BryonD said:
You say not necessarily that the valuation is wrong and then you end by saying it isn't accurate?????
Thats correct, the valuation isn't necessairly wrong. Your write it all up and add it all together and it shows a strong, "hight point" class on paper, then you go to play it and its moderately ineefective, proving weaker the "lower point classes". Monk compared to fighter is often the prime example used. Though I have read the swashbuckler is another class like that as well. I just don't agree it turns out to be an accurate way to balance class against class.
I certainly agree that there are many cases where it is difficult to do this sort of assessment because the abstract nature of the class features. The monk is a good example of that.
You put it much more succinctly then I did, that's what I've been saying.
The WB is not. There is nothing abstract about more HP is better than less HP and more SP is better than less SP. I still don't see anyone arguing that the feats are at all better than the stances and manuevers, much less SIGNIFICANTLY better (the ability to cusotmize is included here). Once that apparent total concensus is accepted then your are left with a bunch of WB bonuses stacked up against nearly nothing for the fighter. There is nothign abstract left to assess. It gets real accurate under these conditions.
We disagree here. The Skill points tie into the maneuver system and so the MA classes have to have more skill points since they can't put them wherever they like otherwise certain maneuvers are essentially useless, not to mention, some MA PrC's require you have high numbers of certain ranks to qualify for them - as such, I don't really agree its a full value class ability. Feats and Stances are like poor spell progression with a very limited use or no use outside of combat, HP 1 die better, but Heavy AC and Martial Ranged weapons are out.
So, even if its agreed maneuvers and stances roughly equal feats, it still doesn't show the warblade overpowering the fighter. The sheer number of feats and customization capability in using those long feat chains where other classes really cant factors in as well, for at least the fighter.
That is wrong because while the CLASS allows customization, a given fighter character is fixed once built. You can not change the options a particular fighter has selected so that adds no effectiveness to the character in terms of potency during game play.
I do not think its wrong. It is fixed once built, however, you built it -- it didn't come prepacked with features you may not ever use, it wasn't built for the style of your campaign. You can't change the options any particular character has, thats not unique to the fighter.
Again, just claiming this does not make it true. I've listed a basis for my position.
Your preference for ignorning it does not invalidate it.
Nor does it make it untrue either. I've listed the basis for my positions as well and countered back just like you have with mine. I've not ingored yours at all.
Are you now stepping up to be the first person to actually claim that the manuevers and stances are worth significantly less than the fighter feats? If you are you are in a very lonely position and so be it. If you are not then exactly WHAT are you basing this statement on?
I wouldn actually be the first person to claim it, but then thats not really what I am claiming. I don't think you can compare just maneuvers and stances to feats. The skill points roll into that as well, since most of them are required if you want to go into a MA PrC or to use certain maneuvers. I don't think you can break down the warblade and fighter like you have, I don't think it represents a very accurate accounting of them because everyone weighs stuff differently.
Please point me to a post that comes remotely near actually SHOWING that it is a wash.
Just saying it does not make it true.
There's lots of threads which pretty much do exactly what this one is doing. They just eventually die with everyone going in circles about the same thing. Here and on the Wizards forums -- I don't have search abilities in either place, feel free to look for them if you want. Just like denying it doesn't make it true either.
Feats = Stances + Manuevers (I still claim that this is being quite favorable to the fighter side, but I'm willing to allow it for arguments sake)
No, you really have to roll most of the skill points in there as well, since they are generally required (with the swordsage requiring the most).
The fighter gets heavy armor and ranged weapons. I've seen plenty of very solid fighter build that do not rely on either of these aspects do I don't see how they can have a really significant weight.
And I've seen many that do use these aspects. Not necessairly on the same fighter though or used all the way through, but I believe they do make add a significant value to the class.
The WB gets more HP, more SP, better skill selection, several bonus feats and a list of other abilities. To simply claim that these total up to no more than heavy armor + ranged weapons does nto stand up to reason.
