The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Elder-Basilisk]

This kind of rhetoric doesn't correspond to my experience playing fighters or fighter types at all--nor to my experience of what skilled players do with fighting characters. (Note that I don't say fighters not because fighters are a lame class, but rather because, IME, single class fighters are quite rare among the PCs I see when I run and play games. Some of the characters people play have more options than fighters, probably half of them have fewer tactical manuever style options than single classed fighters of the same level might have (multiclassing with barbarian will do that), but in any event using the single classed fighter to represent all melee combatants in D&D 3.x would be wildly inaccurate).

I attack and manuever to be able to pull off my Rhino's Rush charge into a spot adjacent to two enemies, one of whom is injured so I'll be able to cleave into the other.

I delay for the spellcaster to cast haste and then declare my dodge opponent as the aspect of Grazz't, manuever around the succubus (scorning her attack of opportunity) but setting up so that when the aspect of Grazz't would get an AoO on me for closing with him, he will be flanking with the succubus and my Elusive Target feat will go off making him miss and hit the succubus, and giving me a free trip attack against him, and I can follow up by smiting him with a four point power attack.

The target is surrounded by the barbarian, paladin, and the cleric, so I will bull rush him instead of attacking to generate three attacks of opportunity which may enable the barbarian to cleave into another bad guy/ I charge and hit him with my shield, Power Attacking for four points; if I hit that gives me the opportunity to knock him prone and he has to make a save or be dazed. The next round, I get 3/2 Power Attack because I charged and hit, so I will sunder his axe, cleaving sunder through to hit him, and hit him again so he'll have to make a fort save or be nauseated.

3.x combat is only a dull repetition of single attack/full attack if you want it to be. Between positioning (where you can be flanked, where you can't be flanked, where you can be charged, where you can't, where you control the approaches to the spellcasters, where you don't, where you do flank, where you have cover from enemies with ranged attacks and where you don't, where you provide cover to enemies from your allies' ranged attacks, where you will be full attackable and where you won't, where you can cleave, what your cleave options are, etc) mathematical feats (Power Attack, Combt Expertise, Fight defensively, etc), attack options (grapple and trip being the most common followed by sunder, disarm, and bullrush), and feat granted options (combat brute, shock trooper, elusive target, shield charge, shield slam, intimidating strike, mad foam rager), class granted abilities (smite evil, spells (like Rhino's Rush, Strength of Stone, Knight's Move, deafening clang), hexblade's curse, marshal auras, knight's challenge, flurry of blows, rage etc), and equipment (bracers of the quick strike, weapon capsule retainers, cloak of the montebank, healing belt, etc), you have plenty of options to make combat interesting.

Manuevers may seem cool to you, but if your experience of D&D 3.x melee combat is "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack" then you haven't scratched the surface of the tactical possibilities. And, if a designer is posting that, then they really don't understand the current edition of the game.

What you do get is people being able to pull off cool tricks and maneuvers in battle, rather than just chanting "I full attack. I full attack. It's dead? I move and single attack. I full attack.".

--Seule

 

[Wolfspider]

More Anectodal "Evidence": I actually have a copy of Bo9S, and I think it's pretty darn interesting.

Unfortunately, no one in my group wants to try out any of the classes in the book.

They are, however, very keen on the rules for combat maneuvers in the Mike Mearls' Book of Iron Might, so we have adopted them into our house rules.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Except the part where fighters hold up quite well with spell casters and Martial Adepts run circles around spellcasters.

What mutant version of 3.x have you been playing?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Requiring feats (or class abilities) to make non Bo9S combat manuevers usable should hardly be an issue in the question of whether Bo9S Combat Manuevers make otherwise boring combat interesting. After all, fighters get feats as class abilities. Fighting characters who aren't fighters take fighter levels to get more feats. Bo9S characters take martial adept levels (or spend feats) to get manuevers. Bo9S manuevers require class abilities to be usable as well. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, a Bo9S character who didn't pick a particular manuever can't use it any more than a character who didn't take Intimidating Strike as a feat can do that. Sounds somewhat similar to me.

