Book of Nine Swords -- okay?

[pawsplay]

If a warblade can deliver +100 damage every other round, it makes you wonder, can a fighter deliver +50 damage about every round? It does not seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Only once per battle, but still...


Mark

Actually, he can use them more than once per battle if he uses his Recovery Method or uses the Adaptive Style feat. Either way, it would be an every-other-round thing he could use.

 

[RigaMortus2]

If people think the martial adepts in ToB are unbalanced, I'd hate to see what they think about the Warlock from Complete Arcane...

 

[Dragonblade]

At 20th level I don't have a strong opinion. I don't play those levels _and_ I agree that warriors-types appear quite weak at those levels. However, at lower levels (1-5 say) warriors are, IME, the most powerful set of characters. Clerics come close. And above I showed a hastily built level 5 swordsage which is noticeably more powerful than anything warrior type (or anything else) at 5th level.

With a 32-point buy you could have
S14 I10 W16 D14 C14 Ch10. Let's go halfing so S is 12 and D is 16. Level 5 swordsage.
His standard (no stances) against medium and larger creatures is:

AC =10+4 (chain shirt) +1 (size) +3 (dex) +3(wis) = 21.
Attack=3(BAB) + 1 (STR) +1 (size) +2 (stance) +1 (WF)= +8
Damage=dX (weapon) +1 (STR) +4 (stance) +3 (Wis) or weapon +8

With magic (say +2 Wis +1 chain shirt, +1 weapon) this goes to 23 AC and +9 attack dX+10 damage.

A halforc barb in full plate with a two handed sword, 20 STR and 12 dex has:

AC 10+8 (full plate) +1 (Dex) = 19
attack +5 (BAB) +5 (STR) =+10
Damage = +7 (STR)

With magic probably AC 21 attack +11 Damage +8.

It is at the _least_ a close call which is better. The 1/2 orc will have more hps. The halfling has a much smaller armor penalty.

Now if the half-orc rages he gets +2 attack, +3 damage, -2 AC and some hitpoints. Baring feats, he can only do this once per day.

The halfling can, once per encounter, do 6d6 fire damage (reflex save DC 16 for half) to a target. That same 6d6 will hit everyohe other than the swordsage within 10' of the target. That probably averages at +16 damage against most opponents PLUS the area of effect attack.

Plus the halfing has other maneuvers, stances and is way ahead on initiative (I think +4 advantage). Not to mention saves.

It ain't really close. And the sword sage appears to be the weakest of the lot. If the halfing is fighting a small or smaller opponent, he needs to change stances. But still...

Utterly unbalanced? No. Unbalanced? Oh yeah.

Mark

I think the term unbalanced can swing both ways. I see the Barbarian class as the unbalanced class. Unbalanced because it is so clearly underpowered. Nobody ever plays Barbarians in my game. They take a level of Barbarian occasionally to get +10 ft of movement. Thats about it.

I see a Half-Orc Fighter 5 using some of the assumptions you have above with the following feats:
Heavy Armor Optimization (Races of Stone)
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization (Races of Stone)
Monkey Grip (Complete Warrior)
Weapon Focus (Great Sword) (PHB)
Weapon Specialization (Great Sword) (PHB)

AC = 23 w/o magic (Full Plate Armor +10, Heavy Shield +2, Dex +1)
Attack +11 (Str +5, BAB +5, Weapon Focus +1)
Damage 2d6 + 7 (Great sword)

You are also including a vague stance bonus despite saying above that you aren't using any stances in your build. I'm not familiar with any stance that gives +2 to attack and +4 to damage.

Your halfing's attack bonus should be +6 and damage would be +4 (+7 by adding Wisdom only when performing a strike maneuver) and you would be using a SMALL weapon that does reduced damage.

If I decided to skip the shield and drop Monkey Grip in favor of Power Attack, My AC drops to 21 (still good and the same as your sword sage build) and if I reduce my attack bonus to +6 (the same as the Sword Sage) I can do an amazing 2d6 + 19 points of damage!! (+10 from Power Attack with two-handed weapon, +7 from Strength with two-handed weapon, +2 from Weapon Specialization)

The half-orc Fighter build is clearly more powerful.

But ultimately this argument is pointless. For some of you, comparing a Fighter build to a Sword Sage build and showing the Sword Sage as more powerful is proof that those classes are overpowered. For me it is proof that the existing warrior classes are underpowered.

 

[Thanatos]

Indeed, fairness is my objective. But comparing the damage output of a warrior class that gets d10 or d12 hit dice and a host of other cool combat abilities to a 9th level spell cast by a class that gets 1d4 HD, terrible BAB, arcane spell failure in armor, and basically sells the farm to get a solid damage output, and saying "that's equivalent" does not strike me at all as fair.

