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

[BryonD]

I find it hard to say that the improved skill points and better skill selection should be hand-waived because certain stance/maneuvers require them.

They're still skill points.

They're still the "combat" skills that they've always been.

Right. Exactly.
That they get more skill points is NOT an advantage becuase this so called advantage is off-set by the WB's expanded options for unsing these skills.

It's a strange version of two wrongs make a right.



Amazing

 

[BryonD]

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.

I'm just not going to spend time re-responding to the vast number of errors and flaws in your post.
But you REALLY missed the point here.
Yes, it is not balanced.
But the "proof" you have provided that the WB is balanced equally well "proves" that THIS silly class would be balanced.
By agreeing that this made up class is broken you are agreeing that your analysis of the warblade vs. the fighter is flawed.

 

[Nifft]

Ah, some good thinking going on here.

Now, here's my question for those with a good grasp of the balance of the Warblade (i.e. that it is just too strong):

What could be done to make the three MA base classes balanced? (between each other and the rest of the base classes?)

I don't care if they all end up almost as strong as Druids or Clerics. I just care that they are not stronger than everything else, nor weaker than everything else.

Thoughts?

Thanks, -- N

 

[Thanatos]

I'm just not going to spend time re-responding to the vast number of errors and flaws in your post.
But you REALLY missed the point here.
Yes, it is not balanced.
But the "proof" you have provided that the WB is balanced equally well "proves" that THIS silly class would be balanced.

Really? seems like the errors and flaws were in yours to me. Amazing how approaching the subject from two different directions does that.

No, it is balanced.

And I disagree, the proof I have provided does nothing of the sort. The 2 for 1 class is still unbalanced. The warblade is not a 2 for 1 class.

By agreeing that this made up class is broken you are agreeing that your analysis of the warblade vs. the fighter is flawed.

Do not presume to tell me what I am agreeing to, because I do not agree my proof proves any such thing.

I agree your class is broken, but I don't agree that your class has anything to do with the warblade at all. My analysis of the warblade vs. the fighter is just fine and based on in-play experience as well as weighing the classes against each other. I don't use your methodology and I think your methodology is just as wrong as you think mine is.

Please stop trying to make it appear I am saying and agreeing to things I am not. It is very rude of you and wrong. I have tried to make it clear at point I was not agreeing with what you were verbally trying to trap me into agreeing to and you pushed it anyway.

 

[BryonD]

Now, here's my question for those with a good grasp of the balance of the Warblade (i.e. that it is just too strong):

What could be done to make the three MA base classes balanced? (between each other and the rest of the base classes?)

I don't care if they all end up almost as strong as Druids or Clerics. I just care that they are not stronger than everything else, nor weaker than everything else.

Thoughts?

Thanks, -- N

Try scraping the Warblade as is and modifying the Fighter.
Take away all the fighter's bonus feats and heavy armor prof.
Add 2 SP and Concentration and Tumble as class skills.
Add Warblade stances and manuevers.

Remove ranged weapon profs and/or add back in a few fighter bonus feats to taste.

 

[BryonD]

Really? seems like the errors and flaws were in yours to me. Amazing how approaching the subject from two different directions does that.

And amazing how some approaches seem to include rational analysis and other are based on unsupported claims.

Such as:

No, it is balanced.

And I disagree, the proof I have provided does nothing of the sort. The 2 for 1 class is still unbalanced. The warblade is not a 2 for 1 class.

Obviouly the point of this arguement is eluding you because you are not even addressing it.

Do not presume to tell me what I am agreeing to, because I do not agree my proof proves any such thing.

But you are also not speaking to the point that was made, so one must keep that in mind.

I agree your class is broken, but I don't agree that your class has anything to do with the warblade at all. My analysis of the warblade vs. the fighter is just fine and based on in-play experience as well as weighing the classes against each other. I don't use your methodology and I think your methodology is just as wrong as you think mine is.

But your methodolgy SHOWS that my class is NOT broken.

Please stop trying to make it appear I am saying and agreeing to things I am not. It is very rude of you and wrong. I have tried to make it clear at point I was not agreeing with what you were verbally trying to trap me into agreeing to and you pushed it anyway.

I'm not. You just aren't catching the point of what I'm saying.

 

[Thanatos]

Ah, some good thinking going on here.

Now, here's my question for those with a good grasp of the balance of the Warblade (i.e. that it is just too strong):

Wow, thats really insulting and I am offended.

What could be done to make the three MA base classes balanced? (between each other and the rest of the base classes?)

I don't care if they all end up almost as strong as Druids or Clerics. I just care that they are not stronger than everything else, nor weaker than everything else.

Thoughts?

Thanks, -- N

They are balanced very well against the other classes. They are only going to be overbalanced if you don't change the standard old combat tactics you've used against the regular classes. These bring a new mechanic into the game and require expanding your repertoire of usual encounters.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Personally, the way I'd really like to use the book would be to allow stance/maneuver in through Fighter feats, giving the Fighter a bit of a power-up that he's been needing (even with PHBII), but not use the base classes at all.

Not shelling out the dough for a book I'm going to be banning most of, though. Even among the individual stances/maneuvers, there are things that I seriously don't like.

--fje

 

[Storyteller01]

YO! MEMBERS OF ENWORLD!!

Let's keep it civil folks. Much like me on small critters and weapons, neither side is going to win. The thread wasn't about game balance, simply what to expect from the book. I appreciate the responses, and would also appreciate it if we toned down the hostility.

Again, thanks for your time.

 

[BryonD]

Personally, the way I'd really like to use the book would be to allow stance/maneuver in through Fighter feats, giving the Fighter a bit of a power-up that he's been needing (even with PHBII), but not use the base classes at all.

Not shelling out the dough for a book I'm going to be banning most of, though. Even among the individual stances/maneuvers, there are things that I seriously don't like.

--fje

Yeah. I tend to think that opening up the latitude for fighters to access pieces of this stuff may be very good.
To really get the most out of the book, it may make sense to look at more options such as allowing one feat to give access to more than one manuever. I'm not sure really how best to go about it. But I don't think 2 or 3 would break the system. If you are not defending the turf of the WB then the need to limit the fighter to 3 total completely goes away.

And yeah, there are some specific cases of just plain bad stuff. But that has been/is the case with spells to. So I also don't have a big concern just working around that.