specialist to increase his or her damage output per round, but it does so by increasing your number of attacks per round, not your average damage per attack. It's also not strongly linked to level advancement. I can acquire feats like Karmic Strike early in my career and pretty much top out my true damage-dealing potential but for a few minor boosts here and there.

- Is it from feats like Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Mastery? To a monster with 200+ HP, your ability to deal an extra +4 or +6 points of damage per hit is pretty much a joke!

- Is it because you can play a Frenzied Berserker? Yeah, I just love playing characters that will kill their own party members!

- Is it because you can create an uber-charger? Maybe. But this means that all melee combat specialists will need to be leap attacking shock troopers in order to hang with the spellcasting classes.

So please teach me. I'd really love to know how I can reliably and dramatically increase my average damage per round as I advance in level without relying on my DM to hand out some "phat magic loot" or without relying on one of a select few ultra-optimized one-trick-pony builds, like uber-chargers, and gatling-gun AoO specialists.

As a melee combat specialist, the only way I can think of to do this reliably is by playing one of the martial adept classes from ToB.

RigaMortus2 said:
So which camp are you in now?

A) ToB classes are over powered
B) ToB classes are just fine
C) ToB classes make the Fighter base class obsolete
D) ToB classes step on the toes of spellcasters, minimizing their roles in a party (namely combat and damage dealing)
E) Any combination of the above

I'm in the camp of those who, like Mike Mearls, always thought that melee types were underpowered in D&D 3.x beyond around 8th level, and who is happy as heck to have the new options from ToB to help remedy this situation.

P.S. To those of you who argue that spellcasters are severely constrained by their limited resources per day, I say two things:

1) Wands, Staffs, and Scrolls: invest or create your own!
2) When the spellcasters' resources become depleted, call for the team to make camp! If you're in the middle of a dungeon, pick up a scroll of the 1st-level rope trick spell or something similar. This makes the limitation largely irrelevant in almost all instances. How many teams insist on soldiering on long after their spellcasters are all but useless? Such teams are begging for a TPK! DMs will only occasionally force the issue because they want the players of the spellcasters to have fun too. It's the same reason you rarely see rust monsters running around in a dungeon.
 
Last edited:

Felon said:
That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was so hoping for closure. :cool:

Yeah, we can all be argumentative, but apparently we can't all spell it!

You're dishing it to everyone else, so I assume you can take it. :cool:
 

Felon said:
Why don't you two crazy kids get together and hash out which of the above you want to sign off on? Because that little dance of the ToB defenders is just a little fatiguing now.

"Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."

"Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."

And of course, if you rebutt one, the other chimes in to reply about how wrong you are as if you were the only who initially adopted the position you're rebutting. My feet hurt.
Underpowered. Warrior types were only really powerful when you either added some spellcasting so you could cast some power self-only buffs (I'm looking right at you, Wraithstrike), or you completely optimized them to become wreaking machines. To be completely honest, two handed weapon power attack fighting was one of the few ways a real warrior type could compete.

You want to be a finesse-type fighter? You don't have a snowball's hope in the Plane of Elemental Fire without sneak attack dice. Two weapon fighting? Again, with the extra dice of damage required to make it worthwhile. Sword and sheild? The Balor laughs at your puny defences, and tosses you aside with a Quickened Telekenisis before moving along to munch on nice, soft spellcaster flesh. Or try anyways.

And even when you did two handers, you needed to invest in numerous feats that required something that begins with 'charg' and ends with 'e'. And you -had- to plan out your character, each and every level, making sure you qualified for this tactical feat or that. You needed to mix various splatbooks together so they synergized and produced stupidly fantastic results which makes people cry out: broken!

And now.... with the PHBII and the ToB... you don't have to anymore.

You don't need to be able to cast Evan's Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion in order to matter inside of combat. You don't have to use Hold Monster to keep those pesky minions from escaping with the McGuffin. You can make a finesse warrior without rogue levels or PrCs. Two weapon fighting is valid again!

