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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3189711" data-attributes="member: 20870">Haven't played a Warblade, although I did build one from the ground up, helped some friends build their martial adepts (it's usually a combination of martial adept classes, prestige classes, and a couple of other classes from Ftrs to Wiz).You didn't use the word always but that was the point of Slaved which was why he brought up those questions.As for balance, again, the designers have admitted that it's not supposed to stand up to your conventional warrior types. Is it more powerful than your typical spellcasters? No. On the power-level scale of D&D (with Clerics and Druids being at the top of the ladder), the martial adepts in general are somewhere in the middle. Clearly they're better than some classes, but not the be-all and end-all of classes. Of course that's not to say that the Fighter is at the bottom of the ladder (there's probably the Monk down down there, unless you're after defense rather than offense, and MAD while you're at it), and is also like comparing the Ftr to a Bard (the Bard's a great team buffer but if you're making a Bard vs Ftr damage output...)Are martial adepts broken? No. Will people stop playing Ftrs just because you have the WB? No. Are WB unfair to Ftrs? Depends on your perspective (I mean to the designers, the two aren't meant to be compared). But then again, it's not like the Ftrs weren't disadvantaged compared to the other core classes. The Ftr and the WB both evoke different flavors. And one thing still going for the Ftr is that it's easier to play than most classes.</blockquote>

Verification