Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanatos" data-source="post: 3109069" data-attributes="member: 5261">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.You put it much more succinctly then I did, that's what I've been saying.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.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.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. 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. 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.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).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. 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.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.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.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 disagree it would apply in this case at all.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.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.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.Roll in the majority of the skill points and we migh be more along the lines of being on to something. Its one system.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification