One of the group is buying the Book of Nine Swords. What should I expect?

[MerricB]

Bloodstorm Blade...

Yes, but the PrC hurts their IL ultimately, giving only 1/2 advancement per level. It's a neat class, but giving up 9th level maneuvers? feh.

Also, unless I'm missing something, being able to throw with a 10' range increment (with a maximum distance of 50') doesn't really make you a great ranged combatant - it's still very easy for the opponent to reach you.

Cheers!

 

[Thanatos]

Also, unless I'm missing something, being able to throw with a 10' range increment (with a maximum distance of 50') doesn't really make you a great ranged combatant - it's still very easy for the opponent to reach you.

Cheers!

Yes, but you are still ranged. I am not really impressed with any of the PrC's actually. The Master of Nine and the Shadow Sun Ninja are pretty cool though.

But I agree that a 50' ranged capability isn't that hot and not worth the lost of 9th level maneuvers.

 

[MerricB]

Yes, but you are still ranged. I am not really impressed with any of the PrC's actually. The Master of Nine and the Shadow Sun Ninja are pretty cool though.

But I agree that a 50' ranged capability isn't that hot and not worth the lost of 9th level maneuvers.

The class actually works best for a Fighter (or Barbarian)/Bloodstorm Blade.

What the class does is make a full attack even after the enemy you were attacking goes down - it then just switches to "ranged" melee attacks

Cheers!

 

[BryonD]

I'd disagree a warbladex/fighter 1 will be a superior character at every level compared to a fighter. Also, having done that, they will ultimately cheat themselves out of a readied maneuver to pick up a couple of ranged feats which will still leave them inferior a charater with any real focus in ranged, plus it will be cutting into their total available feats where taking more martial adept or specializion feats would serve them better.

Your second sentence compares them not to the WB, but to the fighter. I certainly agree that the loss of manuevers is relevant in that comparison.

However, I think that PBS, Rapid Shot and Weapon Focus make a solid base for a ranged character. You are there at WB2/F1.

I am not by any means claiming this is an optimized build. It is far below optimized.
But they will still be better than the fighter. Compared to an archery build fighter the WBX will be somewhat behind. But they will still be so very far ahead when it comes to melee that they have no trouble coming out ahead overall.

 

[Sunderstone]

Based on what Im reading here and elsewhere, Ill be passing on this book as well.

 

[Thanatos]

The class actually works best for a Fighter (or Barbarian)/Bloodstorm Blade.

What the class does is make a full attack even after the enemy you were attacking goes down - it then just switches to "ranged" melee attacks

Cheers!

Thats likely true...I hadn't even looked at them in regards to a core class moving into that PrC. And yeah, I'm not saying its a bad class by any means, I just don't think most of them are very good choices for the martial adepts, generally speaking.

Your second sentence compares them not to the WB, but to the fighter. I certainly agree that the loss of manuevers is relevant in that comparison.

However, I think that PBS, Rapid Shot and Weapon Focus make a solid base for a ranged character. You are there at WB2/F1.

I am not by any means claiming this is an optimized build. It is far below optimized.
But they will still be better than the fighter. Compared to an archery build fighter the WBX will be somewhat behind. But they will still be so very far ahead when it comes to melee that they have no trouble coming out ahead overall.

We're we not talking about Warblades compared to fighters? I thought we were based on the level 3 examples.

For your ranged build, that is pretty solid and I agree, its far below optimized for a warblade.

But I don't agree they will be better and so very far ahead of the fighter when it comes to melee. Especially if they spend their feats on ranged combat, they will be less optimized then the fighter and they won't have all those extra feats to make it back up.

The warblade hasn't shown itself to be to overpowered in play compared to our fighter. The barbarian tends to top them all the most, but by a slim margin.

I guess its all in how you decide they are better then the fighter. I've seen they are different and I've seen they can do bursts of damage, but I haven't seen the stayng power or consistancy of the fighter. My experiences have just been completely opposite of yours apparently (and we aren't a newbie group...most of us have 25+ years playing).

 

[BryonD]

We're we not talking about Warblades compared to fighters? I thought we were based on the level 3 examples.

We are. But specifcially I was saying that a WarbladeX/Fighter1 is better than a FighterX+1, even with the warblade suboptimal choice of archery.

I am NOT claiming this build is better than a straight warblade. Which is the way I read that one sentence.

For your ranged build, that is pretty solid and I agree, its far below optimized for a warblade.

But I don't agree they will be better and so very far ahead of the fighter when it comes to melee. Especially if they spend their feats on ranged combat, they will be less optimized then the fighter and they won't have all those extra feats to make it back up.

The warblade hasn't shown itself to be to overpowered in play compared to our fighter. The barbarian tends to top them all the most, but by a slim margin.

