Book of NineSwords

[AllisterH]

See, that's what really keeps leaving me with the impression that Bo9S advocates are big-time rationalizers. How do you take the miniscule cost of a swift action and magnify it into something genuinely painful? As the description for swift actions itself states, many characters can go their entire career without noticing the presence or absence of swift actions.

Any kind of ROI analysis (not to mention common sense) pretty handily shows a swift action is chickenfeed compared to say...waiting until midnight to pray for an hour, or sleeping for 8 hours.

Yeah, but the effects aren't on the same level though as compared to what those characters are praying/studying for, which I think is the main issue. As someone who likes and uses ToB (I still find it hard to believe swordsages dominate combat. Unless you're starting at a 32 pt game and above, until 3rd level, most swordsages can't hit for jack in combat IME) I don't think the manoeuvers are anywhere close to the power of spells.

I believe the 9th level manoeuvers at best match in power the effect of 6th level spells so I personally don't have a problem with characters being able to spam them every round. Its the same reason why I don't really make a big deal that Warlocks have at-will spells. Most importantly, IMC, spellcasters still determine when we adventure. It doesn't matter that the crusader is fresh as a daisy since if it has been the 4th battle of the day, the spellcasters are pretty much running on fumes and even the crusader needs the backing of the spellcasters.

Nothing has changed my mind that at all levels, you can have a 4 person divine-only full spellcasting party (in any combination of druids, clerics) and from 7th level afterwards, the same can be said for the arcane version whereas even the new energizer bunny classes a.k.a. the martial adepts, the warlocks, the incarnate pretty much will get smoked from 5th level go up.

As for the focus on swift/immediate actions, blame the spellcasters (with spells like Featherfall and the Quicken feat) AND players not being able to agree on free actions.

For me, the main reason why I love ToB is because it makes combat fun for melee. Yes, I know, as a player, it is my responsibility to make combat interesting but the vast majority of times, the best option was simply "Rage, Charge, PA" for the win.

Are the martial adepts more powerful than the standard melee classes? PHB fighter certainly. Its well-documented that there aren't any "high" level feats in the PHB but a PHB fighter built using PHB II and Complete Warrior is an entirely different story.

As for the barbarian, even a core-only barbarian can still outdamage a warblade more consistently (yeah, there are things like skill boosting items but those only affect a couple of manoeuvers) and add in the same splatbooks and it is no contest. (Pounce anyone?)

 

[Nifft]

See, that's what really keeps leaving me with the impression that Bo9S advocates are big-time rationalizers. How do you take the miniscule cost of a swift action and magnify it into something genuinely painful? As the description for swift actions itself states, many characters can go their entire career without noticing the presence or absence of swift actions.

Any kind of ROI analysis (not to mention common sense) pretty handily shows a swift action is chickenfeed compared to say...waiting until midnight to pray for an hour, or sleeping for 8 hours.

Is this a joke?

Many of the Warblade's martial adept goodies compete for his Swift actions: Stances, Boosts, and Counters. Recovery means no Counter, Boost or Stance change, and attack means no Strike maneuver. Basically, for 3/4 of a fight, he's a Barbarian without Rage. If you are relying on Moment of Perfect Mind to keep you in your right mind, you may be spending up to 1/2 of a fight recovering -- not using your main class features.

The Warblade has the worst recovery method. That's why it gets other shiny things.

I encourage you to play one (by the rules, no free action recovery).

Cheers, -- N

 

[scrubkai]

See, that's what really keeps leaving me with the impression that Bo9S advocates are big-time rationalizers. How do you take the miniscule cost of a swift action and magnify it into something genuinely painful? As the description for swift actions itself states, many characters can go their entire career without noticing the presence or absence of swift actions.

Any kind of ROI analysis (not to mention common sense) pretty handily shows a swift action is chickenfeed compared to say...waiting until midnight to pray for an hour, or sleeping for 8 hours.

Now given I've only played with a Warblade but here's my take on things:
A low level Warblade is more powerful then a low level Fighter
At higher levels this balances out, due to the fact that the warblade is stuck in light armor and MUST go toe to toe with EVERYTHING so they WILL get hit and hit HARD... Oh and you can't play the standard light armor fighter tricks because feats like Combat Expertise don't work with your manuvers.
One place I do see as very powerful is taking these classes as a one level dip at higher levels. These can seriously boost a characters power far more then a dip into any other class. This is due to the fact that you can select higher level manuivers. That's something I would watch out for in my game.


As for manuvers and getting them back as a swift action, remember at MOST the warblade is getting the option to use his preselected seven manuviers back as a swift action on a round that he does nothing but attack.
If you compare that to a sorcerer who has to rest for 8 hours, but gets back the option to cast FAR more variety of spells it makes the cost worth it.
Even with Adaptive style at 20th level you still only get 13 options, less then even a 6th level sorcerer gets.