As for the core fighting options losing usefulness at high levels, that is only an issue if, for you, real D&D only happens at level 15+. If you spend a lot of time playing at lower levels, it's not as much of an issue. And furthermore, the various options do retain a lot of their usefulness at high levels--if your character puts effort into making them usable. A 15th level monk/fighter/wizard may not be able to grapple anything he wants to, but if he took the various grappling feats, built up his strength, and picked up a grappling item or two, all but the biggest and strongest monsters should fear his grapple check. (In the case of the monk I'm thinking of, they should fear his trip check too). Some even get new potential at high levels. Bull rushing a formian to generate AoOs from the cleric and the rogue at 3rd level is one thing. Bull rushing a marilith through the prismatic wall is another thing entirely. You may not be likely to succeed at bull rushing the Eldritch Giant fighter, but there are plenty of other things you can do to the Eldritch Giant fighter--Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk come to mind. (And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).

Furthermore, the idea that all of the manuevers from Bo9S are inherently more interesting than attack/full attack seems somewhat improbable. How is it more interesting to use the manuever that gives you a massive 100+ damage single attack than to full attack for 100+ points of damage in a round? Either way, you are spending your round dealing damage to the enemy.

I would say it is more like they have a *few* combat options, most of which lose their usefulness at high levels, and also require feats to make them usable.

Feats that could otherwise be spent on improving their core ability of 'full attack, full attack, move and single attack, full attack.'

 

[Darth Cyric]

Requiring feats (or class abilities) to make non Bo9S combat manuevers usable should hardly be an issue in the question of whether Bo9S Combat Manuevers make otherwise boring combat interesting. After all, fighters get feats as class abilities. Fighting characters who aren't fighters take fighter levels to get more feats. Bo9S characters take martial adept levels (or spend feats) to get manuevers. Bo9S manuevers require class abilities to be usable as well. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, a Bo9S character who didn't pick a particular manuever can't use it any more than a character who didn't take Intimidating Strike as a feat can do that. Sounds somewhat similar to me.

Apples and oranges. There isn't a single Fighter feat that even comes close to matching even a mid-level ToB maneuver, much less a high-level one. Comparing Intimidating Strike to a ToB maneuver is a joke.

As for the core fighting options losing usefulness at high levels, that is only an issue if, for you, real D&D only happens at level 15+. If you spend a lot of time playing at lower levels, it's not as much of an issue. And furthermore, the various options do retain a lot of their usefulness at high levels--if your character puts effort into making them usable. A 15th level monk/fighter/wizard may not be able to grapple anything he wants to, but if he took the various grappling feats, built up his strength, and picked up a grappling item or two, all but the biggest and strongest monsters should fear his grapple check. (In the case of the monk I'm thinking of, they should fear his trip check too). Some even get new potential at high levels. Bull rushing a formian to generate AoOs from the cleric and the rogue at 3rd level is one thing. Bull rushing a marilith through the prismatic wall is another thing entirely. You may not be likely to succeed at bull rushing the Eldritch Giant fighter, but there are plenty of other things you can do to the Eldritch Giant fighter--Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk come to mind. (And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).

1) Monks are lousy grapplers, anyway.

2) You don't GET any more situational than having a Prismatic Wall you can push a marilith through, assuming you get lucky with your positioning. Plus the Wizard has to be there to create a Prismatic Wall. That's just yet another example of a PHB melee class not being able to stand on his own two feet without ANY magical help.

Furthermore, the idea that all of the manuevers from Bo9S are inherently more interesting than attack/full attack seems somewhat improbable. How is it more interesting to use the manuever that gives you a massive 100+ damage single attack than to full attack for 100+ points of damage in a round? Either way, you are spending your round dealing damage to the enemy.

A single 100+ damage hit guarantees that I'm invoking the massive damage save. Failing that, I only used a standard action, which means I actually get to move into a better position within the same round.

By the way, iterative attacks are out the window in 4e. Better get used to the idea.

 

[ruleslawyer]

(And situational usefulness is hardly excluded from Bo9S manuevers--the one that gives your weapons fire damage isn't much use against a fire elemental).

