Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3975298" data-attributes="member: 158">Now, a crusader WILL out-heal the cleric if he's using his revitalizing strike illegally; but it's got to be against an actual threat, of a different alignment than you. And even then, it's only 1d6+3 points of healing. Against an actual cleric, he won't heal as often, and plus people are getting hurt all the while he's &quot;healing&quot; someone.As for damage, at level 3 he's got some pretty good options -- say, greatsword + mountain hammer, which not only basically doubles your damage but ignores DR. But again, it's only once per 4 rounds on average (every other round if he has adaptive study feat). But double damage every other round equals out to what he would have been doing anyway.However, the fighters can't move and deal 60 damage in one shot, the way a crusader can (divine surge), nor can they easily pick up tricks from other repertoires like teleporting across a room or making targets explode with flame when hit....except that two-thirds of the maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords are listed as extraordinary, and DON'T use magic, even stuff like Shadow Jaunt, Divine Surge, and Bonecrusher. 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 agree here, too. People in our games were taking Martial Study and Martial Stance feats, especially fighters and fighter-types, because it just flat out beat most other feats they considered. Even the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers were so useful that people wanted them like crazy. You want to teleport 50 feet once per battle for the cost of a feat? GO for it! You want to have at least one strike in a battle that can ignore all DR and hardness? take the feat! You want a stance that gives you an extra d6 per hit for a minor cost? martial stance, baby!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 3975298, member: 158"] Now, a crusader WILL out-heal the cleric if he's using his revitalizing strike illegally; but it's got to be against an actual threat, of a different alignment than you. And even then, it's only 1d6+3 points of healing. Against an actual cleric, he won't heal as often, and plus people are getting hurt all the while he's "healing" someone. As for damage, at level 3 he's got some pretty good options -- say, greatsword + mountain hammer, which not only basically doubles your damage but ignores DR. But again, it's only once per 4 rounds on average (every other round if he has adaptive study feat). But double damage every other round equals out to what he would have been doing anyway. However, the fighters can't move and deal 60 damage in one shot, the way a crusader can (divine surge), nor can they easily pick up tricks from other repertoires like teleporting across a room or making targets explode with flame when hit. ...except that two-thirds of the maneuvers in the Book of Nine Swords are listed as extraordinary, and DON'T use magic, even stuff like Shadow Jaunt, Divine Surge, and Bonecrusher. 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 agree here, too. People in our games were taking Martial Study and Martial Stance feats, especially fighters and fighter-types, because it just flat out beat most other feats they considered. Even the 1st and 2nd level maneuvers were so useful that people wanted them like crazy. You want to teleport 50 feet once per battle for the cost of a feat? GO for it! You want to have at least one strike in a battle that can ignore all DR and hardness? take the feat! You want a stance that gives you an extra d6 per hit for a minor cost? martial stance, baby! [/QUOTE]

Verification