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

[Felon]

Storyteller, if you're running a high-powered campaign, then I'm curious to know what issues you're looking to have addressed. If someone says "man, it's really, really powerful", is your reaction "oh, that's good"? This fits the bill, definitely.

ToB is not just offering a new system; it is a radical power boost. Examining the ways ToB's advocates in this thread try to hem and haw and equivocate is revealing. The damage output of a martial adept is supposedly comparable to a fighter or barbarian, but it's compared to them making a full round of iterative attacks, all of which hit. Then the martial adepts are compared to spellcasters, without acknowledging that disciplines can be recovered in minutes or less--much better than the recovery rate for spells. My personal favorite is "it's certainly very, very, very, really, extremely powerful, but not overpowered by any means".

It's a powergamer's delight, no doubt about it. And I've got a little munchkin in me, so that's no biggie. But it doesn't really grab any other part of my inner gamer, and that's a problem. A warblade is not a class with any real concept at its core. It's just a hollow shill for some game mechanics. Much of ToB is like that.

 

[Felon]

So as melee goes they rock, but in ranged combat (we're looking at 2000 ft, 4000 ft to 5000 ft for heavy weapons) they'll need help. Seem like he'll do fine then, or at least he won't be unbeatable.

Somehow I have trouble envisioning combat rounds taking place at a distance of a mile or so, but suffice to say that if that happens regularly, any melee character will feel pretty left out.

 

[Storyteller01]

Somehow I have trouble envisioning combat rounds taking place at a distance of a mile or so, but suffice to say that if that happens regularly, any melee character will feel pretty left out.

Heavy weapons are usually mounted on vehicles, which at least 2 of our characters will have. Anything beyond 1,000 ft is rare, and most ranged combat takes place at 300 ft to 400 ft.

 

[Storyteller01]

Storyteller, if you're running a high-powered campaign, then I'm curious to know what issues you're looking to have addressed. If someone says "man, it's really, really powerful", is your reaction "oh, that's good"? This fits the bill, definitely.

The campaign is going to have multiple elements, several of which can pit the characters against each other. This includes political campaining and leading large groups. If the Bo9S's only advantage is in melee, then he's on par with everyone else. No worries, and all that.

 

[Thanatos]

I don't agree here. If a weak class comes up with a higher assessment then the valuation has been wrong somewhere.

I don't agree with that and the monk is a prime example of a class that should play really strong, but is ultimately a one trick pony and incredibly weak if it tries to do anything else.

I certainly agree that the freedom to customize a fighter build is very valueble to the fun of the class. But I don't agree that this changes the analysis of potency.

But see, I'd consider that as part of the analysis of potency.

Numbers don't always tell the whole story, but in this case there is no gap to work with. Everything the fighter has is flat out covered and them some by the warblade.

There is plenty of gap to work with. No, the fighter is not flat out covered by the warblade. The warblade doesn't have nearly the amount of build flexibility or feats the fighter has. The warblade doesn't have all the ranged weapons, heavy armor, even fighter feats at the same level (he gets them at -2).

ToB is not just offering a new system; it is a radical power boost. Examining the ways ToB's advocates in this thread try to hem and haw and equivocate is revealing. The damage output of a martial adept is supposedly comparable to a fighter or barbarian, but it's compared to them making a full round of iterative attacks, all of which hit. Then the martial adepts are compared to spellcasters, without acknowledging that disciplines can be recovered in minutes or less--much better than the recovery rate for spells. My personal favorite is "it's certainly very, very, very, really, extremely powerful, but not overpowered by any means".

Except this is not a radical power boost, nor is it very, very, very, really, extremely powerful (unless of course you are runing a really low-magic campaign or grim and gritty one -- in a standard campaign, it preforms just fine). Is it powerful? yes. But it is hardly radical.

No is anyone trying to hem and haw it either, except the people who are insisting its way unbalanced and overpowered. Can it be ran as unbalanced and overpowered? Of course, but so can many classes, the warlock included (and many people post about how weak the class actually turns out to be -- and thats just one example).

The damage outputs have been shown in multiple threads here and on the Wizards forums that show the output is comparable. This is a mechanics change from 4 encounters per day in a spell-power level sense, but melee have never been bound by that 4 encounters per day anyway, that was always a caster weakness overall.

It's a powergamer's delight, no doubt about it. And I've got a little munchkin in me, so that's no biggie. But it doesn't really grab any other part of my inner gamer, and that's a problem. A warblade is not a class with any real concept at its core. It's just a hollow shill for some game mechanics. Much of ToB is like that.

