Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanatos" data-source="post: 3096417" data-attributes="member: 5261">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.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.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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification