ToB vs Core Classes

[AnonymousOne]

Not this debate again...

Well let's face it. The fighter sucks in core, PHBII made it more tolerable, But it's not saying much that the Warblade is better than a fighter. DUH. Yes they are capable of ridiculous amounts of damage at high level.

A friend of mine is running a Goliath Warblade in our campaign. Yes he is the tank, yes he dishes a lot of damage. He doesn't outshine our rogue, Cleric, Scout/ranger, or our homebrewed Technomancer.

 

[Gloombunny]

ToB classes are better than their PHB equivalents. That's the point. Those PHB classes are underpowered compared to other PHB classes, like spellcasters. Using ToB classes fixes that imbalance.

Conversely, if you have access to enough supplements, it's possible to build a fighter or paladin that's at least as strong as any ToB character. ToB's advantage in this case is that you can build a strong warrior easily, without heavy optimizing and cherry-picking feats from five different books. It's all right there in ToB.

Also, ToB classes are more fun to play, because you get more options. Heavily-optimized fighters tend to rely on one big trick that they use as often as possible. Warblades have resource management built in; they have to do different things from round to round to get the most out of their class features.

 

[Thurbane]

My opinion?

At the risk of being browbeaten by hordes of wuxia/anime fans, Bo9S is not everyone's cup of tea. None of the groups I game with allow it in play. It's on the verboten list along with psionics, incarnum and invocations. Aside from the balance issues, which no Bo9S fan will ever admit even exist, there are two main factors:

1.) Complexity - at mid to higher-levels, d20 3.5 combat already slows to a snails pace, under core only rules. Throw in things like maneuvres and stances, the blowout gets even worse.

2.) Flavor - the kung-fu/wuxia tone of Bo9S really doesn't mesh that well with the Arthurian/Tolkien/Conanesque themes of "traditional" D&D. (Obviously, IMHO).

 

[LonePaladin]

I'll be using those rules for the first time this winter when my Eberron game starts. One of the players is planning on being a crusader for the Church of the Silver Flame. Since we invested money in the book, I decided to allow it.

I do agree that PHII did a lot to make fighters worthwhile again; my current game as a 19th-level fighter focusing on two-weapon fighting. He's as much a threat as anyone else in the group, especially with his +3 undead bane transmuting longsword paired up with a sun blade. Throw in Crescent Moon Style (adapted to allow shortswords), Two-Weapon Rend, Weapon Supremacy (longsword), and Greater TWF, he's flinging seven attacks a round with an attack bonus that will hit anything they face.

While the martial adepts get maneuvers that can rival this easily, they have the restrictions of being standard actions in most cases, and only usable once per encounter without a specific action to recover them. (Sure, there are feats that can change this, but there are feats that can bypass a lot of limitation, so I'm not counting that.) It's really just a different flavor of the same general concept: damage the bad guy.

 

[Jinete]

While the martial adepts get maneuvers that can rival this easily, they have the restrictions of being standard actions in most cases, and only usable once per encounter without a specific action to recover them. (Sure, there are feats that can change this, but there are feats that can bypass a lot of limitation, so I'm not counting that.) It's really just a different flavor of the same general concept: damage the bad guy.

We have a guy in our group who *always* plays a fighter, always the same build (combat expertise, spring attack, whirlwind, shield ward). We poke fun at him being underpowered sometimes, but he never seemed to mind.

Recently, one of the players came with a new warblade character, and this was the first time i actually saw the fighter feel well... useless. We were attacking orcs entrenched in some ruins, and while the fighter was wading through the obstacles, the warblade was already at the top tower chopping away at the enemy archers. Plus he had to put up with snarky comments like "Wow, that thicket of blades sure is a great maneuver. Your turn John, what will you do? I'm guessing... dodge?"

 

[Nail]

We currently play with ToB:Bo9S. I DM.

I've had to house rule Moment of Perfect Mind, Mind Over Body, and Action Before Thought (Diamond Mind counters), not to mention changing the Warblade's HD to d10, and removing Weapon Aptitude.

Fan the Flames is strong, at the level they first get it, as is Shadow Garrote. We allow those manuevers essentially as-is., but you should at least look 'em over.

The PCs are only at 10th level, so I've not had experience with the higher level manuevers. Still, I know there are some White Raven (White Raven Tactics), Tiger Claw (Swooping Dragon Strike), and Iron Heart (Iron Heart Surge) manuevers that you have to watch out for.

....and if you have a player that can powergame......lord help you. Yer meat.

 

[styker]

We currently play with ToB:Bo9S. I DM.

I've had to house rule Moment of Perfect Mind, Mind Over Body, and Action Before Thought (Diamond Mind counters), not to mention changing the Warblade's HD to d10, and removing Weapon Aptitude.

Fan the Flames is strong, at the level they first get it, as is Shadow Garrote. We allow those manuevers essentially as-is., but you should at least look 'em over.

The PCs are only at 10th level, so I've not had experience with the higher level manuevers. Still, I know there are some White Raven (White Raven Tactics), Tiger Claw (Swooping Dragon Strike), and Iron Heart (Iron Heart Surge) manuevers that you have to watch out for.

....and if you have a player that can powergame......lord help you. Yer meat.

I was thinking to do something like you, specially changing the HD to d10. So, the recomendation is: "Take careful with warblade" ?

 

[blargney the second]

I was thinking to do something like you, specially changing the HD to d10. So, the recomendation is: "Take careful with warblade" ?

Honestly, it's fine as is. The warblade is on par with the barbarian.

 

[Rhun]

Honestly, it's fine as is. The warblade is on par with the barbarian.

I think part of the reason for the Warblade's d12 is that they are not proficient in heavy armor...so yes, on par with the barbarian there.

 

[AnonymousOne]

Honestly, it's fine as is. The warblade is on par with the barbarian.

/cosigns

The difference is in how they deal their damage and how effective they are over short vs drawn out fights (depending on the play style of the individual of course).