PHB2: Melee Weapon Mastery - am I missing something?

[Nifft]

You don't have to: you have a Ring of Spell Storing or somesuch.

Huh? Someone still has to cast it once for every use you get out of such a ring.

-- N

 

[Darklone]

That just makes you a selfish bastard. And thus an effective Cleric player.

I had a party of selfish and chaotic bastards. Strangely most PCs were mainly cleric and druid.

 

[Quartz]

Huh? Someone still has to cast it once for every use you get out of such a ring.

True, but the ring can be recharged in downtime. And if your ring runs out, you put on another.

 

[Cactot]

Well, maybe not huge, but it's significant, and it does get sold short.

A lot of folks have gotten into the frame of mind that if it ain't a nuke, it's garbage. The notion that warriors are balanced with spellcasters due to factors other than nukability has faded from the minds of many. Now, a warrior should have superlative AC, three times the HP of a wizard, AND on top of that, should be on par with casters in terms of damage output. Oh, and they shouldn't have to burn up slots or otherwise shoot their wad. Screw small consistent benefits, I want every swing of my sword to hit like a capped-out fireball. Then things will be on level ground.

And lo and behold, The Tome of Battle was created, and they said "this is good".

I have to wonder, you run ultra low power games or are you flamebaiting? Also i wonder if you have ever actually used ToB.

ToB == Versatility
ToB != Increased Damage

I mean, i can sort of understand how you could see all the neato abilities and scream omg hax! But in most situations a straight barbarian or fighter will be able to out damage them, what they get is flexibility and entertainment. Though I suppose, god knows we do not want to let the melee classes do anything but charge and power attack.

There have been numerous people who have run the statistics that have shown very clearly that the power gap is really non existent. Compared to a all core fighter... yes they are probably more powerful. Compared to a fighter or barbarian with more books, nope.

Also, for the record, exactly what part of ToB to you find so grossly overpowered? Which class? What array of powers?

 

[Nifft]

True, but the ring can be recharged in downtime. And if your ring runs out, you put on another.

That first point is very good. The second idea is very expensive!

I wonder if Rings of Spell Storing are technically balanced. Oh well, with item creation feats, it's already fairly easy to turn time & money into extra power. This is just another vector.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Did we end up agreeing about Melee Weapon Mastery being balanced or not? The topic seems to have drifted a bit...

 

[Cactot]

That first point is very good. The second idea is very expensive!

I wonder if Rings of Spell Storing are technically balanced. Oh well, with item creation feats, it's already fairly easy to turn time & money into extra power. This is just another vector.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Did we end up agreeing about Melee Weapon Mastery being balanced or not? The topic seems to have drifted a bit...

It depends on what sort of mobs you are fighting, it will give you a very good chance to hit cr and cr-1 mobs, but still leaves you with only a moderate chance to hit a boss mob with your first swing, and almost a nil chance to hit with your iteratives.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=861084

does a good job explaining why, using a huge quantity of data mined from the monster manuals.

 

[FatherTome]

I disagree with MWM being 'broken' or 'too good'. Additionally, our group views MWM as an unnamed +2/+2 bonus which stacks on WF/GWF/WS/GWS.

In the RAW context of D&D, using base classes exclusively, and only the PHB/DMG/MM, Fighters have certain advantages over Rangers, Barbarians, and Monks - 11 bonus fighter feats mean that you get all the cool combat moves, and if you take WF/GWF/WS/GWS, you're ending up with +2 to hit and +4 to damage at level 8. Bear in mind that around level 8, your fighter probably has a +2 sword, and if we're talking a stock longsword, that means 1d8+6+str damage per attack as a base, with (at level 8) a +12/+7 to hit before STR mods.

A RAW barbarian lacks the WF chain but all other things being equal has greater strength when raging, so his great axe will be attacking at +10/+5 before STR and dealing 1d12+2+1.5*str, which puts his average damage as slightly better, his to hit rolls on par with the fighter, and his AC on average something like 7-9 points worse (assuming a barbarian uses a breastplate and the fighter uses full plate).

If you add PHBII to the mix, the fighter now has the option to trade in some of his 'cool combat move' feats in exchange for more straight up to hit and damage, and gives you more options for 'cool combat moves'. If you use a slashing weapon, Slashing Flurry grants you an additional attack at a penalty (if I'm +16 to hit, and I use Slashing Flurry, instead of attacking at +16, +11, +6, +1, I attack at +11, +11, +6, +1, and -4). Combine Slashing Flurry with Weapon Supremacy's +5 to a single attack action, and you're effectively getting five iterative attacks instead of four.

Fighters get flexibility - if all you want is damage, go with a barbarian-type.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, IYO, fighters SHOULD outdamage paladins, their fellow warrior class. But if another class (like a little wizard with his d4 hit dice) outdamages a fighter, that's something broken that needs fixing? You reject the notion of "level ground" in one instance, but not another? That's a compelling arguement I'd love to hear.

Wizards can fly, can do damage to a room full of enemies, can teleport, can protect against various threats, and can perform various and sundry other functions. Clerics have many of the same powers, and can heal. The fighter hurts things by hitting them with weapons. He also has a few tactical tricks. The barbarian doesn't have those tricks, and to make up for it he gets more focus on the "hurting things with weapons" strategy. A barbarian should be able to do more damage than a fighter, because he's more specialized on that approach. A fighter should be able to do more damage than a wizard or cleric, who have versatility and access to abilities that the fighter can't match--ostensibly in exchange for their straightforward ability to dish out damage.

If a wizard can deal more damage than a fighter, and can also throw around status effects, area-of-effect damage, battlefield control effects, buffs, and utility spells, then what advantage has a fighter got? He has more HP, and doesn't run out of attacks. Of course, none of my wizard characters ever run out of attacks. That's what wands and scrolls are for. Not to mention that being a wizard increases the ease of a strategic retreat for resupplying.

 

[Felon]

I have to wonder, you run ultra low power games or are you flamebaiting?

It's the third option you chose not to consider: I'm right.

BoBS = Heaven for warriors who want to both tank and nuke. Having your cake and eating it too.

Also, for the record, exactly what part of ToB to you find so grossly overpowered?

I'm tempted to say "pages 48-94", but really, what do you want here? A line item notation of every little maneuver that gives you a much bigger benefit than any feat? Or better yet, makes a feat like Power Attack two or three or four times nastier? I say "bonecrusher", and then you proceed to tell me how it's poo?

A barbarian should be able to do more damage than a fighter, because he's more specialized on that approach. A fighter should be able to do more damage than a wizard or cleric, who have versatility and access to abilities that the fighter can't match--ostensibly in exchange for their straightforward ability to dish out damage.

If a wizard can deal more damage than a fighter, and can also throw around status effects, area-of-effect damage, battlefield control effects, buffs, and utility spells, then what advantage has a fighter got? He has more HP, and doesn't run out of attacks. Of course, none of my wizard characters ever run out of attacks. That's what wands and scrolls are for. Not to mention that being a wizard increases the ease of a strategic retreat for resupplying.

So, your rationalization is that a warrior should not just have better defense in the form of more AC and HP, and more resilience in the form of unlimited charges on his attacks, but on top of that--because that's just not enough--the warrior should also have greater damage output. The warrior gets to both nuker and tank, and the spellcaster's edge? The ability to fly around and heal and do other "tricks". They just sit back with their lower defense and offense and feel compensated by their fly, cure, and knock spells? That they can bog down and debuff opponents so they can be chopped up more easily? They just handle all of the little catty-corner challenges that aren't fixed by brute offense and ironclad defense, sort of like the way 1e thieves sat around and waited for a chance to pick a lock?

Sorry, but that's got a pretty lousy taste to it. I find this notion that versatility is fair compensation for less raw, direct power to be pretty flawed. Power is pretty much in a class all its own. You don't need to fly away from a dead enemy, or heal wounds he didn't get to inflict because he was promptly squashed, or lay down bogs and debuffs for corpses.

When you see a mage busting out a wand or a scroll, that doesn't mean that he's not bleeding out resources. Just the opposite. Even a self-made scroll is a hell of an expensive proposition for spells once you get over 3rd or 4th level. More to the point, wands and scrolls are almost always at a lowered caster level, so while you may not see a wizard just clap his hands and say "I'm out", there is a decline in effectiveness when he's at that point. His flame is dying, while the warrior's is constant.

 

[Zurai]

So, your rationalization is that a warrior should not just have better defense in the form of more AC and HP, and more resilience in the form of unlimited charges on his attacks, but on top of that--because that's just not enough--the warrior should also have greater damage output. The warrior gets to both nuker and tank, and the spellcaster's edge? The ability to fly around and heal and do other "tricks". They just sit back with their lower defense and offense and feel compensated by their fly, cure, and knock spells? That they can bog down and debuff opponents so they can be chopped up more easily? They just handle all of the little catty-corner challenges that aren't fixed by brute offense and ironclad defense, sort of like the way 1e thieves sat around and waited for a chance to pick a lock?

What you fail to realize is that, past 10th level or so, dealing hitpoint damage is completely suboptimal. At that point, casters are able to completely bypass hitpoints and just say "either you save, or you die"; hitpoints only exist at that level to force the casters to actually use their save-or-dies. Casters also get to do a lot more than "fly, cure, and knock".

Teleport? Miracle/Wish? Resurrection? Commune? Plane Shift? Gate? Telepathic Bond? Magnificent Mansion? Geas? Disjunction? Shapechange?

All of those are incredibly powerful abilities that no Fighter can duplicate in any fashion. Many of them can be used to completely avoid the need for a fight in the first place.

I challenge you to play through a high-level module twice: First, with a party that has no full spellcasters, then with a party that has no full BAB characters. I gaurantee you'll have a dramatically easier time with the second party.