Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="satori01" data-source="post: 3050662" data-attributes="member: 7859">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 forthClerics (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 buffingWarmage, 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.</blockquote>

Verification