Fairness is objective, but I was speaking specifically in relation that the ability in question was the equivilent of a 9th level spell. Power Word: Kill (kills a creature with 100 hit points or less). In that regards, it is a fair comparison. I was not making a "fair" comparison about the two classes.

Comparitavely speaking though, your example looks like like how I have seen the barbarian vs wizard often described. It's difficult to really compare casting to melee classes with a high degree of accuracy.

EDIT--Oh freaking hell, I almost forgot to point out that the caster is burning a slot that he only gets one of per day, while Nine-Sword munchkin gets all his slots back between battles--or even in the middle of a battle. For the warblade, it's almost literally a snap of the fingers. So, another overwhelming benefit that blows away the notion of fairness.

Lets compare, because I think you are generalizing too much, 17th level:
Wizard: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1
Warblade: 6 manuevers readied for combat/4 stances known (only 1 can be used at a time, but switching between is a swift action)

Yes, he can get back his expended maneuvers with a swift action in combat, but can only make a single standard non-initiated attack in that round (or none at all). That turns out to be alot of missed DPS if I remember my fighter/barbarian comparisons correctly. Not all of his 6 combat abilities are going to be just about damage either -- there are other actions he will likely have readied involving movement or improving ally abilities, etc, nor will the rest of his damage maneuvers come close to that level of damage.

You can use recharge rules from Unearthed Arcana to simulate recovering your "spells" between combats, just like the classes in this book. So all things CAN be even there. It's like how the 9 swords in the book use Weapons of Legacy rules, it makes certain assumptions (just like most books). Even without recharge, the wizard is still far more powerful overall then the warblade. I don't agree that the class abilities giving back maneuvers for combat are really any more broken then quite a number of other class abilities given.

The wizard still has far more versatility with his spells, not to mention alot more then the warblade does with his maneuvers...outside of combat, he's pretty much just got his skills to rely on to do things. Even in combat, he still can't do the sheer damage a wizard can do with AoE, either.

Sweet Christmas, so broken. Disciplines pack the sheer power of an arcanist spell with the omnipresent utility of a feat.

I don't agree that is a fair or accurate representation of the maneuvers and how they work, though using combat maneuvers outside of combat is a glaring spot thats not really covered I've noticed. This book has quite a bit of errata and missed things in it. Still though, going by how something is worded, you could use these combat maneuvers (such as the ones designed for movement) outside of combat 1 time and until you get in another encounter or a day passes, they are expendted. That wouldn't seem to have the blanket utility of a feat.

Like many folks, I'm just boggled at how the Warblade made the editing cut with its bevy of Int-bonus class features, maximum hit dice, generous skill points, bonus feats, and over-the-top damage output every four rounds out of five or so. If anyone was looking for the cavalier of 3e, look no farther.

Well, I am kind of boggled at some of the abilities of some of the classes as well, such as the "Sense Magic" (learn ALL properties of a magic item after 10 minutes of study) or the "+1 to initiative" (when Improved Initiative makes more sense) of the Swordsage got though...after all, how can a 7th level Swordsage do what a wizard HAS to use a spell for do?

The interesting thing about the high Int-bonus class features though, is it will take away from some of the other capabilities a warblade can do. The different disciplines usually rely on different skills (like Tumble for Desert Wind or Concentration for Diamond Mind), so to be extremely effective, he is still going to have to focus his skill points and the number of disiplines he will shine in. I don't like the fact he can change his weapon specalization as a class skill though...if he can do it, I believe a fighter should be able to do it as well (and as a matter of fact, I will be allowing them to do so in my campaigns).

There ARE some disappointing factors in the book -- but like anything, cooperatively working with a DM can usually fix these things. I don't think I've ever found a book I use 100% the way written as inevitably something I want to use is too generalized or has abilities that make no sense and need to be changed, or is too underpowered/overpowered, etc.

Even fighters and barbarians with access to the newer feats in Complete Warrior and PHB II can do comparitively well against the warblade and wizards...take a gander on the WotC boards, there were quite a few comparisons there...someone did a spreadsheet even.

Though I completely agree with PHB feats alone, the melee classes are totally overwhelmed. You have to expand and use other books to keep all things, roughly, in the same categories. I was on the bandwagon about this book being completely broken...till I really started to read the threads and get it and build up some characters using the extra source materials (PHB II, Completes, etc.).

Like I said earlier though, this isn't going to be a book for every campaign. Its better suited for a high magic/high powered game. Iron Heroes is a much tamer alternative that seems better suited to those grittier or low magic campaigns. I'm sorr you feel it is so broken and unbalanced I just don't agree...I hope I shed some light as to why I disagree. Different strokes and all, so its all good

 

[Dragonblade]

As an addendum to my previous post, lets examine this myth that a warrior being able to do +100 points of damage is broken.

Lets take a half-orc fighter at 20th level. No magic, since a Warblade could have magic too. And since this is a demo, we'll go for something powergamerish like the Great Falchion.

Strength 20 + 5 more over 20 levels for a total of 25. We'll also take the following feats:
Weapon Focus (Great Falchion)
Weapon Specialization (Great Falchion)
Greater Weapon Focus (Great Falchion)
Greater Weapon Specialization (Great Falchion)
Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing)
Weapon Supremacy
Power Attack
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Great Falchion)
Heavy Armor Optimization
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization
Improved Critical

That is 11 feats, basically what a fighter gets over the course of 20 levels not counting character feats. Assuming we use Power Attack to its fullest (-5 to hit +10 damage) we get the following:

Attacks +26/+21/+16/+11 (Weapon Supremacy gives an additional +5 to any one of those, and I can take 10 on one attack roll as well)

Damage 2d6 + 26 (critical 15 to 20/x2)

I get 4 chances to hit a creature with a 25% chance of a critical. Statistically speaking, that is 1 critical per round. I'm doing a minimum of 28 damage per hit without factoring in the additional damage due to a critical. Even without Power Attack, I'm still doing a minimum of 18 damage per hit and the chance of more attacks hitting goes up significantly.

Even if I switch out the Great Falchion for a more common weapon such as a Great Sword, it just reduces the crit chance a little.

My AC is not too shabby either. Assuming Full plate and Dex 12, it would be a respectable AC 23. Not bad with absolutely no magic factored in at all. If you throw in magic, your AC improves right along with your attack bonus making those power attacks much more likely to land.

So if you consider a 100 damage every other round is on par with a Fighter being able to dish out 50 points of damage per round, I think we are not too far out of alignment and I didn't even touch the additional feats a Fighter would get from their character levels. Is the Warblade a good class? Yes. Is it broken, not at all.

 

[Thanatos]

Thanks for the answers folkd, I just went out and bought this.

I've by no means gotten a complete understanding of the book, but let me say:

Dude this is so overpowered I can't believe it.

Okay...I'll bite...

Crusader: His Martial Spirit stance isn't one he is likely to use every combat, but it isn't so different from Bardic Music granting +1 damage/attacks/some saves per round either, or some of the abilities of the barbarian.

His maneuvers are kinda hokey and complex. He can have 5 readied, but only 2 (which are randomly "Granted") are available on any given round and at least 1 of them changes every round (expended or not). So, there is a chance you'll have something you won't really be able to utilize available.

Give the barbarian some of the feat options out of the PHB II or another expanded source book though and he has some additonal umph. The Nine classes are going to be taking beginning feats from their book most likely and will have fewer overall options to take feats that don't have some synergy between their abilities and feats.


Swordsage: Here is our monk replacement.

+2 on initiative is somewhat weak as class abilities goes. Not everyone will take a Halfling or Ghome.

The holocaust cloak (you are unprotected if attacked with reach or range though) and burning flourish are 5th level abilities.

Wizard/Sorcerer: Melf's Acid Arrow (2d4 +1d4 for +1 round/3 levels), Flaming Sphere (2d6 fire damage), Scorching Ray (4d6 fire +1 ray/4 levles), Shocking Grasp/Burining Hands, Fireball/Lightning Bolt (5d6), etc.

Rogue: +3d6 Sneak Atack, +1d6 main attack for every attack, not just one, while flanking.

Paladin: Smite 2/day, Aura of Courage (Immune to fear), Divine Health (Immune to diseases -- all of them), 1st level spells (lets take Bless Weapon; +1 and threats are automatic crits).

Monk: Flurry (2d8), Fast movement (40'), Evasion, AC Bonus, Immune to disease, Slow Fall, best saves, attacks equal to magic.

...and the list goes on.

I just don't agree that these classes are really vastly overpowered and broken compared to even these core classes. The fighter and the barbarian have to be built more carefully to compete, I'll grant you, though...but thats no different from before when compared to the other core classes, to now. At least the PHB II and Complete Warrior help them out alot.

 

[Dragonblade]

Mike Mearls had some interesting musings on the WotC boards. I thought I would share:

I'm glad that people like the book, and I'm also glad that people have reacted in a way that we hoped they would. Namely, that warriors need a boost compared to spellcasters.

Back when 3e first came out, the fighter class was really interesting. It got a ton of feats. Something like triple as many feats as anyone else. I clearly remember my first 3e fighter, a Beorn Battlehelm. Beorn was really fun to play up until around level 8. At that point, I figured out that I couldn't find any feats to really improve Beorn's main focus: two weapon fighting with a flail and battleaxe, with some tripping thrown in for good measure.

The problem with making fighters rely on feats is that feats are also available to all the other classes. Furthermore, feats never had a level structure comparable to spells. A "better" feat just had a long list of prereqs, and there were no guidelines on just how good a feat could be. Thus, feats tended to cluster around the same power level.