I guess its all in how you decide they are better then the fighter. I've seen they are different and I've seen they can do bursts of damage, but I haven't seen the stayng power or consistancy of the fighter. My experiences have just been completely opposite of yours apparently (and we aren't a newbie group...most of us have 25+ years playing).

There are plenty of 25+ year gamers around here, myself included.
I don't know what level you are playing at.
If it is fairly low then your assessment seems quite reasonable.
But with more HP, more SP, better skill options I just don't see how the fighter can possibly keep up.

I've yet to find anyone to claim that the WB's manuevers + stances provide a smaller benefit than the fighter's feats. I think that the WB comes out on top when you compare those two elements. But I'm willing to allow that it is in the ballpark. As I said, I haven't seen anyone say that the feats are better.

So call that a wash.

Now the fighter gets heavy armor prof and ranged weapons. Both of those are options that I've seen many many fighters built without any focus in. So I don't see their removal as a big loss. And both are easy to solve anyway.
To offset that the WB gets a number of bonus feats and/or other special abilities that is only one less than the number of fighter bonus feats (which we have already canceled out), and the HP and the SP.

Heck, as has been said before in this thread and other places:
Take the fighter and replace his bonus feats with the Warblade's list special abilities, extra SP and HP. THAT is a playable class.

If you consider the D12 HD to be mathematically the same as the improved toughness feat (it is really a hair better than that feat), then this fighter already is getting SOMETHING to replace every single bonus feat it has lost PLUS it is getting +2 SP per level and a better class skill selection. (Someone also said that just having tumble as a class skill was also worth a feat. Not sure I agree 100%, but it is close)
So we are already in the ball park of a wash with a standard fighter. If you want to say that the WB stuff doesn't add up 1 to 1 with the feats, then I can accept that. For sake of arguement lets say that the total is worth only 50% of the fighter feats. I think that is being vastly generous to the fighter side of the arguement. But so be it.
After THAT you add on all the manuevers and stances that make the cornerstone of the class. As I said, I've yet to see anyone claim that these are worth any less than the fighter feats.
So in conclusion when compared to the fighter the WB gains one group of stuff (manuevers and stances) worth AT LEAST as much as the feats AND gains another group of stuff (bonus feats and other specials) that are worth AT LEAST 50% (probably more like 75% - 90%) AND gains more SP and better class skill selection (I'm rolling the HP in with the specials here).

By my math 1.5 + the value of skill points > 1.0. And that is giving the fighter the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BryonD]

Based on what Im reading here and elsewhere, Ill be passing on this book as well.

If you are interested in the concept, then I actually recommend the book.
It takes some work, but some really good ideas are there.

If you just dislike the idea of mystical warriors, then yeah, it is not for you.

 

[Thanatos]

We are. But specifcially I was saying that a WarbladeX/Fighter1 is better than a FighterX+1, even with the warblade suboptimal choice of archery.

I am NOT claiming this build is better than a straight warblade. Which is the way I read that one sentence.

Ahh okay, I see. Better in what sense? I don't necessairly agree with that, generally speaking. And right, I don't think that taking a fighter level for the warblade would be good at all, minimal return for the loss of a feat.

I don't know what level you are playing at.
If it is fairly low then your assessment seems quite reasonable.
But with more HP, more SP, better skill options I just don't see how the fighter can possibly keep up.

We've played at various levels, 1st to 3rd, 6th, 8th, 10-12, 14, 16 & 20. The fighter kept up just fine, though we played with PHBII and Complete Warrior. I think I saw almost the exact build that was used in another ToB thread here, for the fighter. The fighter dished out alot of damage, just like the warblade did. The warblade definitely seemed to have more issues dealing with the mooks then the fighter or barbarian did and was hit alot more by them then the fighter was.

At the time, we kept records of each fight, check total damage at the end and it wasn't always the warblade on top. Different fights often yeilded different results, though the swordsage stayed pretty consistantly lower then the rest (missing so much more).

I wish I could tell you how the fighter kept up, but to be honest, I didn't play the fighter. I haven't played a fighter in a long time. I don't really enjoy playing the class -- having to design a feat tree isn't fun for me. I usually play casters, almost exclusively. Except for the monk...when 3e came out I said "wow, that looks great" and boy was I disappointed...I played the swordsage and he suffers alot like the monk does, but I really enjoyed him. He needs full bab though.

I've yet to find anyone to claim that the WB's manuevers + stances provide a smaller benefit than the fighter's feats. I think that the WB comes out on top when you compare those two elements. But I'm willing to allow that it is in the ballpark. As I said, I haven't seen anyone say that the feats are better.

So call that a wash.

