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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5527149" data-attributes="member: 7883">Warblade?  All the classes from BoNS utilize nigh magical type melee abilities.  Warblade is likely the least mystical of them, but many of the abilities in the Diamond Mind school and Stone Dragon school are pretty magical in nature.I thought we were talking about fighters here....not throwing every optional class conceived in 3E into the mix.  Because if we want to do that, there are a heck of a lot of really useful feats for fighters in the Players Handbook 2 and a few other books.  And they would alleviate the difference.  Yes, the Warblade could take those feats too...but the fighter gets more of them.The 3E fighter is perfectly capable of representing most of the characters I listed.  And that's what it was intended to do.  Again, I do think a hypothetical Cavalier class (not even considering WotC's terrible Knight class) might represent several of them better.  The warblade?  I don't know what it's supposed to be.  It and the other classes in that book appear more inspired by anime than anything else.  I mean, I'm not blasting the book....I think it's neat....but one of the things I was disappointed about with it was how everything was kind of mystical, to one degree or another.  I thought Swashbuckling Adventures, with feats for Beat, Parry, Counterattack, Riposte, Sidestep, Lunge, and all that kind of thing, in some ways accomplished what I'd like to see in terms of options in combat far better than the BoNS did (IMO).  I'd never even conceive of trying to use a Warblade classed character to convey a knight in shining armor (for instance).The other kind of fix would have been, instead of having a Knight class, have some kind of Noble class....that way you could get your character that has a strength in Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. etc. while retaining some capability in combat.  Then your Knights would be Noble/Fighter multiclasses.  But, as others have posted...the Fighter is intended as a broad class....it has to cover the Knight, the gladiator, the yeoman archer, crossbowman, mercenary soldier, heavy infantry, etc. etc.  Most of those roles don't require a skill in diplomacy etc.To me, it's quite obvious my games games have been very different from those described by some others in this thread (I'm not saying they're wrong....just we had different experiences).  I haven't found fighters ineffective at all.  My main criticism is likely the weak will save.  But there has to be a weakness somewhere.  It's not going to be Fortitude.  And I'm pretty sure they were trying to simulate the concept in fantasy literature that the fighter can chop the wizard apart, if he can get to him, but the wizard uses a spell, and the warrior's big muscles amount to nothing.  Of course, there's a save....but in my experience, most of my players tried to shore up the save, instead of using WIS as a dump stat in fighters.At least in how they read (given I haven't found players willing to try them), the two d20 based systems for martial combat I find most fascinating are the ones used for the Conan D20 game, and the A Game of Thrones game by Guardians of Order.  However, neither is used with standard D20 type spellcasting either.  Conan, in particular, with armor as damage reduction, and then particular weapons being better at penetrating particular armor seems to have the best "feel".  It's actually kind of reminiscent of the AD&D optional rules in the PHB for armors giving particular bonuses against particular weapon types (slashing, piercing, bashing).  In that edition, Full Plate might be AC 1, but it also applied a -7 to hit rolls by slashing weapons for instance, and I think a +0 to hit rolls by bashing weapons....so it was better to use a mace against plate armor, instead of a sword.  But, that stuff is all optional, anyways.But that's getting way off topic.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification