Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[FireLance]

If you think that fighters don't really measure up to the warblade at high levels, here's a simple fix: give fighters of 4th-level and up an initiator level of fighter level -2 for martial maneuvers, and allow them to take the Martial Study feat one extra time for every six fighter levels. This means a 6th-level fighter can know up to 4 maneuvers with an initiator level of 4 (up to 2nd-level maneuvers and stances), a 12th-level fighter can know up to 5 maneuvers with an initiator level of 10 (up to 5th-level maneuvers and stances) and an 18th-level fighter can know up to 6 maneuvers with an initiator level of 16 (up to 8th-level maneuvers and stances).

Under these rules, a fighter who delays the acquisition of his sixth maneuver until 20th level (he can use his fighter bonus feats to take Martial Study) will have an initiator level of 18 and can take Strike of Perfect Clarity or Time Stands Still as well (assuming he meets all the other prerequisites).

 

[Felon]

Wow, that's a lot of venom and vitriol spilling out up there. Jeez folks, careful you don't get any bile on the keyboard.

Hehe. Personally, I find all of the fallacies being tossed around to be pretty outrageous, and that's hard to conceal. I thought party roles were well-understood. Some guys have a defensive role, some an offensive, and some support the two in some fashion. But now I hear that's not the case; anybody who doesn't do as much damage as everybody else is underpowered, period. The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.

Then I read Mike Mearls absurd quote expressing his pleasure that ToB has received unanimous praise, and giving it a big fat pat on the back because all that praise confirms some half-baked notion that warriors need a boost. He cites as an example a 2WF fighter build that won't get better no matter how many feats he layers on. Which is damned odd, because there are a number of feats that improve 2WF builds. A fighter could keep tacking'em on darn near forever. Yes, you need more books. How's that special? Until the Spell Compendium came out, wizards also had to stuff their bags--and even after that, there's now the PHB II.

 

[Sithobi1]

The side of beef with the d12 hit die and high AC should be on par for damage with the wimp who gets a d4. Anything less is an injustice.

Actually, I think a decent barbarian build will do as much damage or more against a single target as a wizard will, given a full attack.

 

[Thanatos]

Hang on. Where does it say a warblade can't make iterative attacks? The warblade can recover his maneuvers as a swift action followed immediately by an attack, or he can wave sword around as a standard action. Don't mix the two up.

"...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"

I wasn't saying he couldn't make any other attacks, but that he could initiate any maneuver based attacks. If I worded it confusingly, I apologize. Sometime what I post is clear to me, but muddy to others.

You're absolutely right. We really shouldn't make this kitchen-sink cake-n'-eat-it-too nature of ToB is all about taking top place as party nuker. We should also point that disciplines hog other roles as well, including buffing and healing. Total overlap everywhere with no burnout. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. So broken.

They by no means replace party buffers, healers or top nuker spots. None of their disciplines can be used in the manner with which it would even be capable of completely replacing clerics or wizards or rogues. Could they stand in the fighter spot? Certainly...but again, there are other classes in the game which can stand in the spots of traditional roles as well. With all the new classes Wizards has put out, there is an overlap of ALOT of roles...and thats been common throughout the history of the game as well as more classes were added.

Powerful? no doubt. overpowered and broken? matter of opinion. One in which I obviously don't share...one thing I've seen pointed out here and on the WotC boards is that when so many people are so well divided across lines like this, it often indicates its pretty well balanced for a standard style campaign (which by no means indicates it is good for everyones campaign).

 

[Felon]

Followed by a standard action to attack. He can't make a full attack during the round when he recovers his maneuvers.

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 (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon).

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.

 

[pawsplay]

However the martial adepts are as overpowered compared to fighters as Warmage is to sorceror.

You just made me cough! Sorcerer versus Warmage? Get out of town! Let's see a warmage turn invisible and fly.

Let me position myself in this debate, since Felon has requested.

I believe:
- Fighters are modestly powered, but not underpowered, and are the best at what they do, which is to say, take a greatsword up against a dragon and not die.
- Barbarians are pretty nice, but take a power dive after level 10 or so relative to other character, including fighters. BAB is only so much, and linear increases will only take you so far. To stay in the game, you need self-buffs, or you need feats.
- Melee characters don't need to be powered up to be a competitive choice with casters. Powerful as casters may be, they simply need "meat shields." The term meat shield exists simply because it is so easy for a fighter to disproportionately provide protection for a caster based on their combat focus. Conversely, spellcasters are sometimes called long-range artillery, fire support, and such. There is no way to conceptually balance "utility" spells with non-magical abilities; normal people don't turn invisible. If you decide to be a fighter, you decide that spells are something you won't be providing for the party.
- There is nothing, to me, intrinsically undesirable about Street Fighter style high damage output melee characters, and I think the Nine Swords classes can and should be considered on their own terms, and can and probably are roughly balanced (but perhaps could be balanced better, hard to say at this point).
- However, I wouldn't want Nine Swords classes in 90% of the games I run, simply because I prefer a more traditional swords-and-sorcery style game. Anime-kabooms are nice in their place, and for me, that place is RPGs other than D&D, unless I have something specific in mind. I like grim axe-wielding dwarfs, not battle maidens shooting fifty feet through the air and slicing granite blocks in half.

 

[Sithobi1]

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



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.

Hm...I guess when I read it I thought something different. I suppose you're right about that part.

 

[Felon]

Actually, I think a decent barbarian build will do as much damage or more against a single target as a wizard will, given a full attack.

It's certainly wouldn't be anything to sneeze at, making the assertion by Mearls and others that warriors need a boost rather questionable.

The only thing they need to do to help warriors is get that notion out of their head that moving more than five feet in a round should impose a huge detriment on a warrior's capabilities.

 

[Sithobi1]

However, I wouldn't want Nine Swords classes in 90% of the games I run, simply because I prefer a more traditional swords-and-sorcery style game. Anime-kabooms are nice in their place, and for me, that place is RPGs other than D&D, unless I have something specific in mind. I like grim axe-wielding dwarfs, not battle maidens shooting fifty feet through the air and slicing granite blocks in half.

How do you differentiate someone moving his or her sword in a predetermined manner and a huge explosion of fire erupting(Maneuver) from someone who moves his or her sword in a predetermined manner and casting a spell to cause a huge explosion of fire(Spellsword)?

 

[Victim]

Considering how often targets that our sorcerer attempted to Disentegrate saved, I'd have to consider its actual damage yield to be less than spectular.

Yeah, save or dies are pretty nice. However, their presence tends to encourage lots save boosting effects to minimize the chance of death - thus making save or dies AND all the other save based attack spells less effective.

Besides, a high end fighter getting a full attack on a wizard is often a no save and die situation. Granted, a wizard shouldn't exactly be standing around to take it.

Of course that leads us back into a melee character's heavy dependence on full attacks, which are often easily avoided. And they also can make combat devoid of manuever, since the rewards of full attacking are too great. Some nasty standard action tricks for fighters are sorely missed, IMHO.

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

Warmages more powerful than sorcerers? What will they come up with next?