No, I think they give a generally equal benefit, situationally better, but not as consistantly useful in every combat as the fighters feats. Unless the fighther just builds a flavor character, in which case all the martial adept classes leave him in the dust.

One good example we had was that for a fight our Boss info wasn't on target and out of the warblades few maneuvers, he had the wrong ones prepared and so didn't get very good use from them, he was out preformed pretty significantly that fight since he couldn't change his prepped maneuvers. The fighter was perfectly able to adapat and utilized the feats he had chosen with no issue, so I can't really agree that the warblade comes out clearly on top.

But, some maneuvers are better then some feats and vice versa. But I can agree to a wash overall.

Now the fighter gets heavy armor prof and ranged weapons. Both of those are options that I've seen many many fighters built without any focus in. So I don't see their removal as a big loss. And both are easy to solve anyway.
To offset that the WB gets a number of bonus feats and/or other special abilities that is only one less than the number of fighter bonus feats (which we have already canceled out), and the HP and the SP.

Heck, as has been said before in this thread and other places:
Take the fighter and replace his bonus feats with the Warblade's list special abilities, extra SP and HP. THAT is a playable class.

If you consider the D12 HD to be mathematically the same as the improved toughness feat (it is really a hair better than that feat), then this fighter already is getting SOMETHING to replace every single bonus feat it has lost PLUS it is getting +2 SP per level and a better class skill selection. (Someone also said that just having tumble as a class skill was also worth a feat. Not sure I agree 100%, but it is close)
So we are already in the ball park of a wash with a standard fighter. If you want to say that the WB stuff doesn't add up 1 to 1 with the feats, then I can accept that. For sake of arguement lets say that the total is worth only 50% of the fighter feats. I think that is being vastly generous to the fighter side of the arguement. But so be it.
After THAT you add on all the manuevers and stances that make the cornerstone of the class. As I said, I've yet to see anyone claim that these are worth any less than the fighter feats.
So in conclusion when compared to the fighter the WB gains one group of stuff (manuevers and stances) worth AT LEAST as much as the feats AND gains another group of stuff (bonus feats and other specials) that are worth AT LEAST 50% (probably more like 75% - 90%) AND gains more SP and better class skill selection (I'm rolling the HP in with the specials here).

By my math 1.5 + the value of skill points > 1.0. And that is giving the fighter the benefit of the doubt.

I do see where you are coming from. I'm really the wrong person to be debating with about the value of the fighter, because I have never played one in 3e and I don't find it a very interesting class simply because of the feat design. I found them to be pretty underpowered until the PHBII and the Warrior splatbooks came out which amped up their power more. But the still lacked the sheer firepower and versatility of the caster classes.

I can just relate to you how they played out at various levels in our test campaign. We did it it pretty extensively since we were between other games. I'd even go so far as to suggest that I likely played the swordsage a bit subpar because melee builds aren't my fortee...I pretty much exclusively used feats out of the book and phb, not that it seemed to matter since I seemed to have problems hitting stuff to begin with

You could really argue that the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk and Fighter all aren't worth the "cost analysis" when you compare them to any of the martial adept classes once you break them down to skill points, hd, saves, maneuvers, spells, etc. From that perspective I will agree with you.

But that doesn't necessairly make them superior, except maybe in the case of the monk...but even using it as an example...it gets cool abilities at practically every single level, good ones...equal to various levels of spells and probably has a pretty good cost analysis itself, but in actual play it performs terribly and is generally underpowered without alot of help. Heck, there are alot of classes out there that likely have a higher mathmatical value then the core clases but aren't as strong.

Now the marital adept classes don't play badly (except, imo, the crusader which just gave me headaches...), but neither do the others. I also think you might be undervaluing the fighters feats in that, unlike with so many other classes, you get to choose the path of those feats and build a tailored character. Most of the other classes don't give you that freedom and that is worth something to some people (thats one reason my fighter player always players a fighter...he likes the choice of all those feats and enjoys makng stuff work together...and I wish I could get him to post here, but he doesn't care for message boards).

So, while you can cost analyze these classes and I'd likely agree with alot of it, I don't think that still necessairly reflects something as being better or more valuable. In our campaign, I saw fighters competing just fine against the martial adept classes so they still seem perfectly viable to me. I think the martial adept classes are definitely more flashy and fun though. But numbers alone do not always tell the whole story.

Er...sorry for rambling so much on it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Think The Musketeer. I know, I know, you European descendents want to defend that Western martial arts are as flashy as Eastern. Fine.

I've got no idea how 'realistic' or otherwise it might be, but I just watched Troy last night and I thought the battle scene between Hector and Achilles was as exciting and flashy as anything I've ever seen in any genre.

Cheers