In walks the fighter. His class features are feats. Since all feats are roughly the same power, and there is little additive effect outside of trip builds, he very quickly plateaus in terms of effectiveness. It would be as if a wizard still had spell slots for levels 1 to 9, but spells were never more powerful than a 3rd level effect.

There have been exceptions, but in general it's hard to make a fighter who's relevant at high levels. IME, most people who manage to pull it off rely on magic item combos and trip-based builds.

Nine Swords reverses this trend by building combat maneuvers that, at high levels, are on a power curve equivalent to (though not the same as) spells.

Anyway, I though people might be interested in some musings on the process behind this book.

 

[Thanatos]

He's absolutely right...the boost that the more melee classes got in many of the expansion boosts helps, but this book (by far) has brought melee up to the speed of casters.

Thanks for sharing...I missed that post of his.

 

[brehobit]

Okay...I'll bite...

Great!

Crusader: His Martial Spirit stance isn't one he is likely to use every combat, but it isn't so different from Bardic Music granting +1 damage/attacks/some saves per round either, or some of the abilities of the barbarian.

At first level a bard can give +1 to attack and damage 1/day as a standard action. At first level a crusader will always be in this stance (if he has it). So he is handing out 2 hitpoint cures AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK. He isn't burning an action or anything.

His maneuvers are kinda hokey and complex. He can have 5 readied, but only 2 (which are randomly "Granted") are available on any given round and at least 1 of them changes every round (expended or not). So, there is a chance you'll have something you won't really be able to utilize available.

Sure, but I didn't even worry about his maneuvers. And they are just bonus anyways. Worst case is he doesn't have a useful one. He's still hugely powerful.

<clip -- onto swordsage>
+2 on initiative is somewhat weak as class abilities goes. Not everyone will take a Halfling or Ghome.

The holocaust cloak (you are unprotected if attacked with reach or range though) and burning flourish are 5th level abilities.

Wizard/Sorcerer: Melf's Acid Arrow (2d4 +1d4 for +1 round/3 levels), Flaming Sphere (2d6 fire damage), Scorching Ray (4d6 fire +1 ray/4 levles), Shocking Grasp/Burining Hands, Fireball/Lightning Bolt (5d6), etc.

(One quick point, look at "death mark" (I think I have that right) not burning flurish (which is much weaker))

A 5th level wizard, doing nothing other than casting a spell, can do 5d6 damage in a 20' radius (at a huge range on the occasions that should matter) Perhaps up to 3/day. The swordsage can do 6d6 damage in a 10' radius AS PART OF HIS NORMAL ATTACK. We can debate if range is better than casting in the space next to you (and you being immune to it) but they are compatable (a wizard gets in HtH he has a heck of a time using fireball). And the swordsage can do it EVERY encountere. And the swordsage has more hit points, AC, BAB, saves and skills. I really don't see how the wizard can win this (at this level).

Rogue: +3d6 Sneak Atack, +1d6 main attack for every attack, not just one, while flanking.

At this level the rogue is either two-weapon wielding or getting only one attack. +3d6 is nice. Doing it every round is nice. But IME rogues get sneak attack on no more than 1/2 of their attacks. No flanking, undead, etc. really limit them. 6d6 1/combat in a 10' radius as part of an attack (just like the rogue) is really nice.

Paladin: Smite 2/day, Aura of Courage (Immune to fear), Divine Health (Immune to diseases -- all of them), 1st level spells (lets take Bless Weapon; +1 and threats are automatic crits).

+3 to attack, +5 damage is really nice for the smite. But again, only 2/day, and limited opponents. Immune to fear is also mightly handy. The rest are fairly weak. Bless weapon takes an action. Divine health has _never_ come up in a game I've played in 3.x.

Monk: Flurry (2d8), Fast movement (40'), Evasion, AC Bonus, Immune to disease, Slow Fall, best saves, attacks equal to magic.

I won't touch this one. Evasion is nice, but the sword sage gets a _much_ better AC bonus. The flurry is also nice, but a monk can't keep up with a fighter or barbarian for damage, let alone the swordsage.

I just don't agree that these classes are really vastly overpowered and broken compared to even these core classes. The fighter and the barbarian have to be built more carefully to compete, I'll grant you, though...but thats no different from before when compared to the other core classes, to now. At least the PHB II and Complete Warrior help them out alot.

As you might guess, I'll continue to disagree. At level 1-6 or so, fighters and barbarians are just fine powerwise. PHBII and complete warrior don't actually help all that much at those levels. At higher levels, I have less of a problem with these classes, as fighter-types need a lot of love and the powers seem reasonable-ish. But at lower levels?

Also, any fighter should take one of the +1 BAB classes at 9th level. (get 3rd-level abilities with the multi-classing rule). _so_ much better than anything else they could get.