Except that its not a powergamer's delight either. Many of the optimizers don't consider the martial adept classes all that powerful for build purposes and usually only dip in them unless they are building full or mostly full progression martial adept classes. This is often what they do with the fighter class as well; they are for dipping.

Additionally, the warblade has a perfectly fine concept and is about as hollow as any other class in the PHB.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thank you for the responses folks, but let's keep it friendly. I appreciate the analysis, but my main concern was overall power level. Everyone seems to agree that it shines in melee but loses many advantages at range. The player was tolld this, and still wishes to create the character.

As it stands every character will have several distinct advantages they can use. My monk can't out fight him, but I have a feeling I can out think him.

Again, thanks for all the help. The posts are definitely appreciated.

 

[Storyteller01]

Another question for you folks: how do the classes compare to a fighter that has taken feats from the book of iron might?

 

[BryonD]

I don't agree with that and the monk is a prime example of a class that should play really strong, but is ultimately a one trick pony and incredibly weak if it tries to do anything else.

Then the valuation that came up to "should" was wrong.

But see, I'd consider that as part of the analysis of potency.

I disagree completely. Potency in this context is ability to overcome challenges and achieve objectives. The fun of customization for the fighter does not add to this ability. And the set potency of the fighter has an expected degree of fun built in. When you throw in a new class that can run circles around the fighter then the fun will be drained from the fighter player and that sucks.

There is plenty of gap to work with. No, the fighter is not flat out covered by the warblade.

There is no gap. There is a big negative gap. This has already been covered in this very thread.
Stances + Manuevers is at least as good as the feats AND the WB gets HP, SP, better skills and several other special abilities. The WB gets something for everything the fighter has.

The warblade doesn't have nearly the amount of build flexibility or feats the fighter has. The warblade doesn't have all the ranged weapons, heavy armor, even fighter feats at the same level (he gets them at -2).

Covered above in detail.

 

[Thanatos]

Then the valuation that came up to "should" was wrong.

Not necessairly. Thats why people recognize classes that appear too powerful on paper and by all their calcuation, but it plays weak. It just goes to support that trying to balance classes by value ability comparison isn't necessairly very accurate.

I disagree completely. Potency in this context is ability to overcome challenges and achieve objectives. The fun of customization for the fighter does not add to this ability. And the set potency of the fighter has an expected degree of fun built in. When you throw in a new class that can run circles around the fighter then the fun will be drained from the fighter player and that sucks.

I disagree as well, the customization of the fighter does add to that ability to overcome challenges and achieve objectives. That adds to its potency. Except that this class does not run circles around the fighter, it just very different from the fighter.

There is no gap. There is a big negative gap. This has already been covered in this very thread.
Stances + Manuevers is at least as good as the feats AND the WB gets HP, SP, better skills and several other special abilities. The WB gets something for everything the fighter has.

Except that we don't agree on all the values used to calculate it. Nor do we agree on the value of all the variables you chose to calculate it up with. You don't see a gap or a negative one, I see a gap. Since neither of our ways of weighing these classes are any more valid then the other, we are just at an impasse here.

Covered above in detail.

Yep, I agree there. All of this above has been covered in this thread...and it's pretty much a wash and didn't really prove anything one way or another. No ones opinion was changed, the same people all came debating both sides, just like in every other thread relating to this.

I guess my point really is...you and I aren't really getting anywhere here and we've started to come back around.

The OP found the thread helpful, the mods didn't have to take anyone away in handcuffs (though I suspect some of you people would likely enjoy that...), so, all in all, it wasn't wasted or anything at least.

As a side-off-topic note:

And I've enjoyed our debate very much, but, we are hopefully deadlocked and coming from different places regarding the Nine Swords and the existing melee classes. And, for whatever its worth...while I've lurked around here alot more then posted, I've always enjoyed the threads you and MerricB participate in and have enjoyed the our butting-of-heads over all this, I hope I have acquitted myself honorably back in my responses.

 

[Felon]

The damage outputs have been shown in multiple threads here and on the Wizards forums that show the output is comparable.

Comparable to what? The fighter making a full round of iterative attacks that all hit (which is much harder to pull off than folks seem to think it is), or comparable the wizard who falls behind the martial adepts in hit dice, BAB, skill points, saves, etc?

Additionally, the warblade has a perfectly fine concept and is about as hollow as any other class in the PHB.

Now I gotta chuckle at that. "He's a guy who loves the hell out of fighting" is the description we get. This distinguishes him how exactly?