The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Arkhandus]

kigmatzomat: Keep in mind that nearly all maneuvers have prerequisites. And warblades get the fewest maneuvers known/readied of anyone. Sure, the guy might become an 11th-level initiator suddenly, but he'll have to waste probably all but 1 of his maneuvers known just on learning the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers needed to qualify for the single 6th-level maneuver he wants.

Say he wants Greater Insightful Strike as a 6th-level maneuver. With his 1 level of warblade, he can just barely manage this. Learn Stance of Clarity and Moment of Perfect Mind, and that'll qualify him, then he has 1 maneuver left to choose; it might be Ruby Nightmare Blade, but he'll still be spending his turn initiating one of these in combat rather than unleashing a full-attack action. And a high-level warrior can do an awful lot of damage with a full-attack.

Anyone who can't is probably still not going to be as awesome in melee, even after learning these handy maneuvers (which would basically just be people like bards, wizards, and non-core classes that highly resemble them; just about anyone else could make a powerful full-attack with just one or two spells active, or a wild shape, if nothing else). And those few who couldn't do so would probably just be better off casting a spell than trying to attack someone physically with maneuvers (in other words, gaining those nice but not awesome maneuvers won't make an appreciable difference in their power, because they'll probably already have an option available that is superior given their general abilities.

A barbarian power-attacking at 21st-level in a rage might deal moderately less damage than a Greater Insightful Strike if he just makes a single attack, but if he full-attacks, he can probably guarantee hitting twice or more, which will deal more damage than the GIS. The barbarian will be using a magic weapon with bonuses and extra damage, whereas the GIS guy will only deal the damage dictated by his Greater Insightful Strike, impressive though it may be. The barbarian will outdamage him. The rogue would be better off full-attacking while flanking and sneak attacking. The wizard would be better off casting a Quickened Maximized Magic Missile and a Twinned Maximized Magic Missile in the same round, or just casting Horrid Wilting or an Empowered Cone of Cold. Etc.


Majoru:

Actually, the crusader would heal 1d6+5 damage once per 3-5 rounds, and heal 2 damage on each other round. Martial Spirit is the 1st-level stance that heals 2 HP for the initiator or a nearby ally each time the initiator hits someone in melee, and Crusader's Strike would heal 1d6+3 at 3rd-level.

My experience with a 1st-level to 2nd-level crusader was that he wasn't as useful at healing as a proper Cleric would've been, especially since he could only heal people with violence, in, y'know, combat against real foes (the healing maneuvers and stance tend to be rather specific about who you hit to get the healing, merely slapping your harmless buddy probably won't cut it).

 

[rkanodia]

If there's one big failing for Bo9S, it's a need to re-categorize some of those maneuvers as supernatural that just aren't, not even in errata.

I'm hoping that the categorizations of "Extraordinary", "Supernatural", "Spell-Like", and "Spell" will just all go away, and instead powers will be categorized by source: "Martial", "Arcane", "Divine", and, eventually, "Psionic". Whether something is 'magic' or not won't really matter. This would require dispel-type effects to take a backseat, or become similarly based on source: 'Dispel Magic' would become 'Dispel Arcana' or somesuch.

 

[Mercule]

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with a person concentrating for a moment and channeling magic through themselves to make themselves as light as air for a short while. They use magic, but they don't cast spells and they aren't "magic users".

You misunderstand. I don't have any issue with there being people who use magic without spells or even through their weapons or bodies. Those are still mystic characters, though, not martial (okay, if they fight, they're martial, but that definition includes even the warmage).

Also, if it uses magic, it's a "magic user". It may not be a wizard, though.

As I said, I don't have an issue with mystic warriors. It certainly isn't the only archetype for fantasy warriors. It also isn't the one I want to play.

 

[Mercule]

Valid concept of what a fighter should be Mercule. Basically, if I'm reading you correctly, what a 20th level fighter is capable of is just what a 1st level fighter can do but just better/easier.

My problem with it though is that said fighter is supposed to exist with MU as valid player character classes. A 20th level MU in 1E/2E/3E not only does what a 1st level mage can do and better (1st level spells are more powerful when cast by a 20th level mage versus a 1st level mage) but they also gain HUGE and ENTIRELY new class features (the 20th level mage can fly, turn invisible, etc. All stuff that looking at the 1st level mage you can't extrapolate from)

This has always been D&D's problem and I'm interested to see if the 4E designers can solve this aspect.

Agreed. The balance can be an issue -- and one I'd like to see solved without removing the flavor of either the fighter or the wizard.

