Monk and Swordsage

[Enforcer]

Yeah, I'd like to see unarmed combat be a Fighter talent tree. More mystical stuff would make for a great prestige class in my opinion.

That said, I just finished going over the Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords (man, that title sucks to type...) during the weekend, despite owning it for months. I'm VERY impressed and the fact Mike Mearls is one of the lead people on 4e makes me very hopeful for the results.

 

[sirwmholder]

As long as they get rid of that idiotic crystals and ectoplasm nonsense. Psionics : ectoplasm :: magic : bat guano

This is the greatest post of all time!

William Holder

 

[Dragonblade]

I'm really curious as to what they mean when they talk about Swordsage not being doable in 4e.

If they mean getting rid of the wuxia flavor, then I can live with that. But I REALLY love the Tome of Battle maneuvers and stances, even the clearly more supernatural ones, and really hope some incarnation of that makes it into 4e.

 

[Rechan]

Cadfan I think hits it on the head. Namely that the Unarmed Fighter sucks as is. The Unarmed Fighter needs something that allows him to bypass damage reduction and to get those nice Magical Weapon abilities. Ergo, Ki.

Because a boxer fighting a Demon doesn't make much sense unless the boxer has something to get him past the demon's DR.

 

[Counterspin]

Rechan : What is, gauntlets?

 

[Enforcer]

I'd prefer a ki-like solution for unarmed damage vs. DR, actually. My biggest annoyance with 3.x is the reliance on magic items to do just about anything. Magic items should never be required to overcome an enemy in my opinion. They can make it easier, sure, but never required.

 

[Howndawg]

Personally I'd just like to see WotC try to make a non-mystic unarmed fighter. That would be nice to see, just once.

Maybe if they give the barbarian some talents that allow him to leap on the back of an ancient red dragon and break his neck. After all, that's what Conan or Tarzan would do .

Howndawg

 

[Moggthegob]

Even they have no excuse not to like the warblade and crusader!

except for the fact that as classes the crusader and the Warblade are cheesy as all can be.

 

[Enforcer]

except for the fact that as classes the crusader and the Warblade are cheesy as all can be.

To you.

I'm new to the Book of Nine Swords rules, having just read through the book a few days ago (after having owned it for months). It makes melee combat more fun than I've ever seen it. The pure style that comes from each school of maneuvers is delicious. From the samurai/iajutsu-esque Diamond Mind stuff to the aikido-esque Setting Sun to the smackhammer of Stone Dragon. Hell, I can recreate almost all of the abilities of my Hammer of Moradin character using this book, with a lot more style and customization. Pretty much every fantasy warrior archetype I can think of can be done with the Tome of Battle, which I think is cleaner than dozens of prestige classes fulfilling the same function.

Compared to the Fighter, sure, Crusader and Warblade may kick butt, but then again my custom 20-level Formaggio core class could probably beat up the Fighter (insert tongue in cheek here)--the Fighter is subpar, even with the serious and needed help it got from the PHB2 feats. In my opinion, the Book of Nine Swords brings melee on par with spellcasting, and it's about time.

 

[Insight]

One of the major problems with how unarmed combat is handled is that real humans (and we can't possibly know how "real elves" or "real dwarves" or "real dragons" would be) are intrinsically designed to understand how to use their natural weapons (punching and kicking, specifically) as opposed to learning to use weapons (tools). Modern humans have learned to adapt better to using tools, so it stands to reason that modern humans would probably be at least as adept at using weapons as their bare fists.

Anyone knows how to throw a punch. It doesn't take special training or knowledge to punch someone. Knowledge of the specifics on how to punch (or kick) well is another thing, but requires no more training than using a sword well, or using a polearm well.

The problem with a fighter in 3E is that the fighter automatically knows how to swing a sword, or an axe, or a polearm better than he knows how to punch someone. If you try to make a fighter as good at punching, kicking, or wrestling, you are making your character worse overall in combat (in terms of the opportunity cost in taking other feats).

What happens as you learn martial arts, or boxing, or wrestling, is that you learn how to fight. It involves proper balance, posture, and learning to adapt to the change in your opponent's stances, using the distance between you and your opponent to your advantage, using an opportunity in a break in your foe's defenses, etc.

Systems other than D&D 3E have figured out how to deal with "basic combat" and not pigeonhole how you fight. M&M, for example, allows you to purchase BAB and BDB, demonstrating that your character knows how to fight, irrespective of what weapon you choose to employ in a given situation. The Weapon Groups option in UA sort of demonstrates the flexibility in learning to use a variety of different weapons apart from what are forced upon you by the system. If you added grappling and unarmed to that list of possibilities, that might be closer to what I'm looking for.

What I'd like to see in 4E is a fighter who knows how to fight regardless of what weapon he uses. If he specializes in a weapon (or unarmed, wrestling, etc), he's better at using that weapon/fighting style/whatever, but not worse than the baseline in any other weapon/fighting style/whatever.