Having actually played the warblade to higher levels with other characters, I can say that our psion and sorcerers still ended up outshining the Warblade at the end. The spell casters had far more flexibility in what they could do.
Sure if the oppenent stood still in front of the Warblade they were toast, but very few creatures really ever stood still for long periods of time. Most of our oppents kept out of range and made the Warblade only semi-effective. The spell casters on the other hand almost always had something they could do.

So what we found is: The Warblade is REALLY good at melee combat. But that's it. He's even more focused then the fighter. You give up flexibility for Focus. If that focus seems to hit the sweet spot in your game, you are huge. If you have a variety of chalanges, you get the spotlight sometime, but lose the spotlight other times. Much like a Barbarian.

 

[castro3nw]

Any kind of ROI analysis (not to mention common sense) pretty handily shows a swift action is chickenfeed compared to say...waiting until midnight to pray for an hour, or sleeping for 8 hours.

Wow... Where can I get some of this common sense?

I just can't really see how for this particular class a swift action that, like Nifft said, runs so many class abilities every combat is "chickenfeed" compared things that, while important to their classes, are often hand-waved away as having happened during downtime.

I understand that you're thinking about comparing the cleric/wizard refresh abilities to the warblade's, but it's tough to compare a passive refresh to an active one in any meaningful way. They're too different.

 

[Nifft]

Anyone interested in a numerical analysis can find some results in this thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=872117

One guy's done a level-by-level comparison. Warblades are on top at level 5 (when the get 3rd level maneuvers and Barbarians get bupkis); most other level favor the Barbarian.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

Again, you're magnifying little inconveniences into mondo major hassles. So, for a warblade to recharge his maneuvers, for one round of combat all he do is...just attack. You guys want to play that up as a huge hardship, though even without maneuvers a warblade is pretty damn effective in a fight, able to co-opt any goodie a fighter can get his hands on.

Acting as if going one round without using a maneuver is just underscoring how much is taken for granted with this class. How many rounds of combat does a paladin go without a smite, which at most he can only do a handful times a day? How often does a spellcaster throw a low-level spell, or use a dinky little wand, because he's got genuine burnout problems? That you have to spend one round not fighting at peak is not a crippler, guys. It's what pretty much every class has to do sometimes.

 

[Felon]

I understand that you're thinking about comparing the cleric/wizard refresh abilities to the warblade's, but it's tough to compare a passive refresh to an active one in any meaningful way. They're too different.

You're attempting to equivocate. It makes little sense to say you can't compare active and passive refreshes because they're "too different", when the difference amounts to one being a truckload better than the other.

Heck, if the warblade wants to wait until combat is over to refresh his maneuvers, he does have that option...it's a dumb option, of course, because his method works fine in a battle.

 

[Felon]

I take this to mean that you have never actually played the Warblade.

Well, yo can take it to mean what you please, but this thread has demonstrated that when someone provide empirical testimony of a martial adept outshining other classes, it seems to be dismissed anyway with a line like "I suspect it musta been the other character's had ineffenctive playstyles, or the adept had some twinked-out magic item".

The bottom line with Bo9S fans seems to be that the warrior's ability to tank and fight without burnout is disregarded as inadequate compensation for not having the mage or rogue's power to nuke. If a class can't nuke, then it can't shine.

 

[Nail]

Well, yo can take it to mean what you please, but this thread has demonstrated that when someone provide empirical testimony of a martial adept outshining other classes, it seems to be dismissed anyway with a line like "I suspect it musta been the other character's had ineffenctive playstyles, or the adept had some twinked-out magic item". .

That does seem to be a problem.

In our group, with a broad array of play-styles, optimizations, and character roles, the Warblade is seen as over-powered. I readily admit other groups may find different results. Our group's results do not invalidate someone else's. And Vis Versa.

 

[Nifft]

Again, you're magnifying little inconveniences into mondo major hassles. So, for a warblade to recharge his maneuvers, for one round of combat all he do is...just attack. You guys want to play that up as a huge hardship, though even without maneuvers a warblade is pretty damn effective in a fight, able to co-opt any goodie a fighter can get his hands on.

A fighter's goodies are lots of feats. Warblades do not get these. They instead get maneuvers. And 1/4 of the typical fight, they don't even get those.

Acting as if going one round without using a maneuver is just underscoring how much is taken for granted with this class. How many rounds of combat does a paladin go without a smite, which at most he can only do a handful times a day?

Wrong question. Instead, ask how many rounds a Paladin goes without getting a special bonus to his saving throws. (Unless you think Moment of Perfect Mind is not an important ability.)

How often does a spellcaster throw a low-level spell, or use a dinky little wand, because he's got genuine burnout problems?

1/2 to 3/4 of the time, if the day's encounters were done right. Spellcasters can often end fights very early. Making them choose when to play their "big guns" is part of their game. (Much like a Paladin's Smite or a Barbarian's Rage.)

That you have to spend one round not fighting at peak is not a crippler, guys. It's what pretty much every class has to do sometimes.

Not a crippler at all. the Warblade isn't particularly crippled in any way (except ranged combat).

But neither is it broken.

Cheers, -- N