You aren't shoehorned into a sterotype of a Greatsword weilding wave-of-meat. It's a breath of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned.
 

Solarious said:
And even when you did two handers, you needed to invest in numerous feats that required something that begins with 'charg' and ends with 'e'. And you -had- to plan out your character, each and every level, making sure you qualified for this tactical feat or that. You needed to mix various splatbooks together so they synergized and produced stupidly fantastic results which makes people cry out: broken!

Q.F.T.!
 

Felon said:
Oh, I so had hopes that Ghola would put to bed all concerns about ToB once and for all. Such assertiveness, such confidence...He's gotta have the goods.

But nope, all I see the same old equivocation we've been seeing for page after page. We've discussed the value of making a single concentrated attack versus a full round of iterative attacks. We've dealt with the fallacy of treating easily-recovered maneuvers as if they were a limited, slot-based resource like spells. And worst of all, there's too many "I would considers" and "I don't thinks". Your self-imposed mission was to dispel myths with facts, not share your opinions.
Well that's what I get for not reading the whole thread, I guess. Now to address the issue of a single concentrated attack, versus a full attack:

Merits of a Full-Attack:
1. Mixes well with power attack
2. There are many ways to boost the number of attacks in a full attack (TWF, Mongoose Series Maneuvers, Haste, Speed Weapons, etc)
3. Can be preformed at the end of a charge, when pounce is available.

Cons of a Full-Attack:
1. Can't move much before initiating one UNLESS you have pounce.
2. Iterative attacks have a increasingly low probability of success

Merits of a Single Attack:
1. Typically one can move and then deliver the attack, this is not true for all single attack maneuvers however.
2. Can attach disabling effects or damage dice to the attack with maneuvers.

Cons of a Single Attack:
1. Will never, ever, reach the damage potential of a full attack. 15d6 is about the best you can add on to an attack (that's only 53 damage on average). By the time you have access to a maneuver which can add 15d6 to an attack, you'll probably have 3 iterative attacks. A pouncing charger with leap attack and shock trooper can add ~+50 damage to all his iterative attacks at that level.
2. You can only use your uber single attack once per encounter (until you recover it), but you can full attack as many times as you like.

Conclusion: There are merits both ways, but if you want to look purely at damage, a full attack (with proper feats) beats out a powerful single attack hands down. Even the movement restrictions can be alleviated with the help of abilities like pounce or shadow pounce.


That's all? Disappointed now. Sure, you can provide endless contradictions. We can all be arguementative. I was so hoping for closure. :cool:
That's the point. It's hard to combat vague and generalized statements. If you want to actually compare the two systems, you need to come up with hard numbers and an actual build. Only then can I effectively counter whatever anti-ToB sentiments are floating around out there.

For an example of how such comparisons may be done, I'll link you to a comparison between Stormguard Warrior and Power Attack that I did on the CO boards:
Mathematical Comparison: Stormguard Warrior vs. Power Attack

The conclusion of that thread: power attack is still the ultimate damage machine. Since fighters have the most feats, they can invest quite heavily into power attack related feats and come out on top damage wise much more rapidly than a ToB character could.
 

Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
Well that's what I get for not reading the whole thread, I guess. Now to address the issue of a single concentrated attack, versus a full attack:

Merits of a Full-Attack:
1. Mixes well with power attack
2. There are many ways to boost the number of attacks in a full attack (TWF, Mongoose Series Maneuvers, Haste, Speed Weapons, etc)
3. Can be preformed at the end of a charge, when pounce is available.

Cons of a Full-Attack:
1. Can't move much before initiating one UNLESS you have pounce.
2. Iterative attacks have a increasingly low probability of success

Merits of a Single Attack:
1. Typically one can move and then deliver the attack, this is not true for all single attack maneuvers however.
2. Can attach disabling effects or damage dice to the attack with maneuvers.