I really want to be able to play a Conanesque character, who can actually be victorious over an ancient necromancer or powerful, dark cultist through force of arms and skill.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I think that the problem with this, though, is that in the current game, such characters require heaps of magical trinkets to be effective, which is as far from the classic S&S genre as is the levitating long-jumping flame-bladed fighter. Really, the only d20 games in which I've seen the divide evened out are the ones that radically reduce the magic-user's power (e.g. OGL Conan) or that radically increase the overall staying power and diversity of abilities of the fighter-types (Iron Heroes).

 

[ruleslawyer]

That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me. I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap, but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.

Well, the thing about all the examples you've listed is that for the most part, they depict folks who are, in the 4e context, "heroic tier" characters.

But I think you've hit on something. IMO, the trick with martial characters is to make the *depiction* of the ability somewhat quasi-believable, but the *mechanical effect* of the ability scale up in line with the flashier spells. Zhang Yimou's martial-arts films seem to provide nice examples of this; in Hero, for instance, heroes knock flights of hundreds of arrows out of the air, barrel through an entire army on their way to defeat a king, and move so dizzingly fast that time itself seems to slow down, but it all feels like the product of some great skill rather than a flashy arcane physics-breaking effect. Ditto with House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (at least IMO). Those are the sorts of moves I think of when imagining high-level fighters.

 

[Goblyn]

That's the way I've always felt about it, myself, usually garnered from most of the swords & sorcery I saw as a kid -- from Conan, to Ladyhawke, to Dragonslayer, to Excalibur. If someone who was a martial artist started walking on air, my first thought is, "where's the magic coming from?" "Training his body and mind" really wasn't sufficient for me. I'll accept a little reality-bending, like running up a wall for a few feet to make a jump, or slapping arrows out of the air, or making a 20-foot leap, but not a lot more before I have to get "magic" as an answer, and have it follow the rules for magic and anti-magic, etc.

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure about slapping arrows out of the air, but 'running' up walls a few steps and making 20-foot leaps are not reality bending at all. Look up 'parkour' and 'hapkido'.

 

[Seule]

I've never seen a fighter in combat run like this. Could this be a strawfighter?

If course it'sa a strawfighter, particularly for some edge case fighters (like spiked chain wielders). On the other hand, against large monsters rather than other humanoids, the options of the fighter drop drastically to a very few good options.
As others say, basically you can attack for damage, or you can try control (trip, grapple, disarm, sunder). Those control options all require feat investment, and all don't work on large or larger critter-types.
On the other hand, playing a fighter tactically isn't that simple, as where you ove to and why can be critically important, but you are still pretty much full attacking for damage, or moving and single attacking, much of the time.
Using Bo9S isn't like that nearly as much. Your maneuvers give you interesting options, and trying to guage when each is best to use is a minigame itself. I'm not saying that fighters aren't fun to play (I have an 11th level straight fighter in one game), just that my warblade is more fun, by a wide margin, for me.

--Seule

 

[Henry]

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure about slapping arrows out of the air, but 'running' up walls a few steps and making 20-foot leaps are not reality bending at all. Look up 'parkour' and 'hapkido'.

In plate mail. While winded. while carrying a longsword and a shield.

Well, the thing about all the examples you've listed is that for the most part, they depict folks who are, in the 4e context, "heroic tier" characters.

I have no clue, but if they give 1st level characters the kinds of things they've given 1st level Star Wars Saga characters, then they'll be over-the-top heroic at 1st level. And Dragonslayer's protagonist was a normal joe, more of a charlatan, protected by a good shield and a magic charm. Another good example for me: The Musketeer, with Justin Chambers. It did use Wuxia-style moves in its fight scenes, but not so over the top that I lost all suspension of disbelief. There was fighting on barrels, and prodigious leaps, but no running on flying bullets or leaping 30 feet to the top of a wall in one bound.

But I think you've hit on something. IMO, the trick with martial characters is to make the *depiction* of the ability somewhat quasi-believable, but the *mechanical effect* of the ability scale up in line with the flashier spells. Zhang Yimou's martial-arts films seem to provide nice examples of this; in Hero, for instance, heroes knock flights of hundreds of arrows out of the air, barrel through an entire army on their way to defeat a king, and move so dizzingly fast that time itself seems to slow down, but it all feels like the product of some great skill rather than a flashy arcane physics-breaking effect. Ditto with House of Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower (at least IMO). Those are the sorts of moves I think of when imagining high-level fighters.

I couldn't stand Hero for those exact scenes. By the time they got to defending a bunch of scribes who could write really pretty calligraphy by deflecting ten thousand arrows a second from the rooftops, I had to turn it off. For me, that's just too far into "magic" territory for me. Very pretty movie visually, but it made a turn into left field and lost me totally.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

In plate mail. While winded. while carrying a longsword and a shield.

Probably not in plate mail, because jumping off the wall 20 feet is obviously a Rogue ability. So it's more like doing it in leather armor while carrying a rapier and dagger.