Book of NineSwords

[Nifft]

Warmaster's charge will only get 1 or 2 extra attackers and frankly, it should do more since this is one of the few "takes teamwork to pull off" abilities I've ever seen in the game.

Would you consider it to be terribly nerfed if it applied to "up to six allies" instead of all allies within range? (That's the power reduction I'm considering for my game.)

Basically: cut off the absurd (and unlikely) extreme case, leave the core functionality intact.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AllisterH]

Would you consider it to be terribly nerfed if it applied to "up to six allies" instead of all allies within range? (That's the power reduction I'm considering for my game.)

Basically: cut off the absurd (and unlikely) extreme case, leave the core functionality intact.

Cheers, -- N

I'd be surprised if you get more than 3 allies. Have people actually played with Warmaster's Charge as is in a game? This move is less likely than the bag of rats tricks with Cleave. Here's the thing personally. If my player wanted to try the "use leadership, hire dread necromancer, have dread necromancer summon undead rats, place in squares as follows". and actually pulled it off, I'd say "GREAT freaking job" because the amount of coordination it takes to pull this off is incredible.

I rather that, then even the simple other option of my barbarian friend hiring a wizard to polymorph him into an even fiercer critter. I basically look as a case of "what could he have done in the meantime?".

 

[Nifft]

The only practical abuse of War Master's Charge that I could find involved a Telepath / Thrallherd. Every 24 hours, you get a certain number of free minions, whose loyalty does not depend on how horribly your old minions died... or how often.

I agree it's an unlikely target for abuse, but why leave it open? Why not just cap the number of allies?

Cheers, -- N

 

[AllisterH]

I agree it's an unlikely target for abuse, but why leave it open? Why not just cap the number of allies?

Cheers, -- N

Because I actually want my players to try it. Warmaster's Charge, IMO, highlights why I love the White Raven discipline (even with the nerfed WRT). The fact that it explicitly rewards teamwork (more than just "I'll buff you and then we will flank".)

To pull this off, a group of players have to co-ordinate their actions, giving up potential opportunities, place themselves in areas where they actually have line of sight (and remember, these are 17th level characters) and if they give up a couple of rounds of time getting themselves positioned properly, then yes, I think even if the manoeuver does a lot of damage, it still is a more reasonable/balanced/team-oriented ability than other options open to 17th level characters.

 

[Caliban]

I'm fairly certain you don't actually think that's what I said, but I'm willing to spell it out if you are honestly feeling confusion about spell vs. maneuver power levels.

nah, that's ok. I don't use Bo9S, and don't really care that much. Just noting that you seemed to be using your opinion of somethings relative strength to claim that someone else had made a factual error when they stated their opinioni of somethings relative strength.

*shrug* Just sounds like opinions, not facts, to me.

(I don't know if the Bo9S is "stronger" or not than regular melee classes, but I do notice that almost every melee build proposed n this forum lately seems revolve around the classes from Bo9S.)

 

[Arkhandus]

That's cuz they're cool, and Bo9S is relatively new compared to the Player's Handbook and suchlike.

Also, less importantly, they can be fairly effective without needing other supplements, whereas the core Fighter is weak most of the time unless he uses a lot of supplemental material and/or multiclasses out of Fighter after 4th level. Not ineffective, just weak compared to the spellcasters (unless the PCs only ever face single, or very small groups of, enemies). Or compared to a Ranger who gets to fight his favored enemy lots.

Bo9S classes = doing something more varied and exciting than the plain ole' charge + power attack + rage, or full attack + power attack + some broken prestige class ability or another for more raw damage, all the time. Sure you can get into a routine, but there's good incentive not to, and plenty of chances for variety in your combat actions with Martial Adepts. Also, some of us actually like playing characters that have a kind of wuxia/anime feel to their fighting style.

 

[Nifft]

(I don't know if the Bo9S is "stronger" or not than regular melee classes, but I do notice that almost every melee build proposed n this forum lately seems revolve around the classes from Bo9S.)

1/ As above, they are cool.

2/ Stronger than a Fighter? Yes. Yes they are.

3/ Stronger than a Barbarian? Not usually. But they are near a Barbarian's raw damage output, and far more flexible in terms of the character concepts they can model.

4/ Stronger than a Druid / Cleric / Wizard / Sorcerer? No. But they are able to stand next to a primary caster at high level without shame.

Get the book. It's a new system that's totally worth learning.

Cheers, -- N

 

[brehobit]

I showed a core spell in my last post that did that and more!

Sorry, I should have responded to that.

It's an extra attack, force effect, etc., but it isn't anywhere near as powerful as a real attack. The attack bonus (due to STR, magic weapon, buffs, etc.) don't apply and either do the damage bonuses. At most you are looking at d8+3 damage with a pretty bad attack bonus. Not a "real" attack.

Put a different way, when buffed and moving into combat you _won't_ cast a spiritual hammer once you close. A 2nd level spell that allows your attack (that you were going to make anyways) overcome all DR and get +2d6 damage is one you _will_ cast. Is it over powered as a 2nd level cleric spell? Not sure. But against certain baddies (lich, certain constructs, etc. come to mind) it's a clear "must have" for a melee cleric.

Mark

 

[brehobit]

4/ Stronger than a Druid / Cleric / Wizard / Sorcerer? No. But they are able to stand next to a primary caster at high level without shame.
Cheers, -- N

At lower levels (1-5) I don't understand the claim that warrior types in general (maybe minus the fighter) aren't more powerful than the base casters. Clerics are nice to have around, and when a druid can get an entangle off it can be significant. But arcane casters just can't keep up at these levels IMO. The utter lack of hit points is killer at these levels. The Bo9S classes just make this fighter/caster imbalance worse at these levels...

Again great and fun book. But at least at lower levels the balance is all off...
Mark

 

[Slaved]

Sorry, I should have responded to that.

It's an extra attack, force effect, etc., but it isn't anywhere near as powerful as a real attack. The attack bonus (due to STR, magic weapon, buffs, etc.) don't apply and either do the damage bonuses. At most you are looking at d8+3 damage with a pretty bad attack bonus. Not a "real" attack.

A "real" attack?

Earlier you said this.....

None-the-less, would people really be okay with a 2nd level cleric spell that, as a standard action, let you take a single attack that ignored all DR?

Spiritual Weapon is a 2nd level cleric spell that, as a standard action, lets you take a single attack that ignores all damage reduction.

But Spiritual Weapon is even better than that! It keeps on attacking and it even can get iterative attacks!

The attack bonus that it uses is the clerics base attack bonus plus the clerics wisdom modifier and the damage it does is d8 +1 for every 5 caster levels.

So, at most, for a single attack you are looking at d8+5 but it could be making that attack 4 times on the next round and then the same for the next 18 rounds.

Which is better?