Must nitpick about this one. It is vastly, VASTLY easier to change out maneuvers than swap out feats, and you know it. (Moreover, Giant Slayer and Confound the Big Folk are both supplement feats as well, so we're talking non-core on both ends. Those feats represent almost as large a departure from core fighter abilities as do maneuvers.)

 

[The Little Raven]

15th level monk/fighter/wizard

My condolences to the player of this character.

 

[Zurai]

Apples and oranges. There isn't a single Fighter feat that even comes close to matching even a mid-level ToB maneuver, much less a high-level one. Comparing Intimidating Strike to a ToB maneuver is a joke.

Weapon Specialization will, on average, add as much or more damage damage per 5-round fight than a 5th level Martial Adept maneuver. Compare a str 20 level 9 fighter with a +2 greatsword and WS: greatsword to a dex 20 level 9 swordsage with a +2 shortsword and Elder Mountain Hammer, both fighting an Androsphinx (CR 9).

Fighter has a charge at +19 on the first round and attacks at +17/+12 for the remaining 4 rounds. He hits an average of 6.3 times for 12.6 added damage from Weapon Specialization.

Swordsage has a standard attack at +13 which hits 60% of the time for +6d6 damage and then is used up for the remainder of the combat. 60% of 6d6 averages to, amazingly, 12.6.

And that's just Weapon Specialization. Melee Weapon Mastery is significantly better (14.3 added damage), especially when combined with the obvious choice, Power Attack (MWM + PA for 2 = 37.8 expected extra damage).

By the way, iterative attacks are out the window in 4e. Better get used to the idea.

Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Weapon Specialization will, on average, add as much or more damage damage per 5-round fight than a 5th level Martial Adept maneuver. Compare a str 20 level 9 fighter with a +2 greatsword and WS: greatsword to a dex 20 level 9 swordsage with a +2 shortsword and Elder Mountain Hammer, both fighting an Androsphinx (CR 9).

Fighter has a charge at +19 on the first round and attacks at +17/+12 for the remaining 4 rounds. He hits an average of 6.3 times for 12.6 added damage from Weapon Specialization.

Swordsage has a standard attack at +13 which hits 60% of the time for +6d6 damage and then is used up for the remainder of the combat. 60% of 6d6 averages to, amazingly, 12.6.

And that's just Weapon Specialization. Melee Weapon Mastery is significantly better (14.3 added damage), especially when combined with the obvious choice, Power Attack (MWM + PA for 2 = 37.8 expected extra damage).

Well, this comparison is just a bit skewed.

First off, you're comparing a full BAB class to a 3/4 BAB class. Of course the Fighter is going to hit more! You want a fair comparison in that department, compare the Fighter to a Warblade and see how that goes. *snickers in Fighter's direction*

Second, you're comparing the damage accrual, using full attack, of Weapon Spec over a five-round fight ... to ONE SINGLE USE of a maneuver within all five rounds. You don't think that said Martial Adept is going to use more than one maneuver over the course of a battle? That would be like a Wizard casting one fireball, then using his quarterstaff the rest of the encounter. Worse, actually. Wizards have an excuse to be conservative with their spells. Martial Adepts don't with their maneuvers, since they can easily recover them after an encounter.

Also, doing more damage in one hit has more practical value, allowing for more tactical options afterwards (namely, Elder Mountain Hammer being a standard action, allowing you to move into a better position, for one). It's like American football. A 6-yard pickup on first down for 2nd and 4 gives you a lot more playcalling options than an incomplete pass on 1st down giving you 2nd and 10.

Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.

Considering BAB has been confirmed more or less out altogether in 4e (an even more radical departure than SWS), we can safely assume iteratives are gone.

 

[The Little Raven]

Source? They're out in Saga Edition, but I don't believe WotC has stated that they're out in 4E.

Andy Collins confirmed that the "full-attack" option is gone. Since full-attack was the only way to get your iterative attacks, this would lead one to believe that they're gone, especially in light of Saga being a "significant preview."