You should tie skill selection into the stance/maneuver system as well as skill points. The system for maneuvers and stances is part of the skill system -- they don't work without that aspect. The WB may get 1HD more, but he doesn't get the ranged or heavy armor or sheer number of feats. His bonus feat list is far, far smaller then the fighter one and doesn't amount to that many more feats. I find what you keep repeating not standing up to reason. It's all about point of view.
Heck, if you DM'ed for me and let me be a fighter that lost heavy armor but just gained +1 SP per level and tumble as a class skill in exchange, I'd readily call that a deal right there. Now make my character an elf and the ranged weapons issue dies and there is nothing left to compare to. If this is a WB instead of a fighter my character now has the fighter covered AND has another SP and HP and special abiltities and feats, all without counting the manuevers and stances that cancel out the fighters feats. (And if you go back to just customization, then please note that a WB has a pretty decent selection of manuevers to work with).
I'd call that getting shortchanged big time. But now you are changing the parameters by using a racial choice in a "class" argument -- thats invalidates the rest of the comparison. Depending on your race selection, everything can become skewed as the Thri-Kreen monk clearly shows over and over on OptBoard at wizards.
Let me try to bring you with one other line of reasoning.
The only solid claims you have made are that the WB does not gain heavy armor, the ability to customize with feats, ranged weapons and is two levels later getting the special fighter feats.
The only solid claims? hardly, that is your opinion of "solid claims". I don't consider some of the things you claim are solid, to be solid.
Well, what if I invented a new class that was exactly the WB except I remove the manuevers and stances. I replace these features with full sorcerer spellcasting and no arcane spell failure in medium or light armor. Would you consider this balanced? I would certainly hope that no reasonble person would.
No, combining 2 full classes into 1 and comparing it to 1 is not balanced. Fortunately, thats not what was done with the Warblade or other MA classes.
And yet every point you have made to show that the fighter is balanced with the WB would apply equally well in the case here.
I disagree it would apply in this case at all.
This Sorcery Warblade would not gain heavy armor, the ability to customize with feats, ranged weapons and is two levels later getting the special fighter feats. So if that arguement shows balance, then this class is clearly balanced. Clearly this class is NOT balanced, so clearly that arguement does not establish proof.
I would agree, your Sorcery Warblade is not balanced, however, the Warblade has plenty of balancing mechanisms built into it, which is why all the MA classes were built the way they were.
How would you prove that this class is not balanced?
You must at some point get into the details of the class features.
Which we have done with the fighter and warblade over and over again along with everyone else in the threads that span here and Wizards.
If you accept that full sorcery spells are superior to the fighters feat chain then the issue is settled. But if you dispute that then you have a very heavy burden of proof before you.
Well, you can claim I have the "very heavy burden of proof" but I disagree. I do not, those classes are considered balanced by their creators. How powerful the feat chain is ultimately is determined by the feats chosen from whats available, which up until the PHB II and Complete Warrior, wasn't all that great.
The manuevers and stances of a WB are certainly worth less than sorcerer spells. But to claim that they are worth less than the fighter feats (customization included) still brings a very heavy burden of proof and is certainly the opposite of what is commonly accepted.
Roll in the majority of the skill points and we migh be more along the lines of being on to something. Its one system.
If you want to show it is a wash, then show it.
But if you are just going to claim it then that is fine, but it won't stand up to much scrutiny.
It is, it goes in circles in all the threads and stands up to scrutiny just fine. Just not in the opinions of the people who say the fighter sucks and the MA's are overpowered. 'Round and round it goes and the only side that thinks they are winning is the one they are on.
Balance is not automatically critical to fun.
If someone is having fun playing in a game with 3 bards and a double gestalt cleric/sorcerer/fighter, then great. They are having fun and that is all that counts. But in the majority of cases I doubt that the three bards players would find this very fun. So I still consider balance inportant.
I agree, balance is important. But not everyone views balance the same way. I have seen these classes in action and find them to be powerful, but balanced. Well built fighters and barbarians hold their own. Monks don't. Rangers and Paladins do okay, but not as well as fighters and barbarians. In a low-magic game or grim and gritty, these classes are super powers and don't scale down well because of the maneuver system and its flavor.
)