Cons of a Single Attack:
1. Will never, ever, reach the damage potential of a full attack. 15d6 is about the best you can add on to an attack (that's only 53 damage on average). By the time you have access to a maneuver which can add 15d6 to an attack, you'll probably have 3 iterative attacks. A pouncing charger with leap attack and shock trooper can add ~+50 damage to all his iterative attacks at that level.
2. You can only use your uber single attack once per encounter (until you recover it), but you can full attack as many times as you like.

Conclusion: There are merits both ways, but if you want to look purely at damage, a full attack (with proper feats) beats out a powerful single attack hands down. Even the movement restrictions can be alleviated with the help of abilities like pounce or shadow pounce.



That's the point. It's hard to combat vague and generalized statements. If you want to actually compare the two systems, you need to come up with hard numbers and an actual build. Only then can I effectively counter whatever anti-ToB sentiments are floating around out there.

For an example of how such comparisons may be done, I'll link you to a comparison between Stormguard Warrior and Power Attack that I did on the CO boards:
Mathematical Comparison: Stormguard Warrior vs. Power Attack

The conclusion of that thread: power attack is still the ultimate damage machine. Since fighters have the most feats, they can invest quite heavily into power attack related feats and come out on top damage wise much more rapidly than a ToB character could.

Sorry to disagree, TG, but your thread doesn't really prove that much about the efficacy of the Power Attack feat. If it proves anything at all, it proves that uber-charger builds can more than hold their own against most martial adept builds. The problem with this line of reasoning is that you're comparing extremes rather than norms. Unless you believe that uber-chargers represent the norm as far as melee builds go, then your examples obscure the fact that, without AoO specialization or charge/pounce cheese, the damage potential for the average melee combat specialist really blows compared to his/her average ToB counterpart. You're also playing right into the claims of the naysayers on this thread who argue that the pro-ToB group on this thread is divided into two contradictory camps:

CAMP #1: "Warriors were underpowered. ToB gave them a much-needed boost."

CAMP #2: "Warriors have always been more powerful. ToB didn't actually increase the power level."

Both camps can't be correct! With the arguments you put forth, you seem to be arguing for the beliefs of camp #2, but I know you believe melee combat specialists have always been underpowered relative to most of the spellcasting classes at higher levels.

Tleilaxu_Ghola said:
And yet: Mage >> Melee

ToB has one lacking: it doesn't have anything that boosts skills or roles outside of combat. For that reason, magic is still more powerful.

This is really the argument that we should be driving home against these guys.

I therefore still contend that a typical sword and board melee build absolutely blows compared to a typical spellcaster build beyond around 8th level. If we are going to discuss issues of balance between the classes, then we need to examine a full spectrum of builds which, taken collectively, comprise a bell-shaped normal distribution in terms of efficacy and damage potential. I hold that the median of this normal distribution for fighters really blows compared to the median for spellcasters. Uber-chargers and AoO specialists are not the median but rather the extremes, and comparing extremes is unreliable in statistical analysis. The ToB gives a much-needed boost to the median for melee combat specialists relative to the median for spellcasters.
 
Last edited:

Actually I'd say that I fall into a different camp:

Warriors have always been weak because they've always lacked versatility, Tome of Battle doesn't change this fundamental truth much. Tome of Battle provides an alternative route to massive damage outside the traditional AoO/Charging specialists.

The end result: Warriors are still warriors post ToB. They still hit stuff and still take hits. It's just that now warriors can hit stuff in so many more ways than they could before. In the end they still take hits like warriors used to: with AC & Hitpoints.

Mages are compltely unaffected by Tome of Battle, because their niche (versatility and area-effect damage) hasn't really been invaded. Gish have received a boost by Tome of Battle, but gish were always powerful, so it's kind of like a drop in the bucket for gish. Lets not kid ourselves, ToB definately gave warriors a boost. But, as I said, this boost is a boost in the same direction that they were always headed. ToB just gives you more ways to kill stuff by hitting it, but you still have to hit it with your sword.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top