Book of NineSwords

[Nifft]

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".

You did have a couple factual errors in your posts. This tends to erode confidence in your "empirical testimony".

Particularly when our own experience contradicts yours.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Slaved]

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".

As shown in this thread those are normally pretty good comments to make! In fact, the comment I made earlier has already been justified!

We might even find out that the earlier ranger was a two weapon fighting ranger with a really high dexterity but no weapon finesse and that the warlock was a social warlock instead of combat focused. That would make the question even more important!

I am not sure why you are comparing the Warblades recovery method to a casters regaining spells though, they are based on entirely different paradigms. If the caster was based on a per battle system it would make more sense to compare them. As it is spells have a lot more utility uses and are generally more poweful than the maneuvers when equal level abilities are compared.

 

[Mort]

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".

There has been exactly 1 empirical position provided stating warblades are overly powerful, that one by Nail. He did not, however, actually provide any kind of data he simply stated the warblade was overpowered and that's that. There have been several opposing opinions, including a much more detailed analysis by scrubkai - showing how the warblade stacked equally, especially at higher levels.

Let me give my own experience with the Bo9S classes along side others.
I ran the Red Hand of Doom adventure with a swordsage, a warblade, a crusader and a duskblade (mostly to see how the Bo9S classes would do). In order of effectiveness it was : Crusader and Duskblade about equally, then the swordsage, followed by the warblade (which was far behind). In one battle for example, the bad guys started at range with bows - this was a huge problem for the warblade as he had a middling AC (16 or so) and no range to speak of - he got pin cushioned early and spent the rest of the combat trying to get close to the bad guys without getting killed. The duskblade had a bow, and ranged spells making the combat not to difficult for her. This was quite typical of the early fights where the lack of range really hurt the warblade.

As far as damage output - sorry, but the fighter/barbarian I DM'd for in my last campaign so far outshone anything I saw a warblade do it wasn't close (the fighter/barbarian had complete warrior, eberron and core feats).
I believe if you look at Hong's analysis of his swordsage you'll see both the good points and the limitations (along with how a fighter/barbarian is just as or more nasty)(in this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=200513&page=2&pp=40) you will find a symilar analysis(along with a pretty good break down of what a swordsage can do).

 

[Felon]

You did have a couple factual errors in your posts. This tends to erode confidence in your "empirical testimony".

I didn't see you pointing out factual errors, just stuff you disagreed with. And the testimony wasn't provided by me.

 

[Felon]

I am not sure why you are comparing the Warblades recovery method to a casters regaining spells though, they are based on entirely different paradigms. If the caster was based on a per battle system it would make more sense to compare them.

So, if the caster's method for recovering spells was as good as a warblade's method for recovering maneuvers, it would "make sense" to compare them (in which case they'd be equal and the comparison wouldn't be damning).

But the reality is that not only are they not even remotely equal; one is a swift action and the other is sleeping for 8 hours. You are trying to use the vast superiority of the warblade's recovery method as a way of invalidating the comparison.

That, my friend, is a canard. We are not comparing too different concepts. Both are methods for recovering character resources. If I say Mother Theresa was a better person than Idi Amin, you don't get to invalidate the comparison by saying they're "too different" because she was a selfless nun and he was a maniacal dictator. Extreme difference is not a disqualifier.

 

[Felon]

Scorching Ray is broken ?

While reading ENworld, I utter that same phrase on a regular basis... just switch out "scorching ray" with whatever is new and unusual.

Although not fresh, I spotted these and wanted to comment in case these guys were still around.

Yes, scorching ray is "broken" in a demonstrable sense, as it breaks the lid off the caster-level caps that are built into spells. It is a 2nd-level spell that caps its caster level at 11th-level with 12 total dice of damage, whereas it is not until 5th-level that msot spells start to exceed a capt of 10th-level with 10 dice of damage (and some not even then). There's a cascading effect of brokeness that makes an empowered scorching ray pretty insane.

12d6 damage is a tremendous value for a 2nd-level slot, and 12d6 x 1.5 is certainly a whopper for a 4th-level spell slot. It should probably have stopped at two rays.

 

[AllisterH]

So, if the caster's method for recovering spells was as good as a warblade's method for recovering maneuvers, it would "make sense" to compare them (in which case they'd be equal and the comparison wouldn't be damning).

But the reality is that not only are they not even remotely equal; one is a swift action and the other is sleeping for 8 hours. You are trying to use the vast superiority of the warblade's recovery method as a way of invalidating the comparison.

That, my friend, is a canard. We are not comparing too different concepts. Both are methods for recovering character resources. If I say Mother Theresa was a better person than Idi Amin, you don't get to invalidate the comparison by saying they're "too different" because she was a selfless nun and he was a maniacal dictator. Extreme difference is not a disqualifier.

I have to disagree though since unless they are recovering something equally, you can't say definitely the warblade's recovery is better. Sure, if a 9th level manoeuver was on the power of Gate/MDJ/Shapechange/Wish, hell, if it was on the power of 8th level spells, then one could say "The warblade has the best recovery method" however, the manoeuvers aren't on the same scale. The mage/cleric was doing 100 pt fireballs SEVERAL levels back and would consider it a waste of an action to even try, the sorceror/druid has been skipping to the planes since last year etc.

My opinion is that the manoeuvers don't scale as high as spells (and are way more limited). A 1st level manoeuver is probably equivalent damage wise to a 1st level spell however, a 9th level manoeuver is only around the power of 6th level spells.

 

[Nifft]

Martial maneuvers are different from warlocks, incarnum classes, binders, and other "unlimited use" classes in one big way: maneuvers are really fricking powerful. They're on the magnitude of spells without the expendability.

Maneuvers are weaker than spells. That's one.

it's plain to see that a warblade can recover maneuvers at no cost while attacking.

The cost is a Swift action. That's two.

I didn't see you pointing out factual errors, just stuff you disagreed with.

And this is three. There may be more.

And the testimony wasn't provided by me.

Fine. Then confidence in your assertions is what has been eroded.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Yes, scorching ray is "broken" in a demonstrable sense, as it breaks the lid off the caster-level caps that are built into spells. It is a 2nd-level spell that caps its caster level at 11th-level with 12 total dice of damage, whereas it is not until 5th-level that msot spells start to exceed a capt of 10th-level with 10 dice of damage (and some not even then).

If it works, that is.

The thing about scorching ray is that it suffers from 3x the target's fire resistance (which is the most common resistance, since fire damage is the most common energy damage type).

So saying it deals 12d6 is deceptive -- someone with fire resistance 10 is expected to take 12 points of damage rather than 32, and it's possible he won't take any.

-- N

 

[Zurai]

They're on the magnitude of spells without the expendability. That's kinda broken.

Not quite. They're on the magnitude of spells three to four levels lower than the level of the maneuver. Inferno Blast, the 9th level Desert Wind maneuver, is essentially a widened empowered fireball without the long range, for example. Strike of Righteous Vitality exactly duplicates a heal spell - except you have to hit an enemy's full AC to use it, and it cannot be used to harm undead.

Frankly, being able to fireball point blank range as a 17th level character is far from broken. In fact, it's extremely suboptimal.

Further, they are quite expendable, especially the swordsage maneuvers. Swordsages are required to completely give up a round of actions if they want to use any given maneuver more than once per combat. That is a MASSIVE penalty when the single greatest resource in the game is the action.