Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 3672368" data-attributes="member: 6562">Of course you don't have traditional Fighters. Traditional Fighters suck! "You mean the Barbarian, Cleric and Druid?""Yes, Bob. Sorry."<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> My point is that the Fighter sucking has nothing to do with the ToB:Bo9S. He's beaten like a red-headed stepchild by 3/4 of the classes which proceed him in the PHB.None the less, there is a Fighter in the group for which I DM. That player wanted one, and he got one. He also likes the Martial Adepts. ToB:Bo9S hasn't killed Fighters in my game. But now we're able to model far more concepts than Fighters could alone.Last thing: you say "will destroy ... in every way". IMHO the Fighter is unchanged. Its level of suckitude is constant. The fact that you can better see the Fighter's relative weakness isn't the fault of the Martial Adept -- don't shoot the messenger!- - -The Swordsage is mystical. He's the "blade wizard" of the group. (Much like the Monk is mystical.) No real way around that. He does supernatural stuff. He's like a Warlock or Binder in many regards. (Or a Ranger... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )You could remove the Swordsage (and his three special schools) without damaging the game at all. You could give Setting Sun to Warblades (in trade for any of their regular schools) without affecting balance very much -- it's not the strongest school.Cheers, -- N</blockquote>

Verification